means

THE Government has confirmed when it’s planning to bring in controversial new powers aimed at cracking down on benefits fraudsters.

Banks will be drafted in to help identify benefits cheats and convicted fraudsters could be stripped of their driving licences under the new Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) plans.

1

New Government documents have revealed it’s planning to bring the measures under the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill in April 2026.

The DWP has said it will be the “biggest fraud crackdown in a generation”.

It’s estimated the new powers could save taxpayers £1.5billion over five years.

Last year, an estimated £7.4billion was lost to benefits fraud – around 2.8% of total welfare spending.

A further £1.6bn (0.6%) was overpaid due to unintentional errors by claimants, while £0.8bn (0.3%) was overpaid because of errors by the DWP.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been trying to boost the public purse after it was revealed she needs to plug a £50billion hole in public finances.

The new measures mean banks will help to identify customers who might have breached benefit eligibility rules, such as exceeding the £16,000 savings limit for Universal Credit.

They will share limited data with the DWP but can’t provide transaction details, so officials won’t be able to see how benefit claimants spend their money.

The DWP also won’t gain direct access to claimants’ bank accounts, but it will receive cases flagged for investigation.

Financial institutions face penalties if they overshare information beyond what’s permitted.

Airlines and other third-party organisations might also have to provide information to help detect benefit claims made from abroad that could violate eligibility rules.

According to the Government documents, any information “will not be shared on the presumption or suspicion that anyone is guilty of any offence”.

However officials will gain authority to recover money directly from fraudsters’ bank accounts.

As well as this, persistent benefit fraudsters who fail to repay their debts could face driving bans lasting up to two years.

DWP minister Liz Kendall has pledged to clamp down on benefit cheats, saying back in March: “The social security system that we inherited from the Conservatives is failing the very people that it is supposed to help and is holding our country back.

“The facts speak for themselves. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Almost one million young people are not in education, employment or training – one in eight of all our young people.”

The DWP has said it will have strong safeguards in place, including new inspection and reporting mechanisms.

DWP staff will also receive comprehensive training before using the new powers.

However campaign groups have warned the powers could invade claimants’ rights to financial privacy and it could also lead to legitimate claimants being wrongly investigated.

In a letter to Kendall last year, the directors of Big Brother Watch and Age UK described the plans as “mass financial surveillance powers” which they said would “represent a severe and disproportionate intrusion into the nation’s privacy”.

Air Canada, the country’s largest airline, started suspending flights on Thursday morning ahead of a potential strike by its flight attendants.

Hundreds of flights are expected to be cancelled by the end of the week if the flight attendants walk off their jobs as expected.

Air Canada and the flight attendants’ union have struggled to agree upon a deal that would increase compensation for the airline workers.

Here is what we know about the labour dispute and its potential consequences:

What is happening to Air Canada?

The Montreal-based airline has reached an impasse with the union representing more than 10,500 flight attendants in a dispute over compensation, despite eight months of negotiations. Both the company and the union have issued notices that disruptions to the airline’s services will begin on Saturday.

What services will be affected, and when?

Air Canada said it will reduce flights gradually over three days, starting with dozens of cancellations on Thursday and about 500 more by Friday evening. By 1am Toronto time (05:00 GMT) on Saturday, all flights will be halted.

Cargo services will also be affected, but Air Canada Express regional flights will operate as usual, as they rely on contracts with other airlines.

However, these partners handle only about 20 percent of Air Canada’s daily passengers. Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge, a subsidiary that offers low-cost flights, carry roughly 130,000 passengers a day.

In response to the walkout anticipated for early Saturday, Air Canada has announced its own “lockout”, a strategy that prevents employees from coming into work in order to force them to the negotiating table.

The airline has warned that once the lockout begins, about 1:30am Toronto time (05:30 GMT), it may not be able to quickly restore flights.

Mark Nasr, the chief operations officer for Air Canada, explained that a restart, “under the best circumstances, will take a full week to complete”.

Why are flight attendants striking?

Wages are the main sticking point in the negotiations.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) said its negotiators are unhappy with Air Canada’s proposed wage hikes and other compensation terms, and they have therefore turned down an offer to move the contract discussions into arbitration.

“For the past nine months, we have put forward solid, data-driven proposals on wages and unpaid work, all rooted in fairness and industry standards,” said Wesley Lesosky, president of the Air Canada component of CUPE, in a statement. “Air Canada’s response to our proposals makes one thing clear: they are not interested in resolving these critical issues.”

According to the union, the airline declined to raise flight attendant pay to meet industry standards, keep pace with inflation or match the federal minimum wage.

Since 2000, starting wages for flight attendants with Air Canada have risen only $3 per hour, while inflation has climbed 69 percent over the same period, the union explained.

We stand in solidarity with Air Canada flight attendants who are done with unpaid work and poverty wages!
📢 Fair pay. Dignity on the job. No more excuses!
Read more → https://t.co/YqVQEwTbpC#aircanadastrike

— CUPE Ontario (@CUPEOntario) August 12, 2025

Air Canada, however, said the union turned down a proposal sent on Monday that included a 38-percent pay increase over four years, along with other benefits and protections.

But the union disputed the benefits of that deal. Instead, it explained that the flight attendants suffered a 9-percent cut in their last contract, meaning that an 8-percent increase over the first year of the new deal is inadequate to recoup the costs.

“It is, in effect, a pay cut,” CUPE said in its statement.

The union also argues that Air Canada does not currently offer “ground pay”, an industry term that describes compensation given for all the services provided before a plane’s doors close.

That work can include assistance given to travellers in the airport, baggage handling and helping travellers get settled in their seats as the plane prepares to push back from the airport gate.

“[For] any of our federally regulated safety checks, which we do an hour before boarding, we are not compensated. We are not compensated for boarding and deplaning,” Shanyn Elliott, the chair of the CUPE strike committee, told the news outlet Global National.

“It averages about 35 hours a month that we are at work not paid.”

The union said that it is seeking full pay for all hours worked, along with cost-of-living increases.

Ground pay, also called “boarding pay”, has been a key issue in negotiations at US airlines as well, since many carriers do not compensate flight attendants at their hourly rate during crucial periods before or after the flight.

How many passengers will be affected, and what will they get in return?

The airline, which serves 64 countries with a fleet of 259 aircraft, said the shutdown poses “a major risk” to both the company and its employees. The disruption could impact 130,000 passengers each day, including 25,000 Canadians, during the height of the summer travel season.

Air Canada has nearly 430 daily flights between Canada and the US, reaching more than 50 US airports. It also provides domestic service to 50 Canadian airports and averages more than 500 daily flights.

The airlines said that passengers whose flights are cancelled will be notified and can receive a full refund online.

The airline has also arranged with other Canadian and international carriers to offer alternative travel options where possible. But it emphasised that some flight alternatives may not be feasible.

“Given other carriers are already very full due to the summer travel peak, securing such capacity will take time and, in many cases, will not be immediately possible,” the airline explained.

How has the government responded?

Air Canada has said it has sought government-directed arbitration to resolve the situation.

Under Canada’s Labour Code, the government’s labour minister has the power to intervene and trigger the imposition of a deal through the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

That, in turn, could force flight attendants back to work. The union has asked Canada’s PM Mark Carney “to refrain from intervening”. It argued that government action would tip the negotiations in Air Canada’s favour.

“Why would any employer bother negotiating if they know the government is going to bail them out when negotiations get tough?” the union wrote in a letter posted to social media.

Canada’s Labour Minister Patty Hajdu urged both sides to return to the bargaining table. “To be clear: deals that are made at the bargaining table are the best ones,” Hajdu said.

“I urge both parties to put their differences aside, come back to the bargaining table and get this done now for the many travellers who are counting on you,” she added.

Please see my statement on the latest development between CUPE Flight Attendants at Air Canada and Air Canada: pic.twitter.com/hqQJ5JDYkN

— Patty Hajdu (@PattyHajdu) August 14, 2025

THE UK’s economy grew in the three months to June but slowed on the first quarter of the year.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reveal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by 0.3% between April and June.

1

This is lower than the 0.7% recorded between January and March, but stronger than expected by analysts.

GDP grew in the second quarter of the year mostly due to the services and construction sectors.

It’s worth bearing in mind these latest quarterly figures are estimations and are open to be revised at a later date.

Liz McKeown, director of economic statistics at the ONS, said: “Growth slowed in the second quarter after a strong start to the year.

“The economy was weak across April and May, with some activity having been brought forward to February and March ahead of Stamp Duty and tariff changes, but then recovered strongly in June.

“Across the second quarter as a whole growth was led by services, with computer programming, health and vehicle leasing growing.

“Construction also increased while production fell back slightly.

“Growth for the quarter was also boosted by updated source data for April, which while still showing a contraction, was better than initially estimated.

“Services also drove growth in June with scientific R&D, engineering and car sales all having a strong month.

“Within production, which recovered, manufacture of electronics performed especially well.”

The data today was largely expected by analysts to show the UK economy slowed to just 0.1% growth in the second quarter of 2025 after a strong start to the year.

Last Thursday, the Bank of England forecast second-quarter UK GDP growth of 0.1%, slowed from 0.7% in the first quarter.

Figures have already shown that GDP contracted by 0.3% in April and 0.1% in May.

