United States President Donald Trump has sharply escalated his crackdown on immigration with an announcement of a “permanent pause” on migration from “all Third World Countries” late on Thursday.
The president’s remarks came a day after two National Guard members were shot – one of whom has since died from her injuries – in Washington, DC, on Wednesday. An Afghan national has been named as the primary suspect.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the US system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.
He did not specify what “third world” means and did not name any countries. But the phrase “third world” generally refers to Global South countries that are economically still developing or economically disadvantaged.
He also said “anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country”, will be removed from the US.
Trump added that all federal benefits and subsidies to “noncitizens” will end, and he will “denaturalise migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity, and deport any foreign national who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western civilisation”.
Earlier this year, Trump announced a ban on visas for citizens of 12 countries and restrictions for citizens of seven more. He has also introduced other restrictions on travel to the US throughout the year.
Here’s what we know.
What has the Trump administration said?
After Rahmanaullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, was arrested and named as the suspect in the shooting of the National Guard members on Wednesday, Trump called the shooting “an act of terror”.
In an address to the media on Wednesday night, he said: “We must now re-examine every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan under Biden.”
Early on Thursday, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced an indefinite immediate suspension “of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals”.
Effective immediately, processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals is stopped indefinitely pending further review of security and vetting protocols.
The protection and safety of our homeland and of the American people remains our singular focus and…
USCIS Director Joseph Edlow then added on X that, “at the direction” of the president, he had ordered “a full-scale, rigorous re-examination of every green card for every alien from every country of concern”.
“The protection of this country and of the American people remains paramount, and the American people will not bear the cost of the prior administration’s reckless resettlement policies,” Edlow said.
Edlow’s office told US media that the countries for which citizens with green cards will be reviewed would be those on the Trump administration’s June travel ban list.
In June, to “protect the United States from foreign terrorists and other National security and public safety threats”, the Trump administration announced that foreign nationals from 19 countries would face a full travel ban or partial restrictions.
Countries with a full ban in place are Afghanistan, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those with a partial ban in place – some temporary visas are still allowed – are Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
At the direction of @POTUS, I have directed a full scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.
On Thursday night, Trump said on Truth Social he would introduce a “permanent pause” on immigration from all “Third World Countries”.
What does a ‘permanent pause’ in immigration mean?
It is unclear.
“In ordinary English, ‘permanent pause’ sounds final, but under immigration law, the term has no defined meaning,” Abhishek Saxena, a New Delhi-based advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India who also handles international immigration consultations, told Al Jazeera.
“Practically, ‘permanent pause’ typically means an open-ended restriction with no stated end date, but not a legally irreversible condition,” he added.
According to the US Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the president may suspend the entry of immigrants for a fixed period, indefinitely or until the president modifies or lifts the proclamation. This can, however, be challenged. “If any indefinite pause is violating laws passed by US Congress, then such ban or pause can be challenged in a court,” said Saxena.
Roberto Forin, acting director of the Geneva-based Mixed Migration Centre (MMC), said the Trump administration’s vagueness over who these policies apply to and what he means by “permanently pause” or “Third World” is intentional.
“Keeping it undefined allows the administration to indiscriminately intimidate migrant communities in the US and around the world, while giving itself the prerogative to use this ban as another tool in its transactional approach to foreign policy,” Forin told Al Jazeera.
“I would expect the ban to disproportionately affect poorer countries, while sparing those that can offer something in exchange, such as natural resources or other strategic benefits,” he said.
“The objective of such announcements is to signal toughness, shift the narrative, instil fear and dehumanise migrants – regardless of the practical implementation and eventual legal outcomes,” he added.
How will people from such countries who are already living in the US be affected?
It is unclear how people from those countries will be affected until the names of the countries are listed and the immigration measure is implemented.
However, an August report by the Washington, DC-based American Immigration Council concluded that people from the 12 countries on Trump’s June 2025 full travel ban list will “not be able to see family members living abroad”.
“Under the June order, existing visas cannot be revoked, but those who need to leave the United States and renew their visas after they expire could be subjected to the ban instead of being allowed to return,” the report said.
Saxena said a restrictive immigration policy can indirectly affect people in the US in several other ways as well.
“Firstly, it will lead to increased scrutiny of pending applications. USCIS may subject applications from nationals of the affected countries to added background checks, longer security screening, or temporary holds,” he said.
“Secondly, history shows that when a country is placed under heightened security review, [visa] processing times frequently increase,” he noted.
“Lastly, although the government cannot revoke existing residency statuses arbitrarily, it may audit past immigration filings for fraud, misrepresentation, security concerns, or ineligibility under existing statutes,” he added.
Saxena said Trump’s announcement that he will pause immigration from “Third World Countries” would also likely prevent spouses, children, and parents who are abroad from entering the US until the proclamation is lifted.
“This creates long-distance separations, delays in family-based immigration petitions and interruption of family reunification programmes,” he said.
“However, people already inside the US cannot be separated from their families merely because a country is listed in a proclamation. Family-unity principles under the Constitution and the INA apply once a person is inside US territory,” he added.
What if you have a green card?
On Thursday, the Trump administration told journalists that it intends to re-examine all green cards held by people from the countries on the June 2025 travel ban list. However, it is not clear how the process will work or whether green cards could be revoked or even cancelled.
A green card is a US immigration document which allows an immigrant to permanently reside and work in the country.
US immigration judges have the power to revoke green cards and to deport people from the country if there are serious grounds, such as being found guilty of grievous crimes like murder or rape.
The government can also deport an immigrant on these grounds, including if they consider the person “a threat to public safety or if the person violates their visa”.
However, according to Saxena, the government “has no legal authority to revoke green cards without following due process. Any revocation must follow strict statutory procedures and satisfy due-process requirements.”
Last year, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency detained pro-Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil on the “basis of his speech” while he was protesting against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza at Columbia University. Khalil was a permanent US resident at the time, but ICE accused him of omitting information on his green card application.
In September, a US immigration judge ordered that Khalil should be deported to Algeria or Syria, but this has not yet happened.
What other steps has Trump taken this year to restrict immigration?
Besides green card re-examinations and announcing travel bans on citizens of some specific countries, Trump also froze refugee admissions shortly after he resumed office in January.
“The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees,” the White House said in a statement in January.
Then, at the end of October, the Trump administration announced the lowest refugee admission cap in the country’s history, limiting entry to just 7,500 people for the fiscal year 2026.
On November 25, according to a memo seen by the Reuters news agency, the Trump administration ordered a review of all refugees allowed into the country under the previous Joe Biden administration, and recommended that their permanent residency applications be paused.
According to the memo, which was reportedly signed by USCIS chief Eldow, the status and applications of about 233,000 refugees who entered the US between January 20, 2021 and February 20, 2025, would be reviewed. The memo cited Trump’s January order on freezing refugee admissions due to national security as a reason.
The US has also cut foreign aid for refugees in host countries.
The Trump administration has also targeted skilled migrant workers in an effort to protect US citizens’ jobs. In September, it increased the application fee for H-1B visas to $100,000 per application. The visa is used by companies in the US hiring overseas workers.
In October, the US Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for the visa application fee rise, claiming it could harm businesses. The case is pending in the Washington, DC district court.
What does this mean for refugees generally?
“Taken together, these measures, especially if they trigger a ‘race to the bottom’ among governments, could have devastating consequences globally, including in countries already ravaged by conflict and violence,” Forin said.
“We see this happening in Europe as well, from the system the UK has tried to establish to outsource asylum procedures to Rwanda, to the centres Italy tried to set up in Albania, and none of these have worked, because they were blocked by courts at every step.”
“Unfortunately, they have all contributed to the dehumanisation of refugees and migrants, depicting them simply as a threat or a burden, rather than as human beings in need of protection or deserving of a chance at a better future,” Forin added.
The United States has revealed all 28 points of its proposal to end the Russia-Ukraine war to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The plan, which has been heavily criticised as far too favourable to Russia by many observers, is in its draft stage and has yet to be made public. However, a Ukrainian official is understood to have provided the details to international media.
Here is a closer look at the points and the significance of this plan.
What are the 28 points of Trump’s proposal for Ukraine?
1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.
2. A comprehensive, non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.
3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.
4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the US, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.
5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.
6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to 600,000 personnel.
7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.
8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.
9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.
10. The US security guarantee will have the following caveats:
The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;
If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;
If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;
If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or Saint Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.
11. Ukraine is eligible for European Union (EU) membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the EU market while this issue is being considered.
12. A powerful global package of measures will be provided to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:
The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centres and artificial intelligence.
The US will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernise and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernisation of cities and residential areas.
Infrastructure development.
Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.
13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.
The US will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.
14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:
$100bn in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;
The US will receive 50 percent of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.
15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.
16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.
17. The US and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.
18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine, 50:50.
20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programmes in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:
Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.
Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.
21. Territories:
Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the US.
Kherson and Zaporizhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.
Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone.
22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.
23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnipro River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.
24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:
All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an “all for all” basis.
All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
A family reunification programme will be implemented.
Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.
25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.
26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.
27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.
28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to the agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.
How has Ukraine reacted to these proposals?
Zelenskyy met with US Army officials in Kyiv on Thursday to discuss the proposals, which have been drawn up by US and Russian officials without any input from Ukraine or its European allies.
After the meeting, Zelenskyy said in an address: “The American side presented points of a plan to end the war – their vision. I outlined our key principles. We agreed that our teams will work on the points to ensure it’s all genuine.”
Zelenskyy added, “From the first days of the war, we have upheld one very simple position: Ukraine needs peace. A real peace – one that will not be broken by a third invasion. A dignified peace – with terms that respect our independence, our sovereignty and the dignity of the Ukrainian people.”
The Ukrainian president said that he will now discuss the proposals with Ukraine’s European allies.
Does this mean Ukraine and its allies will accept the proposal?
No.
“Zelenskyy had a nuanced response – he said ‘We will work on it’,” Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert at the London political think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.
However, he added that agreeing to the terms of the plan in its current form would be “catastrophic” for Ukraine because of the heavy concessions Kyiv is being asked to make.
While European leaders have not reacted to the 28-point plan, they have indicated that they would not accept a plan that requires Ukraine to make such concessions.
“Ukrainians want peace – a just peace that respects everyone’s sovereignty, a durable peace that can’t be called into question by future aggression,” said French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot. “But peace cannot be a capitulation.”
For now, Ukraine’s allies are not commenting. European Council President Antonio Costa said that the EU has not yet been officially informed about the US plan, so “it makes no sense to comment” on it.
More reactions from Europe might come starting from Saturday, when Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will speak at the G20 summit.
“A 28-point plan was made public. We will discuss the situation both with European leaders and with leaders here on the sidelines of the G20,” von der Leyen said, according to UK media.
What are Russia and the US saying about this plan now?
The US has not made details of the plan public, and officials from Washington have not commented on it.
Russia has denied that there have been formal consultations between the US and Russia on a peace plan.
“Consultations are not currently under way. There are contacts, of course, but there is no process that could be called consultations,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.