Plus, figures on Tuesday showed the UK jobs market weakened again, but overall wage growth remains strong, prompting traders to trim their bets on the possibility of another Bank of England rate cut this year.

What it means for your money

GDP measures the economic output of companies, individuals and Governments.

If it is rising steadily, but not too much, it’s a sign of a healthy and prosperous economy.

This is because it usually means people are spending more, the Government gets more tax and businesses get more money which then means pay rises for workers.

When GDP is falling, it means the economy is shrinking which can be bad news for businesses and workers who face pay cuts or even losing their job.

The Bank of England (BoE) also uses GDP and inflation as key indicators when determining the base rate.

This decides how much it will charge banks to lend them money and is a way to try to control inflation and the economy.

If GDP is low, the BoE cuts its base rate in order to encourage people to spend and invest money.

If it is higher, the BoE may keep its base rate higher in order to keep inflation in check.

A BIG high street banking chain is axing a lifeline service for all customers within weeks.

M&S Bank is stopping customers from paying off their credit card bills in-store, by cheque, or using bank giro credit – a move campaigners say will make life harder for older and vulnerable people.

1

The bank, run as a joint venture between HSBC and M&S since 2004, had already paused in-store credit card payments back in April.

Now, the decision has been made permanent, according to This is Money.

To make matters worse, a letter sent to customers confirmed that from October, payments by cheque or giro credit will no longer be accepted at banks, building societies, or post offices.

The decision has caused a stir, with critics claiming it’s yet another blow to older people who are being left behind in an increasingly digital world.

Baroness Ros Altmann, a pensions expert, said: “You’re pushing away your most loyal, older customers who’ve probably shopped with you for decades.

“It might only be a minority who use these methods, but with M&S Bank’s huge customer base, it’s still a lot of people.

“These changes tend to hit older folks hardest.

“Many don’t have access to online banking or smartphones, and some prefer cash to help them budget better.”

M&S Bank currently offers credit cards, personal loans, travel insurance, store payment cards and a buy now pay later credit to over three million UK customers.

Caroline Abrahams, Age UK’s charity director, also raised concerns.

She highlighted research showing that 27% of people still manage their accounts through branches, while 31% feel uneasy about banking online.

“Reducing payment options will limit some older people, especially those who aren’t online or who prefer cash,” she said.

M&S Bank has defended the decision, saying only “1%” of customers use these older payment methods.

A spokesperson said: “Most customers are choosing to use digital channels for their banking needs.

“We’ve introduced a pay-by-bank option via the M&S Bank app, alongside direct debit and bank payments, to make things easier for them.”

They added that the axed options were “legacy payment methods” and pointed out that customers can still pay at a bank, but giro forms will no longer be printed with statements.

M&S Bank used to offer current accounts prior to 2021.

However, the bank closed this product offering on August 31, 2021, in a shock move that also resulted in the closure of all 29 in-store bank branches on July 2 of the same year. 

Since the shake-up, the bank has completely shifted its focus to credit cards, insurance and reward offerings.

What other banking changes are coming?

NatWest is making changes to its business current accounts by increasing fees for cash payments, cheque transactions, and certain online transfers.

From August 30, cash payments into and out of business accounts will see their fees surge from 70p per £100 to 95p per £100. 

Cheque payments, whether processed by hand or via mobile, will also jump from 70p to 75p per cheque.

The bank is also increasing some charges related to its BACS payment system.

The BACS system is a UK payment network used by businesses to make electronic bank-to-bank transfers, such as Direct Debits and Direct Credits.

The fee for processing each individual payment or instruction, will soon rise from 18p to 21p.

The cost to process a file containing multiple payments or instructions will also increase slightly from £5.25 to £5.35.

Meanwhile, Santander is closing its 123 Lite current account, which offers up to 3% cashback on household bills for a £2 monthly fee, on August 21.

Customers affected by the closure will be automatically switched to Santander’s Everyday Current Account.

This account has no monthly fee but does not include cashback benefits.

Plus, new customers applying for the bank’s Edge Credit Card will now face a monthly fee of £4, an increase from the previous £3.

Plus, customers of Lloyds Bank, Halifax and Bank of Scotland will soon lose the ability to deposit their cheques at any of the 11,500 Post Office branches nationwide.

From December 31 this year, Lloyds Banking Group will withdraw this service for all customers.

UKRAINE’S fight against Putin’s illegal invasion is vital for all of Europe.

The Ukrainian people are fighting bravely for their freedom, their independence and their rights.

4

4

But American security is on the line there, as well as British and European security.

That is why we and European allies have been providers of military aid to Ukraine.

And we recognise the indispensable role of the US in that.

It is also why President Trump’s recent decision to make more weapons available for Ukraine’s brave resistance is very welcome.

And we share the President’s frustration with Putin’s continual delaying tactics and maximalist demands.

It is clear that Putin is not negotiating in good faith.

Tighten screws

The pressure must continue to grow on Putin, to make clear that this awful war, and his wanton campaign of aggression, must come to an end.

As the UK and US get down to hard talks ahead of next week’s summit, Europe must ramp up the pressure, too.

We, as HM Opposition, will not write the Government a blank cheque.

But we stand squarely with them in defending our national interest and that means resisting Putin’s illegal war.

Russia has so far failed to achieve its war objectives.

It has suffered enormous casualties and, in desperation, Putin has had to turn to Iran for weapons and North Korea for troops.

Three years on, and despite what Russia claims, the cost to its economy has been enormous and is unsustainable.

I am proud the Conservative government, working with allies, helped to drive forward the largest and most severe set of sanctions Russia has ever seen to cripple Putin’s war machine.

Through the tough and wide-ranging sanctions delivered by the international community, Putin has been denied $400billion of funds since February 2022 — money that could otherwise have been spent on this illegal war.

But we cannot stop here. The screws must continue to tighten.

Pulling in the same direction

The US is right that we need all the world’s major economies to be pulling in the same direction.

President Trump’s tariffs on India in part show that there can be no place for Russian oil.

Europe must adopt the same approach.

There can be no place for Russian oil on our continent. There must be no safe harbour for Russian ships.

There must be no let-up in our collective fight against Russia in every corner of the continent.

That is why Britain must continue to maintain a leadership position in this fight.

4

4

We must take the lead in mobilising sanctioned Russian sovereign assets to help Ukraine.

We must ensure our Government is using the full weight of the Whitehall legal machine to find more creative mechanisms through which those assets can be legally leveraged to support Ukraine’s military efforts.

And we must encourage all our European partners to do exactly the same.

It is clear that by leveraging our full economic might, and crippling Russia’s, we can continue to support Ukraine, and force Putin to the table.

The entire Euro-Atlantic alliance must be unflinching in the face of Putin’s aggression.

From sanctions, to Operation Interflex and the 100-year Partnership, Britain’s support for Ukraine has been unwavering and must continue to be so.

Shoulder to shoulder

So we must stand up for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and ensure that at no stage is Putin’s aggression rewarded.

Because the lesson of the past 20 years is crystal clear: Putin only comes back for more.

We must stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends as they fight not just an imperialist Russian, but a whole axis of authoritarian states seeking to sow destruction on our own continent.

Ukraine is in a battle for its own sovereignty as well as the principles that underpin our whole way of life — democracy, liberty and the rule of law.

Britain has a history of standing up to threatening authoritarianism.

The invasion of Ukraine demands that we do so again.

We must keep rising to the challenge.

Putin has to know that if he tests the Euro-Atlantic alliance, he will fail.

A NEW road side in France this summer is threatening to impose a huge fine for holidaymakers if they break its key rule.

Travellers to the country’s capital may come across the sign when driving in Paris, and it should not be ignored.

2

2

A fine of £118 awaits motorists breaking the rules of the sign, which features a white diamond on a blue background.

The sign can be seen on the eight lane Boulevard Périphérique around Paris, which is used by around one million vehicles each day.

The symbol on it signifies that the left-hand lane can only be used for vehicles with passengers.

Motorists caught driving alone in these lanes on the road’s cameras will be issued automatic fines.

It is being used in a bid to restrict car use in the capital, following changes in recent years to the Boulevard by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.

Another measure was introduced last year, which reduced the speed limit to 30mph on the 22-mile motorway.

Four filling stations along the stretch of road were also banned from selling diesel fuel.

However, the latest road rule incurs a costly bill if not followed, requiring a payment €135, equating to around £117.50.

A new control system was installed on May 2, and put live to ensure compliance with the rules.

The system involves hi-tech computer-assisted video enforcement (VAO) which monitors vehicles in the far left lanes at all times.

It can capture the number of people in each car through artificial intelligence cameras.

The recordings of vehicles considered to be breach the rules are then sent to a human agent for verification, who can then issue motorists abusing the rules with a fine.

Signs and enforcement for the new carpool only lanes on the ring road also started at the beginning of May.

They aim to encourage commuters to travel into the city in groups of at least two, hoping to reduce congestion and emissions from vehicles.

The car sharing lanes are on the far left of the four-lane carriageway in both directions of what is one of the busiest ring roads in Europe.

These exclusive lanes were initially introduced for the 2024 Paris Olympics and Paralympic Games last summer, designated for athletes and staff to use as priority vehicles accessing the city.

Hidalgo, who has launched various anti-car measures for the city, confirmed they would remain after the conclusion of the games, and instead be used for car sharing in peak congestion hours.

These hours 7am to 10:30am and 4pm to 8pm on weekdays.