Meanwhile, Hungarian PM and close Trump ally Viktor Orban seemed to back the plan on Friday.
In an X post, Orban wrote that Trump’s plan had “gained new momentum”.
“The American President is a persistent maverick. If he had been President at the time, the war would never have broken out. It is clear that once he sets his mind on something, he does not let it go, and he has certainly set his mind on ending the Russian-Ukrainian war,” Orban wrote.
President @realDonaldTrump‘s peace initiative has gained new momentum. A 28-point peace plan is on the table, an American negotiating delegation is in Kyiv, and expectations are high worldwide. The American President is a persistent maverick. If he had been President at the time,… pic.twitter.com/J2cagATvc5
Experts said the terms of the 28-point plan and how they would be implemented are far from clear.
“The terms are unenforceable, nonsensical and vague that they cannot be enforced without months of wrangling,” Giles said.
For instance, he said, point 9 states that European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland. However, it is unclear what “European” or “fighter jets” mean.
Giles said “European” could mean the European Union or European countries. “‘Fighter jets’ is a militarily meaningless term, which provides plenty of room for argument,” he added.
How would the US be ‘compensated’ for security guarantees?
It is unclear what security guarantees the US is offering Ukraine. Further details of these have not been released.
Point 10 states that the “US will receive compensation for the guarantee”. While it is unclear what the specific compensation would be, experts suggest that point 14 may shed some light on this.
Point 14 of the plan states that $100bn in frozen Russian assets plus $100bn from Europe would be used for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
The plan further states that the US will receive 50 percent of the profits from the reconstruction of Ukraine. It is not specified how these profits would be generated.
The plan also states that remaining Russian funds would go into a joint US-Russia investment vehicle for projects to build ties and deter future conflict, again with little detail.
Giles said this likely refers to about $300bn in Russian Central Bank assets, which have been frozen by the US and European countries since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
In October this year, EU leaders suggested a “reparations plan” under which it would use frozen Russian assets to lend Ukraine $164bn to buy European weapons, and for reconstruction.
Giles said that the point about Russian frozen assets was likely deliberately added by negotiators from Moscow because “Russia has already written off frozen assets abroad, and now is dangling that as a carrot in front of the US”.
Giles added that, according to earlier plans, however, “those funds were supposed to rebuild Ukraine”.
However, now we don’t know whether the reconstruction will be of a “free Ukraine or Russian efforts of Russification in occupied Ukraine”, he said.
Would the proposal give Russia amnesty for war crimes?
Point 26 of the plan states that all parties involved in the conflict will receive “full amnesty for their actions during the war”.
In March 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over the illegal deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.
The US cannot unilaterally grant amnesty to an individual convicted of war crimes by an international organisation.
“Writing off the war, pretending it never happened, rolling back sanctions and ignoring war crimes is just one of the elements of this draft list where the US is assuming the cooperation of the rest of the world,” Giles said.
He added that a large number of countries across the world strongly believe in international law, and are likely to push back on this point.
“If a negotiation like this were to be enforced, then it is the US endorsing the seizure of territory through open arms aggression, and it will be encouragement to other aggressors around the world that they have the US blessing,” Giles warned.
What territory would Ukraine have to concede?
The plan says that Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk would be considered Russian territory.
Donetsk and Luhansk are collectively called the Donbas region.
Crimea was seized by Russia from Ukraine in 2014 and remains a matter of dispute.
According to the Institute for the Study of War, overall, Ukraine still controls 14.5 percent of the territory in the Donbas, including parts of Donetsk around the cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk.
Russia also controls 75 percent of Zaporizhia and Kherson in southern Ukraine, bordering the Black Sea. The plan says that the current battle lines will be frozen in these regions.
(Al Jazeera)
How would Russia be brought back into the international fold?
Parts of the proposal aim to bring Russia out of the isolation imposed on it by the Western world since it started the Ukraine war.
Point 12 states that Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.
The G8 – currently the G7 – was an unofficial forum for the leaders of eight major industrialised nations: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US.
Russia was part of the G8 but was ejected following the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
The plan also mentions the establishment of a US-Russian investment vehicle that would implement joint projects in specific areas. However, further details about this have not been revealed.
The plan also mentions the formation of a joint US-Russian working group on security issues to ensure compliance with the plan.
Will the proposal end the war in Ukraine?
Analysts are doubtful. “This agreement is not going anywhere – similar to the previous ones,” Giles said.
He called it “another iteration of the merry-go-round that we’ve been on many times before”.
He said he believes the plan will receive pushback from Ukraine and Europe, which will want to negotiate changes.
Nobody likes waiting for their luggage to come off the carousel, but according to one travel specialist, using a certain sticker will mean your bags will be heading to the belt that much faster
This hack could get your suitcase off the plane faster(Image: Getty Images)
Many of us will be heading to the airport soon, whether it’s to visit family for Christmas or to go after some winter sun, and that means terminals will be much busier than usual.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of waiting around when you visit an airport, from getting through security to passport control, but one travel specialist claims there’s a trick to help you save time. Best of all, it’s completely free.
Hadleigh Diamond, commercial director at SCS Chauffeurs, claims that if you add a fragile sticker to your checked bag, it’s likely it’ll be loaded last onto the aircraft, meaning that it’ll come out first onto the carousel at the other end.
Fragile stickers can be requested free of charge from staff at check-in and are intended for passengers carrying delicate items, such as glassware or ceramics. However, anyone can request one of these labels for their bag.