On weekends and public holidays, all lanes are open to any vehicle.

Public transport operators, emergency service vehicles, taxis, and cars for people with reduced mobility are also permitted to use the carpool lanes at any time.

President of Automobile Association, Edmund King, told the Daily Mail: “Britons driving to Paris this summer might be forgiven for not understanding a new addition to French road signs – the diamond with a blue background. 

“Some might think it is a sign to the ‘diamond district’ in Paris, which is around Place Vendôme and Rue de la Paix, but it is not – it is a sign denoting a car sharing lane.”

The Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which helps pay for PBS, NPR, 1,500 local radio and television stations as well as programs like “Sesame Street” and “Finding Your Roots,” announced last week that it would close after the U.S. government withdrew funding.

The organization told employees that most staff positions will end with the fiscal year on Sept. 30. A small transition team will stay until January to finish any remaining work.

The private, nonprofit corporation was founded in 1968 shortly after Congress authorized its formation. Its demise ends nearly six decades of supporting the production of renowned educational programming, cultural content and emergency alerts about natural disasters.

Here’s what to know:

Losing funding

President Trump signed a bill July 24 canceling about $1.1 billion that had been approved for public broadcasting. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense, and conservatives have particularly directed their ire at NPR and PBS.

Lawmakers with large rural constituencies voiced concern about what the cuts could mean for some local public stations in their state. They warned that some stations will have to close.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday reinforced the policy change by excluding funding for the CPB for the first time in more than 50 years as part of a broader spending bill.

How it began

Congress passed legislation creating the body in 1967, several years after then-Federal Communications Commission Chair Newton Minow described commercial television as a “vast wasteland” and called for programming in the public interest.

The corporation doesn’t produce programming and it doesn’t own, operate or control any public broadcasting stations. The CPB, PBS and NPR are independent of one another, as are local public television and radio stations.

Rural stations hit hard

Roughly 70% of the corporation’s money went directly to 330 PBS and 246 NPR stations across the country. The cuts are expected to weigh most heavily on smaller public media outlets away from big cities, and it’s likely some won’t survive. National Public Radio’s president estimated that as many as 80 NPR stations may close in the next year.

Mississippi Public Broadcasting has already decided to eliminate a streaming channel that airs children’s programming 24 hours a day, including “Caillou” and “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood.”

Maine’s public media system is looking at a hit of $2.5 million, or about 12% of its budget, for the next fiscal year. The state’s rural residents rely heavily on public media for weather updates and disaster alerts.

In Kodiak, Alaska, KMXT estimated the cuts would slice 22% from its budget. Public radio stations in the sprawling, heavily rural state often provide not just news but alerts about natural disasters such as tsunamis, landslides and volcanic eruptions.

From Big Bird to war documentaries

The first episode of “Sesame Street” aired in 1969. Child viewers, adults and guest stars alike were instantly hooked. Over the decades, Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Elmo have become household favorites.

Entertainer Carol Burnett appeared on that inaugural episode. She told the Associated Press she was a big fan.

“I would have done anything they wanted me to do,” she said. “I loved being exposed to all that goodness and humor.”

“Sesame Street” said in May it would get some help from a Netflix streaming deal.

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. started “Finding Your Roots” in 2006 under the title “African American Lives.” He invited prominent Black celebrities and traced their family trees into slavery. When the paper trail ran out, they would use DNA to see which ethnic group they were from in Africa. Challenged by a viewer to open the show to non-Black celebrities, Gates agreed and the series was renamed “Faces of America,” which had to be changed again after the name was taken.

The show is PBS’ most-watched program on linear TV and the most-streamed nondrama program. Season 10 reached nearly 18 million people across linear and digital platforms and also received its first Emmy nomination.

Grant money from the nonprofit has also funded lesser-known food, history, music and other shows created by stations across the country.

Documentarian Ken Burns, celebrated for creating the documentaries “The Civil War,” “Baseball” and “The Vietnam War,” told “PBS NewsHour” that the corporation accounted for about 20% of his films’ budgets. He said he would make it up but projects receiving 50% to 75% of their funding from the organization won’t.

Influence of shows

Children’s programming in the 1960s was made up of shows like “Captain Kangaroo,” ’’Romper Room” and the cat-and-mouse skirmishes on “Tom & Jerry.” “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” mostly taught social skills.

“Sesame Street” was designed by education professionals and child psychologists to help low-income and minority students ages 2 to 5 overcome some of the deficiencies they had when entering school. Social scientists had long noted white and higher-income kids were often better prepared.

One of the most widely cited studies about the effects of “Sesame Street” compared households that got the show with those that didn’t. It found that the children exposed to “Sesame Street” were 14% more likely to be enrolled in the correct grade level for their age in middle and high school.

Over the years, “Finding Your Roots” showed Natalie Morales discovering she’s related to one of the legendary pirates of the Caribbean, and former “Saturday Night Live” star Andy Samberg finding his biological grandmother and grandfather. It revealed that drag queen RuPaul and U.S. Sen. Cory Booker are cousins, as are actors Meryl Streep and Eva Longoria.

“The two subliminal messages of ’Finding Your Roots,’ which are needed more urgently today than ever, is that what has made America great is that we’re a nation of immigrants,” Gates told the AP. “And secondly, at the level of the genome, despite our apparent physical differences, we’re 99.99% the same.”

McAvoy writes for the Associated Press.

ADVERTISEMENT

Greek Minister of National Economy and Finance, Kyriakos Pierrakakis, described the acquisition of the Athens Stock Exchange by the European stock market group Euronext as “one of the largest foreign investments in recent years”.

“For the Greek economy as a whole, this is a decisive step forward,” Pierrakakis said from the floor of the Parliament.

The announcement of the all-share deal came on Thursday, with the offer worth €412.8 million. The deal will exchange 20 Athens Exchange ordinary shares, valued at €7.14 each, for one new Euronext share, worth €142.70 based on a 30 July closing price.

“[This investment] strengthens our credibility and upgrades the country’s position on the European and international economic map,” continued Pierrakakis.

“We will examine the details of the agreement and follow the progress of its implementation. Overall, this is a highly positive development, and undoubtedly a major opportunity for the country as a whole.”

And the acquisition of the Athens Stock Exchange was not only welcomed with satisfaction by Greece’s Minister of Finance.

Euronext CEO Stéphane Boujnah commented that “Euronext aims to expand its geographical footprint in Greece and to create a financial centre of Southeast Europe through the Athens Stock Exchange”.

Boujnah added: “Greece has experienced strong economic growth in recent years, supported by increasing investment, the cultivation of international confidence and strong economic indicators. This is the right time, the proper moment to invest in Greece.”

What it means for Greek businesses

The integration of the Greek stock exchange into Euronext’s European family opens a new gateway to financing for Greek companies, at a critical time when international competition is increasing and global trade is being redefined.

Euronext is the largest liquidity pool in Europe, managing around 25% of total cash equity trading activity. It operates capital markets in major financial centres such as Amsterdam, Brussels, Dublin, Lisbon, Milan, Oslo and Paris.

It brings the following to Greece:

Access to a wider investment base

Membership of a pan-European group offers Greek businesses direct exposure to a much larger network of international investors, both institutional and private. This translates into increased liquidity for their shares and greater chances of success in future capital raises or bond issuances.

Know-how and digital tools

Euronext has well-developed digital platforms, trading tools and compliance infrastructure that will support the technological modernisation of the Greek stock exchange. This will help more firms and investors to participate in the ecosystem.

Enhancing credibility and prestige

Participation in a network with a strong European presence could act as a “seal of credibility” for listed Greek companies, making them more attractive to foreign investors.

Easier access for SMEs

Euronext’s focus on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), through initiatives such as the ‘Euronext Growth’ programme, could lead to the development of simpler and less expensive listing procedures for Greek SMEs.

Interconnection with other capital ecosystems

Through Euronext, Greek companies will gain access to alternative financing tools such as green bonds, ESG ratings, dividend reinvestment programmes.

What it means for the Greek economy

The acquisition of the Greek stock exchange comes at an important juncture for the Greek economy, which continues to record significant GDP growth (2.3% in 2024), yet faces serious challenges.

The main challenges include the completion of the Resilience and Recovery Fund, the looming recession threatening the European economy, and the need to change the country’s production model, with less reliance on services such as tourism.

Greek businesses need sources of funding in order to develop beyond the Greek market, which is small and showing signs of fatigue in terms of domestic consumption.

Furthermore, despite the impressive increase in foreign direct investment over the last five years, the country still suffers from a large investment gap, hindering the modernisation of the Greek economy.

Ryanair and EasyJet passengers have long been warned about the strict hand luggage rules, but a shoe expert has shared a ‘simple yet effective’ shoe rule to help you stay within the limit

Budget carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet might lure travellers with their low-cost tickets, but their stringent cabin bag policies can quickly bump up the overall price. Holidaymakers are bound by tight restrictions on both the weight and dimensions of their hand luggage if they want to sidestep extra fees for additional carry-ons or checked baggage.

However, a savvy shoe guru has come forward with a “simple yet effective shoe rule” that could help jet-setters keep within the free luggage limits. It’s all about planning your holiday agenda well in advance, which enables you to be discerning about what earns a spot in your suitcase and what gets left at home.

Gabriel Miller from Gatsby Shoes points out that shoes are often the biggest culprits when it comes to hogging space and piling on the pounds in your luggage.

Gabriel’s top tip for travellers is to curb the number of shoes they pack. “Packing efficiently not only eases the stress of travel but also helps you navigate different situations with ease, safe in the knowledge that you have a shoe for every occasion,” he said.

He champions a pared-down packing strategy: stick to a maximum of three pairs of shoes for any trip, which not only frees up space but also encourages thoughtful packing, reports the Express.

Gabriel reassures that a carefully curated trio of footwear can meet the demands of various outings, from exploring urban landscapes during the day to enjoying an elegant evening meal.

“It’s about bringing what you need, not what you might use,” he said.

Gabriel has broken down the must-have shoes for holidaymakers into three essential categories, advising travellers to pack just one pair from each to cover all bases on their trip.

For the first category, Gabriel suggests a pair of comfy walking shoes or trainers that are versatile enough for travel days. “Your primary pair of shoes should be comfortable for walking, durable enough for adventure activities, and stylish enough not to detract from your daily outfits,” Gabriel explained.

He advises sticking to neutral colours that can easily match with a variety of outfits.

Moving on to the second category, Gabriel recommends a smarter pair of shoes for any posh dinners or formal events you might attend while away. “Even on vacation, a dressier shoe option is crucial for evenings out or more formal events,” Gabriel noted.

For men, he suggests versatile loafers, while women might opt for chic heeled sandals that can elevate any look.

Lastly, for those jetting off to sunnier shores or beachside locales, Gabriel insists on including a pair of sandals or appropriate beachwear shoes. These types of footwear are usually light and take up little space in your suitcase.

“Ideal for relaxing days by the water or casual strolls, a good pair of sandals is indispensable,” Gabriel stated. He recommends choosing sandals that are easy to clean, quick to dry, and comfy enough for all-day wear.

Late one fateful evening, Malam Muhammadu Sodangi of Tuwon Tsoro watched helplessly as armed raiders made off with the cattle, sheep, and goats belonging to his family. The livestock, including prized ploughing bulls and small ruminants raised by his wives, were their sole means of livelihood. Without the bulls, Malam Sodangi cannot farm, and his wives cannot trade.

“They came in the late evening. My livestock and those of Malam Hamidu and Abubakar Garba were gone, making life very difficult for us,” said the 62-year-old.

In northwestern Nigeria, a surge in livestock raids has been linked to terror groups, with the Lakurawa group, an affiliate of the Islamic State in the Sahel (IS-Sahel), being among the most notorious. 

Operating with stealth, Lakurawa conduct their attacks through door-to-door, farm-to-farm, and pen-to-pen raids, often under the pretext of collecting zakat (an Islamic form of almsgiving). This strategy has wreaked havoc on rural communities across Sokoto and Kebbi States, leaving farmers and pastoralists reeling from the loss of their herds and livelihoods. 

Farmers and herders have been brutalised and the local economy crippled, leaving residents in a desperate struggle for survival. Lakurawa’s use of Niger Republic as a fallback position after each raid has made the group both elusive and resilient.

Muhammadu and his neighbour, Malam Hamidu, told HumAngle that since November 8, 2024, rural communities across Augie and Arewa Local Government Areas (LGA) in Kebbi State have come under increasing threat from armed groups.

Augie shares borders with Silame and Gudu in Sokoto State, two LGAs known to harbour Lakurawa hideouts. To the east lies Arewa LGA, considered the group’s most active stronghold in Kebbi, and Niger Republic, whose porous frontier serves as a strategic entry and escape route for the militants.

“The porous border has left Augie’s rural communities dangerously exposed to repeated attacks. Residents are routinely subjected to livestock raids carried out by the Lakurawa militants,” said Hamidu.

Operating from entrenched strongholds in Tangaza, Silame, Gudu, and Arewa in Sokoto and Kebbi states, as well as the forested regions of neighbouring Niger Republic, the assailants launch sporadic incursions.

Rustled Herds, Havoc Funds

In northwestern states like Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna, and Sokoto, armed groups engage in cattle rustling as a means to finance their operations. Multiple reports have confirmed this. 

While an analysis by ENACT–an organisation promoting knowledge on response to organised crime in Africa–indicates that non-state armed groups have long relied on cattle rustling as a primary revenue stream, an estimate by the local newspaper Vanguard places total annual criminal earnings from livestock theft, kidnapping for ransom, illegal gold mining, and extortion between ₦200 billion and ₦500 billion.

Livestock remains a key early driver of this illicit economy, and this has long been the case, not only in Nigeria’s North West, but also in Chad and Cameroon. A study conducted by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in Chad and Cameroon revealed that “stolen cattle are sold to fund weapons and fighters.”

Academic research (via Tandfonline) has also stated that “cattle rustling offers a crucial channel for financing, especially for the procurement of arms and sustaining the loyalty of gang members, and this makes it indispensable to terrorism financing in the North West.”

Malam Hamidu of Tuwon Tsoro told HumAngle that Lakurawa’s activities in and around Augie, Arewa, Silame, Gudu, and Tangaza are reportedly funded by huge revenues generated through the sales of stolen herds in local markets.

Proceeds from these illicit transactions are believed to fund essential operational demands, including the procurement of firearms, compensation for local recruits, and the upkeep of remote hideouts scattered across forested areas in the North West and along the porous border regions of neighbouring Niger Republic.

A victim of livestock theft in Mera community, Augie, speaking on condition of anonymity, said:

“We learnt that whenever they steal our cows and sheep, they transport them to rural markets in Arewa and Bunza LGAs, where they’ve effectively taken control of local trade. The money from those sales is used to buy weapons, fuel, and food, and even to recruit more locals into their ranks.”

Communities shattered

While the cattle rustling crisis first emerged in Augie in 2021 with sporadic kidnappings and seizures of ploughing bulls by armed groups crossing over from Tangaza, Silame, and Gudu in Sokoto State, the situation has worsened significantly over the past eight months. 

Since November 8, 2024, attacks have intensified from the Lakurawa group through door-to-door raids. Entire communities have been devastated, and at least 27 communities have had their herds raided. 

The victims are mostly farmers and pastoralists, including women for whom livestock formed the household and economic backbone.

According to Babangida Augie and Lauwali Aliyu Sattazai, who have tracked the violence since a deadly raid on November 8, the losses are staggering.

“Apart from the Mera incident, which saw over 100 cows stolen, we estimate that about 2,000 cows and more than 1,500 other ruminants have been rustled in just eight months,” said Babangida Augie, with Aliyu Sattazai corroborating it. 

Herders from different ethnicities are affected. Abubakar Lamido, Secretary of the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) in Kebbi State, said the Lakurawa indiscriminately target both Hausa and Fulani herders.

“They steal from both Hausa and Fulani communities. As at [sic] the time of the Mera incident alone, Lakurawa have seized 120 cows, 51 goats and numerous sheep from Fulani pastoralists in Augie, under the guise of collecting zakat,” Lamido stated.

“They arrived at my home around 6:30 p.m. with guns and took away 32 cows, 27 sheep and several goats, including those belonging to my wives. We were left with nothing, not even a horn,” said Sodangi.

Malam Hamidu and Abubakar Garba were pulling ploughs on their farms when the attackers struck.

“They met us in the field with guns. They took away my work bulls, which we rely on for ploughing. From my farm, they moved to Abubakar Garba’s farm, also stealing work bulls and several sheep. Without those animals, we cannot survive,” he said.

Beyond material losses 

For some, the consequence runs deeper than material losses. In Mera, where the November attack not only saw herds of cows carted away but also left 18 people dead, residents now live in constant fear.

Alhaji Bawa Mera was among those affected by the attack. He spoke of losing not only his 24 cattle and his son, Garba, who was tragically killed while pursuing the Lakurawa in a bid to recover the stolen herds, but also his peace of mind, shattered in the wake of the violence.

“Since that day, we have not known peace of mind,” he said. “Some of us no longer dare to farm our distant fields. We fear we might not return alive.”

Sodangi of Tuwon Tsoro told HumAngle that he had also been having sleepless nights for more than two weeks. “Since the day they took our herds, I’ve not trusted any unfamiliar face. I’ve been having sleepless nights, and this place no longer feels like home. I’m considering relocating to a safer community.”

Crippling rural economies

Academic studies show that livestock rustling dramatically undermined the socioeconomic well-being of agro-pastoral communities across the North West. Herders and farmers lost their means of livelihood. In many rural communities, such as in Katsina, Sokoto, and Zamfara, rustling led to a significant reduction in household income, deepening poverty.

In Kebbi, it appears to be part of a deliberate strategy to destabilise livelihoods. Victims and community members believe the sustained raids by armed groups are intended to cripple the rural economy and instil fear across farming and herding communities. 

With each attack, farmers and pastoralists are forced to abandon their traditional ways of life. Many have fled their villages and farmlands out of fear, seeking safety in communities across Nigeria and the Niger Republic. Some herders, seeing their livestock as a magnet for attacks, have sold them off, surrendering their livelihoods so they can live.

“Keeping animals now is like inviting death,” one herder, who requested anonymity, revealed. “It is not worth the risk.”

“It is a calculated plan to destroy our economy,” said Abubakar. 

The increasing collapse in livestock ownership is fuelling a growing crisis: unemployment among rural youth, many of whom are now vulnerable to recruitment by the very armed groups tormenting their communities.