Hadleigh said: “Clients regularly tell us that the difference between a good travel day and a stressful one often starts with baggage reclaim. If you’re standing waiting for 30 minutes while the carousel clunks out someone else’s bags, your trip can feel so much longer.
“But the fragile sticker trick is a game-changer — and it often works. We’ve heard this tip from both airport ground staff and frequent flyers. You don’t need to lie or explain — just politely ask the check-in agent to add a ‘fragile’ sticker to your suitcase. It’s not guaranteed, but more often than not, your bag is among the first out. We’ve seen it work time and time again.”
While baggage handling varies at every airport, as a general rule, items marked as ‘fragile’ are placed last in the airport’s hold, as this helps prevent them from being crushed or being placed under heavier loads. So, no matter where you end up sitting on the plane, if your bag is marked as fragile, it’s more likely to be one of the first items taken out of the hold and could even be among the first to arrive at the carousel.
And this trick isn’t just for people who are impatient. If you have scheduled transfers or a tight connection, the last thing you want to do is be stuck waiting around the luggage carousel. Baggage reclaim delays can see you held up for over 40 minutes during peak times, so this trick could help you avoid the stress of a missed connection.
Recently, travellers were warned against using another luggage hack, which many people utilise to help identify their suitcase at the conveyor belt. Passengers were warned never to tie a ribbon onto their suitcase, as according to baggage handlers, any loose items can get caught in the carousel machinery, potentially delaying luggage for other airline travellers as well.
In October 2025, a group of powerful states attempted to do in a few days what fifty years of occupation, war and repression had failed to achieve: close the file of Western Sahara in Morocco’s favour at the UN Security Council.
Using diplomatic blitzkrieg tactics, Morocco’s allies pushed a strongly pro-Moroccan “zero draft” resolution that they hoped to pass as a fait accompli. Had it gone through unchanged, Western Sahara would have been pushed closer toward erasure as a decolonisation question and recast as an internal Moroccan matter.
Instead, on 31 October 2025, the Council adopted Resolution 2797. Far from rubber-stamping Morocco’s claims, the final text reaffirmed every previous Security Council resolution on Western Sahara and restated an essential truth: any political solution must be just, mutually acceptable and consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, including the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination.
Several Council members pushed back against the original US-circulated draft, which had aligned closely with Morocco’s position. Their amendments restored the text to the legal framework that has governed this issue for decades. The result is not perfect, but it is unmistakable: Western Sahara remains an unfinished decolonisation process. It is not a settled dispute, and it is not Morocco’s to absorb.
Had the Council endorsed the early draft, it would have risked becoming a 21st-century version of the Berlin Conference, a chamber where great powers redraw Africa’s map without Africans present. In 1884–85, European states divided a continent in ways that still shape its borders. The danger today is subtler but no less serious: that the future of Western Sahara might once again be written in foreign ink, this time on UN letterhead.
Western Sahara in International Law: An Unfinished decolonisation
Legally, Western Sahara’s status is unambiguous. It remains listed by the UN as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, one of the last awaiting decolonisation. International law recognises the Sahrawi people as possessing an inalienable right to self-determination and independence.
When Spain withdrew in 1975, it failed to organise the required act of self-determination. Instead, it divided the territory between Morocco and Mauritania. Mauritania later withdrew; Morocco did not. Its military occupation sparked a long war with the Sahrawi liberation movement, the Frente Polisario.
The 1991 UN-brokered ceasefire created MINURSO, the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. The mission’s very name is a reminder of the international commitment made: a referendum in which Sahrawis would choose between independence and integration with Morocco. That referendum has never taken place.
Today, around 200,000 Sahrawis remain in refugee camps near Tindouf, Algeria, waiting in harsh conditions for the vote they were promised. In the occupied territory, Sahrawis face systematic repression and severe constraints on political expression. Yet they remain the only people with no seat at the table where their future is being debated.
Autonomy and the Logic of Conquest
The current situation cannot be understood without the US administration’s 2020 recognition of “Moroccan sovereignty over the entire Western Sahara territory” in exchange for Morocco’s normalisation with Israel. This reversed decades of US adherence to UN-led self-determination and signalled that territorial questions could once again be traded as diplomatic currency.
Support for Morocco’s autonomy proposal is the political expression of that bargain. Marketed as a pragmatic compromise, it is predicated on accepting Moroccan sovereignty upfront, removing independence from consideration and redefining self-determination as ratification of annexation. A solution that excludes independence is not self-determination. It is the formalisation of conquest.
Those who insist that independence is “unrealistic” are elevating raw power above law. As scholars such as Stephen Zunes have warned, accepting autonomy as the final settlement would mark an unprecedented moment: the international community would be endorsing the expansion of a state’s territory by force after 1945. Every aspiring land-grabber on the planet would take note.
This argument that diplomacy must conform to power rather than principle dresses surrender up as pragmatism. “Realism” that ignores law and rights is not realism; it is complicity. The entire post-1945 legal order was built to end the idea that war and annexation are acceptable methods of drawing borders. Undermining that norm in Western Sahara does not make the world safer; it normalises the very behaviour many of these same states claim to oppose elsewhere.
A proposal is not a peace plan. A “solution” written by one side and handed to the other as the only acceptable outcome is not a negotiation — it is an ultimatum for surrender.
A Call to President Trump: A chance to stand on the Right Side of History
There is still time, and still a path, for the United States to reclaim a constructive role in resolving this conflict. For President Donald Trump in particular, the question of Western Sahara offers a rare opportunity to stand on the right side of history, to uphold the very Wilsonian principle of self-determination that the United States once championed, and to return American policy to its long-standing position of neutrality and respect for international law.