The economic toll has been heavy on both men and women.

“My wives have lost their only source of income,” said Sodangi. “Their sheep and goats were stolen. They can no longer trade or support the family.”

Communities respond

Many of these affected areas have developed some defence strategies. In Zamfara and Katsina states, there are community volunteer security groups called Yan-Sakai, composed of local hunters, ex-servicemen, and herders. The groups patrol forests, roads, and grazing corridors where rustlers often strike.

In the face of incursions and raids by Lakurawa, the people of Augie are refusing to fold their arms. 

With little more than grit, local knowledge, and a commitment to protecting their way of life, communities are stepping up where institutions fall short. 

The heart of this resistance lies in grassroots security efforts. Youth vigilantes, mostly volunteers, have taken up the task of guarding their villages, often confronting well-armed raiders with sticks, locally made weapons, and sheer courage.

“When our cattle were taken in Mera, Yan-Sakai mobilised immediately,” said a member of Yan-Sakai who asked not to be named for safety reasons. “We went after them, not because we had better weapons, but because we had no choice,” he added.

Fear and uncertainty

While pastoralists are offloading their herds, farmers face a difficult decision: whether to keep their work bulls or sell them to purchase ploughing machines, known as power tillers, in the hope that machines may be spared where animals are not.

Tensions escalated when reports emerged from some communities in Sokoto and Garu village, near the Augie border with Niger Republic, that certain directives were being given by the terror groups to farmers.

“Farmers are being threatened for attempting to replace their work bulls with ploughing machines,” said Abubakar. “The implication is clear: retain livestock that can easily be stolen or risk losing the right to farm entirely.”

Sodangi expressed growing concern: “We’ve heard that the Lakurawa have warned people [in other areas] not to switch from work bulls to power tillers. They don’t want machines in the fields, they want bulls, so they can come and take them. That’s why panic is spreading, and many of us are now considering relocation to safer communities. I am considering moving to Tibiri, in the Niger Republic, to stay with my relatives.” 

While the local response has been swift and defiant, official responses are not as efficient.

“They only come after the attacks,” said Babangida Augie. “We have noticed a pattern of Lakurawa scouting for villages first, then returning a few days later to strike. This happened in Tungar Tudu, Sattazai, Bagurar More, and now, they have visited Illelar and Zagi once. We fear they will be next,” Babangida added.

Call for proactive security

The stolen herds are not just livestock, but a symbol of broken security, broken lives, and broken rural economies in the North West. The trend reflects the growing humanitarian fallout of insecurity in Nigeria’s northwestern frontier.

“We are not just losing cows,” said Sodangi. “We are losing our futures, our means of survival, our confidence in government, our belief that tomorrow will be better.”

There is a growing call for the Nigerian state to ensure the presence of security personnel in rural areas of the North West, fully equipped with modern tools, training, and welfare support needed to confront the Lakurawa threat effectively. 

Without such measures, human lives in the rural communities in the zone and beyond may continue to buckle under the weight of a crisis that shows no signs of abating.

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.

Igbo-Ora in Nigeria has been dubbed the ‘Twin Capital of the World’, with an unusually high number of twins born there – and locals believe they’ve found the reason why

A tiny Nigerian town is known for its high rate of twins, leaving scientists scratching their heads for years. In Yoruba culture, prevalent in the area where the town of Igbo-Ora is situated, twins are seen as a gift from the supreme deity Olodumare and are thought to be protected by spirits – they are even thought to have supernatural abilities.

One local resident hinted at a “secret” that could explain the remarkable twin phenomenon.

Globetrotting YouTube star Drew Binsky made his way to the so-called ‘Twin Capital of the World’ to chat with locals about their town’s extraordinary claim to fame. Despite Nigeria being officially an English-speaking nation, Drew discovered that finding people speaking his native language was challenging.

He said: “Even though Nigeria is an English speaking country, it’s actually very difficult to find English speakers. Usually the ones that go to school that are educated can speak. But here in the villages, they usually speak native language, which is Yoruba.”

Drew eventually teamed up with a local woman named Grace, who became his guide and offered one intriguing theory for the abundance of twins.

She revealed: “There’s actually a secret behind that. There is a soup in our land here that people eat that will make them to give birth to twins and multiple [births].”

Grace attributes the town’s unique demographic pattern to a local dish made with okra leaves, although researchers have yet to establish any concrete evidence linking the local diet to the twin mystery.

The town of Igbo-Ora, renowned for its high proportion of multiple births, may have found a clue in the peel of locally-grown yams, with a University of Lagos Teaching Hospital study suggesting a chemical link to the phenomenon.

Local resident Grace expressed her pride in living in Igbo-Ora, noting the scientific interest in the town’s twin phenomenon.

She continued: “Everybody’s a twin here. There is no single house in this town that does not have a twins. Every house, no matter how small or how big the house is, they will surely have a set of twins.”

While the global average for twin births stands at about 12 per 1,000, Igbo-Ora boasts an astonishing rate of at least 50 per 1,000.

Drew sampled the okra-leaf soup known as Ilasa, jokingly hinting it might increase his chances of having twins.

The soup, a local delicacy, features okra leaf, “locust beans,” and marugbo herb.

Igbo-Ora celebrates its unique status with a twins festival, where twins, triplets, and even quadruplets don matching attire and take part in photo sessions.

Despite its fame for multiple births, Igbo-Ora faces severe economic challenges, with one inhabitant describing the town as “financially handicapped” and calling for assistance from international aid organisations.

The contrast to the outcome of a very similar incident in Canada two races ago between Mercedes’ George Russell and Verstappen was notable.

In Montreal, after the stewards took no action, Red Bull lodged a protest, but it was dismissed out of hand.

Piastri said: “Going back to Canada, I think he had to evade more there than he did today. So, yeah, I’m a bit confused to say the least.”

There was also the feeling within McLaren that Verstappen may have ‘gamed’ the system by exaggerating how much it affected him.

“I don’t think he had to evade me,” Piastri said. “He managed the first time.”

Team principal Andrea Stella said: “We’ll have to see also if other competitors kind of made the situation look worse than what it is.

“Because we know that as part of the race-craft, some competitors definitely have the ability to make others look like they are causing severe infringement when they are not.”

Verstappen said: “The thing is that it happened to me now a few times, this kind of scenario. I just find it strange that suddenly now Oscar is the first one to receive 10 seconds first.”

Was that because because there was no difference from what Russell did in Canada?

“Well, to the stewards, yes, (there was),” Verstappen said.

The end result was that Norris has moved himself on to four wins for the season, one short of Piastri.

“I felt like I drove a really strong race,” Piastri said. “Ultimately, when you don’t get the result you think you deserve, it hurts, especially when it’s not in your control.

“I will use the frustration to make sure I win some more races later.”

Both have two weekends off to reset and refresh before battle recommences at the Belgian Grand Prix, the start of the second half of the season.

In the predawn darkness of June 13, Israel launched a “preemptive” attack on Iran. Explosions rocked various parts of the country. Among the targets were nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordo, military bases, research labs, and senior military residences. By the end of the operation, Israel had killed at least 974 people while Iranian missile strikes in retaliation had killed 28 people in Israel.

Israel described its actions as anticipatory self-defence, claiming Iran was mere weeks away from producing a functional nuclear weapon. Yet intelligence assessment, including by Israeli ally, the United States, and reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed no evidence of Tehran pursuing a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iranian diplomats were in talks with US counterparts for a possible new nuclear deal.

But beyond the military and geopolitical analysis, a serious ethical question looms: is it morally justifiable to launch such a devastating strike based not on what a state has done, but on what it might do in the future? What precedent does this set for the rest of the world? And who gets to decide when fear is enough to justify war?

A dangerous moral gamble

Ethicists and international lawyers draw a critical line between preemptive and preventive war. Pre-emption responds to an imminent threat – an immediate assault. Preventive war strikes against a possible future threat.

Only the former meets moral criteria rooted in the philosophical works of thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, and reaffirmed by modern theorists like Michael Walzer — echoing the so-called Caroline formula, which permits preemptive force only when a threat is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”.

Israel’s raid, however, fails this test. Iran’s nuclear capability was not weeks from completion. Diplomacy had not been exhausted. And the devastation risked — including radioactive fallout from centrifuge halls — far exceeded military necessity.

The law mirrors moral constraints. The UN Charter Article 2(4) bans the use of force, with the sole exception in Article 51, which permits self-defence after an armed attack. Israel’s invocation of anticipatory self-defence relies on contested legal custom, not accepted treaty law. UN experts have called Israel’s strike “a blatant act of aggression” violating jus cogens norms.

Such costly exceptions risk fracturing the international legal order. If one state can credibly claim pre-emption, others will too — from China reacting to patrols near Taiwan, to Pakistan reacting to perceived Indian posturing — undermining global stability.

Israel’s defenders respond that existential threats justify drastic action. Iran’s leaders have a history of hostile rhetoric towards Israel and have consistently backed armed groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently argued that when a state’s existence is under threat, international law struggles to provide clear, actionable answers.

The historical scars are real. But philosophers warn that words, however hateful, do not equate to act. Rhetoric stands apart from action. If speech alone justified war, any nation could wage preemptive war based on hateful rhetoric. We risk entering a global “state of nature”, where every tense moment becomes cause for war.