For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike supported a UN-led process and recognised Western Sahara as a decolonisation question, not as a bargaining chip. Restoring that principled approach would not only correct the 2020 departure from US tradition, but would reaffirm the American commitment to a world where borders cannot be changed by force and where the rights of small nations are protected from the ambitions of larger ones.
If President Trump were to bring the United States back to its historical role, supporting a fair, just and lasting solution rooted in genuine self-determination, he would achieve something that eluded every administration before him. He would be remembered not as a participant in a geopolitical trade, but as the president who helped resolve one of the world’s longest-running and most clear-cut decolonisation cases. He would be remembered as the leader who chose law over expediency, principle over pressure, David over Goliath.
There is a rare chance here: to correct a historic wrong, to end a conflict that has defeated presidents, prime ministers and UN Secretaries-General, and to bring justice to a small, peaceful and long-suffering people. Standing with the Sahrawi right to self-determination is not only the moral choice; it is the choice that aligns the United States with its own ideals and its own stated values and ultimately its interests.
Anything else, any endorsement of the logic of conquest or any attempt to force a people to accept subjugation as “autonomy”, would be a political act that history will not forget, and the Sahrawi people will not forgive.
Call for International Solidarity
Behind every debate in New York are people living under occupation, in refugee camps and in exile, waiting for a vote they were promised decades ago. The Sahrawi people are not seeking special treatment. They are asking for the same right that helped dismantle colonial rule from Asia to Africa: the right of a people to freely determine their political future.
What was right for Timor and Namibia is right for Western Sahara.
History offers many examples of colonial powers that looked immovable until, suddenly, they were not. East Timor, Namibia, Eritrea, all show that no amount of repression or diplomatic engineering can extinguish a people’s demand for freedom. In each case, global civil society, more than great powers, ultimately helped shift the balance.
The Sahrawi people are determined to reclaim their homeland. Determination alone, however, cannot overcome tanks, drones, a 2,700-kilometre sand berm, prisons and diplomatic horse-trading. Stronger international solidarity is urgently needed—not only in support of a just cause, but in defence of the international system itself. The Sahrawi struggle today stands at the frontline of protecting both the right to self-determination and the principles on which the United Nations was built.
To stand with Western Sahara is to defend the rule that borders cannot be changed by force and that colonialism cannot be rebranded as “autonomy”. States that champion a “rules-based international order” should match their rhetoric with action: refuse to recognise Moroccan sovereignty; support a free and fair act of self-determination that includes independence; and ensure that UN resolutions are implemented rather than endlessly recycled.
Civil society and solidarity networks also have important roles to play, from advocacy to material support for Sahrawi institutions and refugee communities.
The Final Question
The UN Security Council is not mandated to rubber-stamp an illegal occupation and baptise it as decolonisation. Doing so would violate the UN Charter, particularly Article 24. Under the Charter and decolonisation law, the Council’s room for manoeuvre is constrained by the peremptory right of self-determination. It cannot lawfully override that foundational right. Article 24(2) requires the Council to act in accordance with the purposes of the Charter—including self-determination—and its decisions cannot derogate from jus cogens norms.
Decolonisation remains the only lawful path to ending this conflict. The core question is simple: does the international community still believe that peoples, especially colonised peoples, have the right to choose their own future? If the answer is yes, then sovereignty in Western Sahara remains, in law and in principle, with the Sahrawi people.
The map of Africa was once drawn in imperial ink. Whether Western Sahara remains the last stain of that era or becomes part of a different future depends on whether the world insists that decolonisation means what it says.
Starting Saturday, NBCUniversal’s cable news channel MSNBC will be called MS NOW, a makeover that may come as a shock to its loyal audience.
It’s why every MSNBC host has been sending the same message in promotional spots, on their programs and in press interviews about the new moniker. They say: We’re not going anywhere and we’re not changing.
“ ‘Morning Joe’ will still be ‘Morning Joe,’ ” said the program’s co-host Joe Scarborough in a recent Zoom conversation. “Chris Hayes will still be Chris Hayes. Rachel Maddow will still be Rachel. Lawrence O’Donnell will still be Lawrence.”
“We’re just going to keep doing what we do,” added Scarborough’s wife and co-host, Mika Brzezinski.
While no programming changes are planned, the rebranding will be a test in an age when brand awareness is difficult to achieve as the media marketplace is highly fractured. MSNBC kept its name for 29 years even after its founding partner Microsoft gave up its stake in the network.
Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe.”
(MSNBC)
MS NOW — an acronym for “My Source for News, Opinion and the World” — is the result of the politically progressive network being spun off into a company called Versant. Parent company Comcast announced the move last year as it no longer wants the slow, steady decline of the cable business holding back its stock price. Versant, which also includes CNBC, USA Network, Oxygen, E! and Golf Channel, will be its own publicly traded company starting in January.
The new ownership for MSNBC led to a separation from NBC News, which operated MSNBC since its launch in 1996. Although Versant leadership initially said the name would remain, NBCUniversal wanted to avoid having the network’s brand attached to a channel it no longer controlled.
Versant executives will likely be nervous when they look at the Nielsen ratings the first few weeks after the name change. But Julie Doughty, regional executive director of naming and verbal identity for the global brand consulting firm Landor, believes the shift is minor enough for consumers to get used to quickly.
“I’m sure they were concerned about disrupting the brand awareness they’ve built and losing the legitimacy and gravitas of the NBC name,” Doughty said. “This new name closely tracks the original. It has the same number of letters. MS is still in the front, which is a nice bit of continuity for those customers who already just shorten the name to MS.”
Doughty added, “The real test will come in the content. Will it continue to have high standards and deserve their trust as a mainstream new source?”
The network appeared to pass its first big test as a freestanding news organization with coverage of the Nov. 4 off-year election that saw a strong showing for the Democrats and the passage of the congressional redistricting proposition in California.
Nielsen data showed MSNBC finished well ahead of CNN on the night and just slightly behind perennial cable news ratings leader Fox News.
MSNBC becomes MS NOW on Nov. 15.
(MSNBC)
MS NOW executives say they remain committed to covering breaking news, staffing the channel’s own Washington bureau and entering news-gathering agreements with Sky for international coverage and AccuWeather. A number of NBC News journalists, including White House correspondent Vaughn Hillyard, justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian and national correspondent Jacob Soboroff, moved to MS NOW with the belief there will be more opportunities for expansive reporting.
“I won’t say their names, but some of the best reporters at NBC are far more disappointed with this than we are,” Scarborough said. “Their window just went from having 30 minutes on ‘Morning Joe,’ where influencers are, to 35 seconds on a morning show or maybe a sound bite on ‘NBC Nightly News.’”
The network is leaning heavily into promoting its lineup of personalities who in the current era of divided politics serve as tribal leaders for the audience.
“One of the things that so impressed me three years ago when I joined MS was the depth of the relationship with the fans,” MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler said at a recent press breakfast at the network’s new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan once occupied by the New York Times. “Eight hours a week — that is a ton of time and that is how much people watch us.”
The only signature MSNBC talent who chose to go with NBC News is political analyst Steve Kornacki. Willie Geist will remain host of NBC’s “Sunday Today” in addition to his duties on “Morning Joe.”
MSNBC on-air personalities believe the lack of a large corporate owner will be freeing at a time when journalism organizations and their parent companies are fearing the wrath of President Trump and his threats of business-related retribution over coverage he doesn’t like.
Last month at an MSNBC fan event in Manhattan, Maddow stirred up the crowd by touting the network’s editorial independence. She called the network a “nontoxic workplace” that is “at no risk of right-wing bloggers who are some billionaire’s friend.”
The comment was a reference to Bari Weiss, founder of anti-”woke” website the Free Press, who was hired to be editor in chief of CBS News and is a clear favorite of parent company Paramount’s chief executive, David Ellison.
Scarborough and Brzezinski said they have noticed how fans greet them with a bit more intensity since Trump has returned to the White House.
“When people see us on the street or the airport, they hug us a little longer and they thank us a little more,” Scarborough said. “They ask if everything is going to be OK.”
Scarborough said the new corporate setup will allow more entrepreneurial opportunities for the on-air talent in other platforms such as newsletters, podcasts and live events.
“The border has really changed over the last few years and that work is picking up pace. Public expectations have changed and technology has changed,” Douglas added.
“We now have AI facial recognition, the use of biometric identifiers in parallel with the more traditional forms of identification, like visas and passports.”
Douglas explained that Border Force wanted to make use of the existing 270 e-gates at airports and ports around the country by fitting them with the new technology.
“It’s our intention that almost everybody will go through an e-gate of one description or another,” Douglas said.
“The Manchester pilot has shown that we can actually reduce transaction times considerably as well.”
He did warn that while this was a huge leap in technological advancement and would reduce waiting times, there was “something important about the ‘theatre’ of the border.”
Douglas said passengers should still expect to feel a sense of a border and scrutiny when entering the UK and when “they’re stopped it’s a moment they know they’re being checked.”
The UK is not the only country to introduce facial recognition technology at airports with the United Arab Emirates allowing passengers from 50 countries to enter using it.
Australia and the US were also considering trialling the software.
The Sun contacted Border Force for comment.
Facial recognition technology was also being considered at ports which would remove the need to even step out of your car to go through passport control.
The technologywill be used at ports to match their faces with passport and car details already logged in government databases.
The cameras, which are being trialled at four ports since November 2024 – are designed to cut queues that build up during busyholiday periods.
Only “passengers of interest” highlighted as a risk because of intelligence, safeguarding concerns or questions over their identity will have to undergo manual checks by aBorder Forceofficer on arrival.
Phil Douglas is the Director General of Border Force at the Home OfficeCredit: Gov.uk
The cuts in Hollywood just keep coming, following a sadly familiar script.
Last week it was Paramount, which laid off about 1,000 workers in the first wave of a deep staff reduction planned since tech scion David Ellison’s Skydance Media took over the storied media and entertainment company.
The cuts affected a wide swath of the company, from CBS and CBS News to Comedy Central, MTV and the historic Melrose Avenue film studio, my colleague Meg James and I reported. Another 1,000 layoffs are expected in the coming weeks.
You’re reading the Wide Shot
Samantha Masunaga delivers the latest news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
And that doesn’t even include widespread job losses that happened earlier this year at companies such as Walt Disney Co., Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUniversal and Six Flags Entertainment Corp.
It all adds up to a grim picture for Hollywood’s workers, who have faced a near endless marathon of economic hurdles for the last five years.
First it was the pandemic, followed by the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023, cutbacks in spending after studios splurged on streaming productions, and the outflow of production to the U.K. and other countries with lower costs than California.
Then, in January, nature struck a blow, with the fires in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades destroying many industry workers’ homes.
Topping it off, Saturday marked the first day that millions of low-income Americans lost federal food assistance due to the government shutdown that began Oct. 1. That has affected some 5.5 million Californians and probably some who work in the entertainment industry.