Technology rewrites the rules

Technology tightens the squeeze on moral caution. The drones and F‑35s used in Rising Lion combined to paralyse Iran’s defences within minutes. Nations once could rely on time to debate, persuade, and document. Hypersonic missiles and AI-powered drones have eroded that window — delivering a stark choice: act fast or lose your chance.

These systems don’t just shorten decision time — they dissolve the traditional boundary between wartime and peacetime. As drone surveillance and autonomous systems become embedded in everyday geopolitics, war risks becoming the default condition, and peace the exception.

We begin to live not in a world of temporary crisis, but in what philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls a permanent state of exception — a condition where emergency justifies the suspension of norms, not occasionally but perpetually.

In such a world, the very idea that states must publicly justify acts of violence begins to erode. Tactical advantage, coined as “relative superiority”, leverages this compressed timeframe — but gains ground at a cost.

In an era where classified intelligence triggers near-instant reaction, ethical scrutiny retreats. Future first-move doctrines will reward speed over law, and surprise over proportion. If we lose the distinction between peace and war, we risk losing the principle that violence must always be justified — not assumed.

The path back to restraint

Without immediate course correction, the world risks a new norm: war before reason, fear before fact. The UN Charter depends on mutual trust that force remains exceptional. Every televised strike chips away at that trust, leading to arms races and reflexive attacks. To prevent this cascade of fear-driven conflict, several steps are essential.

There has to be transparent verification: Claims of “imminent threat” must be assessed by impartial entities — IAEA monitors, independent inquiry commissions — not buried inside secret dossiers.

Diplomacy must take precedence: Talks, backchannels, sabotage, sanctions — all must be demonstrably exhausted pre-strike. Not optionally, not retroactively.

There must be public assessment of civilian risk: Environmental and health experts must weigh in before military planners pull the trigger.

The media, academia, and public must insist that these thresholds are met — and keep governments accountable.

Preemptive war may, in rare cases, be morally justified — for instance, missiles poised on launchpads, fleets crossing redlines. But that bar is high by design. Israel’s strike on Iran wasn’t preventive, it was launched not against an unfolding attack but against a feared possibility.  Institutionalising that fear as grounds for war is an invitation to perpetual conflict.

If we abandon caution in the name of fear, we abandon the shared moral and legal boundaries that hold humanity together. Just war tradition demands we never view those who may harm us as mere threats — but rather as human beings, each worthy of careful consideration.

The Iran–Israel war is more than military drama. It is a test: will the world still hold the line between justified self-defence and unbridled aggression? If the answer is no, then fear will not just kill soldiers. It will kill the fragile hope that restraint can keep us alive.

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

Spain is rolling out its new nationwide register affecting holiday rentals including properties in the Canary Islands and Balearic Islands in a bid to help combat the issues of overtourism

Brits planning Spain holidays should be aware of a new rule that’s coming into force as of today (July 1) across the mainland, as well as the Canary Islands and the Balearic islands.

The holiday hotspot is launching its new nationwide register for any property used for tourism, whether that’s seasonal or a short-term rental. Under the Single Tourist Rental Registry, property owners will need to register to get a code that verifies they are legally allowed to use the property for tourism.

This will include entire homes, individual rooms within a property that’s rented out separately, and homes listed on the likes of Airbnb and Booking.com.

The register was already rolled out in January, but at that time it was still optional; now it’s mandatory. According to local publication Canarian Weekly, the Spanish Ministry of Housing says it’s had a total of 199,686 applications to date, the majority of which were for holiday rentals.

If a property is not on the register, then legally it won’t be able to be advertised online, and owners could face fines or even be suspended from being able to offer the home as a holiday rental.

READ MORE: Brits heading to Spain, France and Greece this summer issued ’24-hour warning’

If you’ve got a holiday booked to Spain, the good news is that you don’t need to do anything, as the responsibility lies with the holiday rental platforms and property owners to obtain the correct registration. In fact, one of the aims of the register is to protect tourists from unregulated and potentially unsafe rentals.

When you book a holiday rental in Spain, you should be able to see if it has a valid registration number before you finalise your booking, with the idea that it will offer holidaymakers extra peace of mind before they part with their cash.

READ MORE: Tiny seaside town right by Spain’s biggest holiday resorts is much cheaperREAD MORE: Simple cruise hack can help you get more cabin storage without paying extra

The move comes as Spain’s holiday hotspots have been hit with a number of protests from locals in recent years, due to the burden of overtourism. The volume of holiday rentals is seen as a contributing factor to homelessness on the islands, with locals being priced out of areas or struggling to buy homes in areas where properties are used for tourism.

It’s estimated that over four million foreign visitors descended on the Canaries in the first quarter of this year alone. Local officials have been taking steps to try and mitigate the impact of overtourism. For example, Tenerife has introduced a new online booking system for some of the trails in Teide National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Meanwhile over in Fuerteventura they’re taking similar measures with a new tourist tax for those who want to visit spots such as the wild beach of Cofete, the awe-inspiring sand dunes of Correlejo and the vast sea caves of Ajuy.

The move comes after official figures showed that Fuerteventura had a 7.8 per cent increase in tourists between January and March, compared to the same period last year. As a result, the hotspot’s infrastructure is under mounting pressure across the likes of roads, water supply, waste management systems and accommodation capacity.

Has your holiday been affected by anti-tourism protests? Email us at [email protected].

These are such crazy times that when I found myself desperate to cover some good news amid deportations and Trump overreach, I visited … Huntington Beach?!

MAGA-by-the-Sea? The Orange County city that once elected MMA legend Tito Ortiz to its governing body, which currently includes guys named Chad and Butch? Where Mayor Pat Burns presides over council meetings with a small white bust of Donald Trump in front of him?

The coastal community that’s been a hotbed of neo-Nazi activity for decades? Whose factory setting is whiny gringo rage? Whose former city attorney, Michael Gates, sued California to keep out of his hometown everything from sanctuary state policies to affordable housing mandates and is now a deputy U.S. assistant attorney general for civil rights, which is like putting a butcher in charge of a vegan picnic?

Can that Huntington Beach teach the rest of us a thing — or thirty — not just about how to stand up to despotism, but how to beat it back?

Yep!

Earlier this month, Surf City voters overwhelmingly passed two ballot initiatives addressing their libraries. Measure A nixed a parent review board, created by the City Council, that would have taken the power to select children’s books away from librarians. Measure B barred the privatization of the city’s library system, after the council had considered the idea.

It was a resounding rebuke of H.B.’s conservatives, who had steamrolled over city politics for the past two and a half years and turned what was a 4-3 Democratic council majority three years ago into a 7-0 MAGA supermajority.

Among the pet projects for the new guard was the library, which council members alleged was little better than a smut shop because the young adult section featured books about puberty and LGBTQ+ issues. Earlier this year, the council approved a plaque commemorating the library’s 50th anniversary that will read, “Magical. Alluring. Galvanizing. Adventurous.”

MAGA.

“They went too far, too fast, and it’s not what people signed up for,” said Oscar Rodriguez, an H.B. native.

We were at a private residence near downtown H.B. that was hosting a victory party for the library measures. The line to get in stretched onto the sidewalk. A sign near the door proclaimed, “Not All of Us in H.B. Wear Red Hats.” A banner on the balcony of the two-story home screamed, “Protect Our Kids From Chad,” referring to City Councilmember Chad Williams, who bankrolled much-ridiculed “Protect Children from Porn” signs against Measures A and B.

“Look, Huntington Beach is very conservative, very MAGA — always will be,” Rodriguez continued. We stood in the kitchen as people loaded their plates with salad and pizza. Canvas bags emblazoned with “Protect HB” and the Huntington Beach Pier — the logo for the coalition that pushed for the measures — hung from many shoulders. “But people of all politics were finally disgusted and did something together to stand up.”

People line up to enter a house in Huntington Beach that hosted a victory pary for the passage of Measures A and B, which addressed issues with the city’s library.

(John McCoy/For The Times)

“On election night, I was jumping up and down, because it was happening here,” said former Councilmember Natalie Moser, who lost her reelection bid last year and volunteered for Protect HB. “It creates joy and enthusiasm, and I hope others can see what we did and take hope.”

There was no chatter about the ICE raids that were terrorizing swaths of Southern California. A Spotify mix blared “Don’t Fear the Reaper,” AC/DC and the ever-annoying “Hey, Soul Sister” by Train. The crowd of about 90 volunteers was mostly white and boomers. More than a few bore tans so dark that they were browner than me.

We were in Huntington Beach, after all.

And yet these were the folks that fueled Protect HB’s successful campaign. They leaned on social media outreach, door knocking, rallies and a nonpartisan message stressing the common good that was the city library.

Christine Padesky and Cindy Forsthoff staffed tables around the city in the lead-up to Election Day.

“Time and time again, I had people come up to me say, ‘We’re Republican, we’re Christian, we voted for this council, but they’ve gone too far,’” Padesky said.

Forsthoff, a Huntington Beach resident for 36 years, agreed. She had never participated in a political campaign before Measures A and B. “When they [politicians] take such extreme steps, people will come,” she said.

The bro-rock soundtrack faded out and the program began.

“My gosh, we did this!” exclaimed Protect HB co-chair Pat Goodman, who had been checking people in at the door just a few moments earlier.

“I don’t think those neighbors know who we are,” cracked Protect HB co-chair Cathey Ryder, hinting at the uphill battle they faced in a city where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats. “Show them you’re a supporter of good government.”

She led everyone in the cheesy, liberty-minded chant that had inspired volunteers throughout the campaign.

What do we want to do?

Read!

How do we want to read?

Free!

We were in Huntington Beach, after all.

The speeches lasted no more than seven minutes total. The volunteers wanted to enjoy the brisk evening and gather around an outdoor fireplace to make S’mores and enjoy a beer or two. Besides, they deserved to revel in their accomplishment and discuss what was next — not just in Huntington Beach, but how to translate what happened there into a replicable lesson for others outside the city.

The key, according to Dave Rynerson, is to accept political differences and remind everyone that what’s happening in this country — whether on the Huntington Beach City Council or in the White House — isn’t normal.

“As bad as things may seem, you can’t give up,” the retired systems engineer said. “You have to remind people this is our country, our lives, and we need to take care of it together.”

Mayor of Huntington Beach Pat Burns listens to speakers discuss the city’s plan to make Huntington Beach “a non-sanctuary city for illegal immigration” during the Huntington Beach City Council meeting at the Huntington Beach City Hall in Huntington Beach.

(James Carbone/For the Daily Pilot)

Huntington Beach isn’t going to turn into Berkeley anytime soon. It’s one of the few California cities that has declared itself a nonsanctuary city and fully in support of Trump’s immigration policies. The architect of MAGA’s Huntington Beach takeover, Tony Strickland, was elected to the state senate earlier this year. His acolyte, Councilmember Gracey Van Der Mark, plans to run for assembly next year.

But feeling the happiness at the Protect HB dinner, even if just for an evening, was a much-needed balm at a time when it seems nothing can stop Trump. And meeting regular people like Greg and Carryl Hytopoulos should inspire anyone to get involved.

Married for 50 years and Surf City residents for 44, they own a water pipeline protection service and had never bothered with city politics. But the council’s censorious plans for the library made them “outraged, and this was enough,” said Carryl. “We needed to make an impact, and we couldn’t just sit idly by.”

They outfitted one of their work trucks with large poster boards in favor of Measures A and B and parked it around the city. More crucially, the couple, both Democrats, talked about the issue with their neighbors in Huntington Harbour, an exclusive neighborhood that Trump easily won in 2024.

“When we explained what were the stakes, they listened,” Greg said.

Carryl smiled.

“There’s a quiet majority that, when provoked, can rise up and save the day.”

As tensions escalate between Iran and its Western adversaries, the Iranian government is now considering one of the most consequential diplomatic withdrawals in contemporary arms control history: the potential abandonment of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This decision, should it materialize, would not merely represent a legal realignment of Iran’s international obligations but would constitute a seismic strategic maneuver—disrupting the global nonproliferation architecture, reshaping diplomatic alliances, and accelerating the regional arms race in a Middle East already teetering under the weight of protracted conflict and fractured diplomacy.

Established in 1970, the NPT rests on three foundational pillars: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear technology, and promoting disarmament. Iran’s current commitment to the treaty has remained, at least in formal terms, one of the last remaining legal barriers preventing its open development of nuclear weapons. As of 2025, 191 states remain parties to the NPT, making it the most widely adopted arms control agreement in human history. However, should Iran exit, the symbolic and material damage to this institutional cornerstone may extend well beyond the region.

From a strategic standpoint, Iran’s withdrawal would signal a clear departure from what Jacques E.C. Hymans in Achieving Nuclear Ambitions (2017) characterizes as “nuclear latency”—the state of possessing technological capability without crossing the threshold. Until now, Iran has carefully danced on the periphery of weapons capability, maintaining plausible deniability while accumulating enriched uranium and advanced centrifuge design. Abandoning the NPT, however, would mark an irreversible step from latency to overt preparation, thereby dismantling the carefully curated ambiguity that has served as both shield and sword in Tehran’s nuclear diplomacy.

The political ramifications of this decision are likely to be equally profound. In Nuclear Politics (2017) by Alexandre Debs and Nuno Monteiro, the authors argue that nuclear proliferation is inherently political—tied not only to the technological constraints of a state but also to its perception of existential threat and diplomatic isolation. With the recent U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, Tehran’s calculus has dramatically shifted. The strikes may have paradoxically accelerated the very outcome they purported to prevent, legitimizing within Iran a discourse of resistance that views nuclear armament not as an offensive ambition, but as a necessary deterrent in an anarchic international system.

On the diplomatic front, Iran’s departure would further erode the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the organization charged with verification and monitoring under the NPT. As explained in Maria Rost Rublee’s Nonproliferation Norms (2017), much of the success of nonproliferation hinges on normative adherence, not merely technical inspections. Should Iran expel inspectors and cease all cooperation with the IAEA—as is anticipated in the wake of withdrawal—other states disillusioned with Western double standards may reconsider the utility of remaining bound by a treaty perceived as discriminatory and selectively enforced.

The security implications are perhaps most destabilizing. Mark Fitzpatrick, a noted arms control expert, argues that such a move would remove Iran’s final legal constraints and free it to pursue weaponization openly. Already, Iran is believed to possess over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, technically just short of the 90% required for a weapon. With the infrastructure for advanced enrichment in place and a cadre of nuclear scientists—despite the assassination of several key figures by Israeli operations—still intact, Fitzpatrick warns that Iran could feasibly complete a weapons program within a year. This timeline finds corroboration in Jeffrey Lewis’ The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States (2018), which, while fictionalized, illustrates how rapidly a state with the technical base and political will can escalate from enrichment to deployment.

Moreover, Iran’s exit from the NPT would not exist in isolation. The regional fallout, especially in terms of proliferation contagion, cannot be overstated. As noted in Shashank Joshi’s The Future of Nuclear Deterrence (2020), the exit of one state from the global arms control regime often triggers anxieties in others, particularly those with existing rivalries. Saudi Arabia has already pledged to match Iran’s nuclear capabilities should it proceed toward weaponization, and Egypt, long aggrieved by Israel’s undeclared arsenal and exemption from NPT scrutiny, may see an opportunity to challenge the status quo. The fragile balance of deterrence across the Middle East could thus collapse into a cascade of armament and instability.

The global normative order also stands at risk. If the U.S.—itself a founding signatory of the NPT—can target another signatory’s nuclear infrastructure without consequence, and if the IAEA proves unable to enforce compliance or prevent escalation, then the treaty’s legitimacy may begin to unravel. As articulated in Fiona Cunningham’s Nuclear Norms in East Asia (2021), international regimes rely not merely on legal instruments but on perceived fairness and reciprocity. The perception that the NPT regime disproportionately penalizes non-Western states while tolerating exceptions for allies—such as Israel or India—could hasten a broader exodus from the treaty.

Russia’s role as a potential counterbalance on the diplomatic chessboard must also be considered. While Moscow remains a signatory of the NPT and is unlikely to openly assist Iran in developing a nuclear weapon, its alignment with Tehran in international forums—especially at the United Nations Security Council—could serve as a strategic shield against renewed sanctions or enforcement actions. This maneuvering resembles the patterns described in Andrew Futter’s Hacking the Bomb (2018), which explores how nuclear power is now shaped as much by information warfare and diplomatic alliance as by kilotons and centrifuges.

Finally, there is the matter of strategic miscalculation. Should Iran proceed with weaponization and Israel respond with preemptive strikes—potentially supported again by U.S. tactical operations—the possibility of a full-scale regional war would no longer be hypothetical. As Caitlin Talmadge notes in The Dictator’s Army (2017), nuclear breakout scenarios often escalate not through deliberate choice, but through misinterpretation, miscommunication, and the psychology of brinkmanship. Each step away from treaty obligations narrows the window for de-escalation and expands the risk of unintended catastrophe.

In conclusion, Iran’s threatened withdrawal from the NPT represents not merely a response to recent attacks but a profound inflection point in international security architecture. The unraveling of treaty commitments, the weakening of normative frameworks, and the potential for cascading proliferation across the Middle East suggest that the cost of unilateral coercive diplomacy may be greater than the strategic benefits it purports to yield. The global community stands at a precipice, where the pursuit of short-term tactical gains may irreparably fracture the long-standing scaffolding of nuclear restraint.

President Trump and his administration have tried several tactics to block Harvard University’s enrollment of international students, part of the White House’s effort to secure policy changes at the private Ivy League college.

Targeting foreign students has become the administration’s cornerstone effort to crack down on the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college. The block on international enrollment, which accounts for a quarter of Harvard’s students and much of its global allure, strikes at the core of Harvard’s identity. Courts have stopped some of the government’s actions, at least for now — but not all.

In the latest court order, a federal judge Friday put one of those efforts on hold until a lawsuit is resolved. But the fate of Harvard’s international students — and its broader standoff with the Trump administration — remains in limbo.

Here are the ways the Trump administration has moved to block Harvard’s foreign enrollment — and where each effort stands.

Harvard’s certification to host foreign students

In May, the Trump administration tried to ban foreign students at Harvard, citing the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to oversee which colleges are part of the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. The program allows colleges to issue documents that foreign students need to study in the United States.

Harvard filed a lawsuit, arguing the administration violated the government’s own regulations for withdrawing a school’s certification.