“It’s been one crisis after another, without enough time in between,” said Keith McNutt, western regional executive director of the Entertainment Community Fund, which provides social services for arts and entertainment professionals. “People are concerned and very worried and really trying very hard to figure out where they go from here.”
McNutt reports that the nonprofit group has already heard from some people who were recently laid off, and has experienced a sharp increase in demand for its services, particularly from those in the film and TV industry. The fund offers healthcare and financial counseling and operates a career center. It also provides emergency grants for those who qualify.
Clients include not only low-income people who are always hit hardest in downturns, but also veteran entertainment industry professionals who’ve worked in the business for 20 to 30 years.
Those who were lucky enough to have savings saw those wiped out by the pandemic, and then were unable to replenish their rainy-day funds after the strikes and industry contraction, said David Rambo, chair of the fund’s western council.
“It has been snowballing very slowly for about five years,” Rambo said.
Many in the industry are hopeful that California’s newly expanded film and television tax credit program will bring some production — and jobs — back to the Golden State. That’s what backers campaigned on when they lobbied Sacramento legislators to bolster the program. Dozens of TV shows and films have received credits so far under the revamped program, but it’ll take some time to see the results in filming data and employment numbers.
And that doesn’t help the workers who were just laid off last month. For those folks, McNutt suggests calling the fund’s health insurance team to make sure they understand their options and also to spend some time with career counselors to understand how Hollywood skills can be transferable to other employers, whether that’s on a short- or long-term basis. Most importantly, don’t isolate yourself.
“You’re not alone,” he said. “Nobody’s alone in this situation that the industry is finding itself in right now, and so reach out to your friends, reach out to your colleagues. If you’re not comfortable with that, reach out to the Entertainment Community Fund.”
The 2017 Game 7 win by the Houston Astros over the Dodgers had an audience of 28.3 million.
The Dodgers are now the first Major League Baseball team to win back-to-back championships in 25 years. On Monday, thousands of Dodgers faithful turned out for the team’s victory parade through downtown L.A.
Finally …
You’ve no doubt heard of L.A.’s famous star tours. But what about a tour of a historic cemetery?
The cemetery is the final resting place for many of L.A.’s early movers and shakers, including the Lankershims and the Hollenbecks, and it’s also a prime example of L.A.’s multicultural history.
In December 2014, an incumbent president lost a re-election bid for the first time in Nigeria’s history.
It was a time characterised by widespread anguish and anger at how insecure the Nigerian life had become. Boko Haram, the extremist insurgent group fighting to establish what it calls an Islamic State, had intensified its violence, killing hundreds of thousands, displacing millions more, and abducting hundreds of teenage girls from school. Bombs were also being detonated in major cities at an alarming rate. For Nigerians, the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan simply had to go. And so Muhammadu Buhari was voted in with unflinching hope that things would get better. That hope quickly turned into disillusionment and, in some cases, anger as things began to take a different turn than was hoped for.
Today, July 13, the former president, Muhammadu Buhari, passed away at 82, signalling the conclusion of a significant political chapter. As tributes from dignitaries continue to emerge and headlines reflect on his ascent and legacy, HumAngle analyses the impact of his presidency on the lives of Nigerians beyond the halls of power, in displacement camps, remote villages, and troubled areas.
An examination of the security legacy
During his time in office from 2015 to 2023, Nigeria faced increasing violence on various fronts: the Boko Haram insurgency in the North East, a resurgence of militants in the Niger Delta, and the rising threat of terrorism and conflicts between farmers and herders in the North West and Middle Belt.
Buhari’s administration initiated multiple military operations, including Operation Lafiya Dole, Operation Python Dance, Operation Safe Corridor, etc., yielding mixed outcomes and levels of responsibility. While some campaigns succeeded in pushing back armed groups, others faced criticism due to evidence of excessive force, extrajudicial killings, and displacements within communities. Non-kinetic counter-insurgency operations such as the Operation Safe Corridor, which was launched in 2016, also came under heavy criticism. Though the programme was designed for Boko Haram members or members of similar insurgent groups in the northeastern region to safely defect from the terror groups and return to society, HumAngle found that civilians were finding their way into these programmes, due to mass arbitrary arrests prompted by profiling and unfounded allegations. The International Crisis Group also found that, beyond innocent civilians being forced to undergo the programme, other kinds of irregularities were going on.
“The program has also been something of a catch-all for a wide range of other individuals, including minors suspected of being child soldiers, a few high-level jihadists and alleged insurgents whom the government tried and failed to prosecute and who say they have been moved into the program against their will,” the group said in a 2021 report. At the time, more than 800 people had graduated from the programme.
The programme also did not – and still does not – have space for women, and HumAngle reported the repercussions of this.
During Buhari’s reign, terrorists were also forced out of major towns but became more entrenched in rural communities. The former president launched aggressive military campaigns against them, reclaiming villages and cities. Boko Haram retreated into hard-to-reach areas with weaker government presence, operating in remote parts of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa States. In these areas, the group imposed strict rules, conscripted fighters, and punished dissenters, often with brutal force.
A HumAngle geospatial investigation also showed how insurgency wrecked hundreds of towns and villages in Borno state. Many of the rural settlements were overrun after Boko Haram lost urban ground under Buhari’s watch.
Even with significant investment in security, a large portion of rural Nigeria remains ungoverned to date. As the former president failed to curb the forest exploits of Boko Haram, the terror group expanded control over ungoverned spaces, particularly in the North Central and North East regions. In Niger State alone, terrorists took over communities in Shiroro, Rafi, Paikoro, and Munya LGAs, uprooting thousands and launching multiple attacks. The lack of accessible roads and communication infrastructure made rapid response nearly impossible, allowing the terrorists to operate with impunity.
HumAngle found that, under Buhari, Nigeria lost many forest areas to terrorists, especially in Niger state. In areas like Galadima Kogo, terrorists imposed taxes, enforced laws, and ran parallel administrations. The withdrawal of soldiers from key bases emboldened the terrorists. This shift from urban insurgency to rural domination underscores the failure to secure Nigeria’s vast ungoverned spaces. Analysts who conducted a study on alternative sovereignties in Nigeria confirmed that Boko Haram and other non-state actors exploited the governance gaps under Buhari’s administration to expand their influence, threatening national security.
Perspectives from areas affected by conflict
For individuals beyond Abuja and Lagos, Buhari’s governance was characterised more by the state’s tangible influence than by formal policy declarations.
In Borno and Yobe, civilians faced military checkpoints and insurgent violence. School abductions like the Dapchi abduction and many others were recorded..
In Zamfara and Katsina, the president’s silence on mass abductions often resounded more than his condemnations. In Rivers and Bayelsa, the Amnesty Programme faltered, and pipeline protection frequently took precedence over human security.
What remained unaddressed
While some lauded his stance against corruption, numerous victims of violence and injustice during Buhari’s time in office did not receive restitution or formal acknowledgement of the wrongdoing. The former President remained silent during his tenure, as significant human rights violations were recorded. The investigations into military abuses, massacres, forced disappearances, and electoral violence either progressed slowly or ultimately came to an end.
Police brutality was a major problem during his tenure, leading to the EndSARS protests that swept through the entire nation in October 2020, with Lagos and Abuja being the major sites. The peaceful protests sought to demand an end to extrajudicial killings and extortion inflicted by the now-defunct Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS). For two weeks, Nigerians trooped into the streets with placards and speakers, memorialising the victims of police brutality and demanding an end to the menace. The protests came to a painful end on the night of October 20, when the Nigerian military arrived at the Lekki Toll Gate in Lagos and fired live rounds into the crowd of unarmed civilians as they sat on the floor, singing the national anthem. It is now known as the Lekki Massacre. Though the government denied that there was any violence, much less a massacre, a judicial panel of inquiry set up to investigate the incident confirmed that there had, in fact, been a massacre.
No arrests were made, and activitsts believe some protesters arrested then may still be in detention to date.
Five years before this, on December 13 and 14, the Nigerian military opened fire on a religious procession in Zaria, containing members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), killing many and leaving others wounded. The incident is now known as the Zaria Massacre. HumAngle spoke to families of some of the people who were killed and children who were brutalised during this time.
Though these massacres have all been well documented, there has been little to no accountability for the aggressors or compensation for victims and their families.
“My life became useless, losing three children and my husband to soldiers for committing no offence…I have never gone three days without my husband and all my children. This has affected my last-born, who is now in a psychiatric facility,” Sherifat Yakubu, 60, told HumAngle.
“I feel a great wrench of sadness anytime I remember the injustice against my people, and I don’t think the authorities are ready to dispense justice,” another victim told HumAngle in 2022, highlighting the gap and lack of trust in the system created by the absence of any accountability after the incident.
Key achievements
Beyond the headlines, Buhari played a crucial role in establishing a framework for centralised security authority. Choices regarding law enforcement, military presence, and national security circumvented local leaders and established institutions, exacerbating conflicts between the central government and regional entities. This centralisation continues to influence Nigeria’s democratic journey, disconnecting many experiences from those who are supposed to safeguard them.
Buhari rode into power on a widely hailed anti-corruption campaign, a promise honoured with the swift implementation of the already-proposed Single Treasury Account (TSA). By 2017, the programme, which consolidated up to 17,000 accounts, had saved the country up to ₦5.244 trillion. Buhari’s Presidential Initiative on Continuous Audit (PICA) eliminated over ₦54,000 ghost jobs, and Nigeria reclaimed ₦32 billion in assets in 2019. Under the same administration, Nigeria got back $300 million in Swiss-held Abacha loot.
From 2.5 million MT in 2015, rice production rose to four million MT in 2017. In an effort to deter rice, poultry and fertiliser smuggling, the former president closed Nigeria’s land borders on August 20, 2019, a move believed to have bolstered local food production significantly. His government’s Presidential Fertiliser Initiative also produced over 60 million 50 kg bags, saving about $200 million in forex and ₦60 million yearly.
Infrastructural achievements under the late president include the completion of the Abuja-Kaduna, Itakpe-Warri and Lagos-Ibadan railway projects, as well as the extension of the Lagos-Ibadan-Port Harcourt rail line. Notably, his government completed the Second Niger Bridge and the Lekki Deep Seaport.
Fatalities from Boko Haram reduced by 92 per cent, from 2,131 deaths in 2015 to 178 in 2021. Under the same administration, over a million Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) were resettled, and 13,000+ hostages, including some Chibok and Dapchi schoolgirls, regained freedom. The same government acquired 38 new aircraft and Nigeria’s first military satellite (Delsat-1).
In 2021, the Buhari government signed the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), restructuring the Nigerian National Petroleum Commission (NNPC) into a commercial entity and setting the stage for significant transformation in the country’s oil and gas sector.
Confronting the past may be the path forward
The passing of a president demands more than mere remembrance or the crafting of political narratives. It should create an opportunity for national reflection. As Nigeria faces fresh challenges of insecurity, displacement, and regional strife, Buhari’s legacy presents both insights and cautions.
As official tributes accumulate, Nigerians reflect not only on what Buhari accomplished but also on what remains incomplete.