Within hours, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston put the administration’s ban on hold temporarily — an order that had an expiration date. On Friday, she issued a preliminary injunction, blocking Homeland Security’s move until the case is decided. That could take months or longer.

The government can and does remove colleges from the Student Exchange and Visitor Program, making them ineligible to host foreign students on their campuses. However, it’s usually for administrative reasons outlined in law, such as failing to maintain accreditation, lacking proper facilities for classes, failing to employ qualified professional personnel — even failing to “operate as a bona fide institution of learning.” Other colleges are removed when they close.

Notably, Burroughs’ order Friday said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard’s ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. After Burroughs’ emergency block in May, DHS issued a more typical “Notice of Intent to Withdraw” Harvard’s participation in the international student visa program.

“Today’s order does not affect the DHS’s ongoing administrative review,” Harvard said Friday in a message to its international students. “Harvard is fully committed to compliance with the applicable F-1 (student visa) regulations and strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University’s certification.”

U.S. entry for incoming Harvard students

Earlier this month, Trump moved to block entry to the United States for incoming Harvard students, issuing a proclamation that invoked a different legal authority.

Harvard filed a court challenge attacking Trump’s legal justification for the action — a federal law allowing the president to block a “class of aliens” deemed detrimental to the nation’s interests. Targeting only those who are coming to the U.S. to study at Harvard doesn’t qualify as a “class of aliens,” Harvard said in its filing.

Harvard’s lawyers asked the court to block the action. Burroughs agreed to pause the entry ban temporarily, without giving an expiration date. She has not yet ruled on Harvard’s request for another preliminary injunction, which would pause the ban until the court case is decided. “We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,” Harvard told international students Friday.

At the center of Trump’s pressure campaign against Harvard are his assertions that the school has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment, especially during pro-Palestinian protests. In seeking to keep Harvard students from coming to the U.S., he said Harvard is not a suitable destination. Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism and will not submit to the administration’s demands for further changes.

Scrutiny of visas

In late May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed U.S. embassies and consulates to start reviewing social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism.

On Wednesday, the State Department said it was launching new vetting of social media accounts for foreigners applying for student visas, and not just those seeking to attend Harvard. Consular officers will be on the lookout for posts and messages that could be deemed hostile to the United States, its government, culture, institutions or founding principles, the department said, telling visa applicants to set their social media accounts to “public.”

In reopening the visa process, the State Department also told consulates to prioritize students hoping to enroll at colleges where foreigners make up less than 15% of the student body, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to detail information that has not been made public.

Foreign students make up more than 15% of the total student body at almost 200 U.S. universities — including Harvard and the other Ivy League schools, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal education data from 2023. Most are private universities, including all eight Ivy League schools.

Some Harvard students are also caught up in the government’s recent ban against travel to the U.S. by citizens of 12 nations, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The Trump administration last weekend called for 36 additional countries to commit to improving vetting of travelers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States.

F-1 and J-1 visas

Harvard sponsors more than 7,000 people on a combination of F-1 and J-1 visas, which are issued to students and to foreigners visiting the U.S. on exchange programs such as fellowships. Across all the schools that make up the university, about 26% of the student body is from outside the United States.

But some schools and programs, by nature of their subject matter, have significantly more international students. At the Harvard Kennedy School, which covers public policy and public administration, 49% of students are on F-1 visas. In the business school, one-third of students come from abroad. And within the law school, 94% of the students in the master’s program in comparative law are international students.

The administration has imposed a range of sanctions on Harvard since it rejected the government’s demands for policy reforms related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Conservatives say the demands are merited, decrying Harvard as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard says the administration is illegally retaliating against the university.

The strength of the pound against most other currencies has boosted Brits’ spending power when they head abroad this summer, research had found, in some cases by a lot

Millions of Brits planning foreign holidays this summer will be quids in thanks to the pound’s strength, a recent report has found.

Sterling’s gain against a host of currencies has boosted families’ spending power – in some cases by a lot. For instance, the pound’s 30% rise against the lira in the past year means holidaymakers jetting to Turkey will have a bumper £116 more to spend for every £500. That is equivalent to a couple of three course meals for two, with wine, in the Turkish resort of Marmaris, plus four beers. Those considering a long-haul break to Mexico will have almost £57 per £500 extra thanks to a near 13% increase against the peso, according to the Post Office Travel Money’s Holiday Spending Report.

It reveals that the UK pound is stronger than a year ago against 25 of the 30 currencies and has gained ground against 80% of them since March. Others in the top 10 list of spending power gainers include Egypt, Australia, and New Zealand.

Brits thinking of a trip to the States will also get more bang for their buck thanks to sterling’s 6.6% rise against the US dollar, meaning they would have almost £31 per £500 more to spend than this time last year. Despite that, many people are seemingly having second thoughts about going on holiday to the USA. The main concern is that US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs will mean higher prices – cited by 78% of those polled – rather than his politics in general.

Those heading to Europe will also be better off, though not by so much. Sterling is just 0.9% up against the euro year-on-year, meaning Brits have £4.50 per £500 more spending power across the pond than last summer.

The Post Office report also found a sharp rise in the number of people planning trips abroad. Two-thirds of those surveyed said they intend to take a foreign holiday this year , with more than half having already booked their trip. That is despite growing concerns voiced by nine-in-ten of them about whether they have enough money to afford the trip. Over three-quarters said exchange rates were a big concern for them.

When it came to people’s views on the best value destinations, Brit-favourite Spain came top, followed by Turkey, Thailand, Portugal, Greece and Italy. When it came to their trip abroad, 82% of holidaymakers said they had set a budget averaging £377, but most admitted overspending.

Laura Plunkett, head of travel money at the Post Office, which accounts for one-in-four UK foreign exchange transactions, said: “This year’s holiday spending research again demonstrates that holidaymakers don’t always set a realistic budget and overspend by large amounts as a result. It’s great to hear that holidaymakers are already planning to budget more for their holidays this year, to avoid coming unstuck when they arrive at their destination.”

The report also found that many holidaymakers are paying over the odds for transactions abroad. While it advisable to carry some cash overseas, one-in-five in the survey said relied solely on plastic to pay for purchases, and just over a quarter changed less than £100 into foreign currency.

As a consequence, holidaymakers can into difficulties. From the poll, 7% said they had tried to pay a restaurant, shop or bar bill with a credit card, only to find that it was not accepted.

More than one-in-ten also fell foul of a practice known as Dynamic Currency Conversion by agreeing to pay on their card in sterling rather than local currency, incurring unnecessary transaction charges as a result.

Ms Plunkett said: “Paying on a debit or credit card may seem like a convenient way to pay for things while abroad, but our research suggests that this can be a costly practice. Far too many holidaymakers told us that they paid significantly more than they anticipated because of the transaction charges made for using credit and debit cards at an overseas ATM.”

Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, and Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, resigned from their positions on the Democratic National Committee. This could be great news.

I don’t really know, because the actual reasons remain murky.

“While I am proud to be a Democrat,” Weingarten told DNC Chair Ken Martin in her resignation letter, “I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities.”

Color me skeptical this is the real reason. I doubt Martin’s stated policy is to shrink the Democratic tent or refrain from engaging with “more and more of our communities” — whatever that means. Much of the reporting on the resignations revolves around old-fashioned Democratic disarray and internal power struggles. Weingarten and Saunders had supported Martin’s opponent in the recent election of a new DNC chair. That may be all there is to it, which would be a shame.

That’s because the Democratic Party is a mess. Don’t get me wrong, so is the Republican Party, but for different reasons. The GOP is also in charge, controlling the White House and both branches of Congress. Moreover, for all the problems the Republican Party has, it has the wind at its back and remains more popular than the Democrats. In 2024, it made impressive strides with many core Democratic demographic constituencies, including Black, Latino and young voters.

The GOP has a story to tell voters. You may not like the story. You may think it’s not actually following through on the vision it’s selling, but Republicans know how to articulate what they’re for. Democrats not so much.

Historically, the Democratic Party is the party of government. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “It is the purpose of government to see that not only the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved.”

The Democratic Party has gotten itself into a mess because it has evolved — or devolved — into a party fairly perceived as more concerned with the interests of the few and less concerned with the welfare and rights of the many. That was the underlying message of that ad the Trump campaign played more than any other (30,000 times!). It showed a clip of Kamala Harris explaining her support for government-funded sex-change surgeries for illegal immigrants. It closed with: “She’s for they/them. He’s for you.” The anti-transgender message was obvious (and broadly popular), but the subtext was more important: Harris is for niche issues that excite activists while Trump is for the meat-and-potatoes concerns of the common American.

Few groups represent the Democrats’ broader problem better than groups such as Weingarten’s AFT (teachers unions typically make up about 1 in 10 of the delegates at Democratic conventions). During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Weingarten consistently put the needs of union members over the general welfare, while insisting she was putting children first. She opposed reopening schools long after it was remotely necessary to operate remotely and successfully badgered Joe Biden to violate his pledge to reopen them quickly.

AFT and other public-sector unions, such as AFSCME, are an ATM for the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is responsive to donors. For instance, one of the first things President Biden did when he took office was issue an executive order repealing a Trump administration policy that restricted government employees from spending more than 25% of their time doing union business while on the job. He put the number back up to 100%.

There’s a reason FDR disliked the idea of unionizing government employees. The government shouldn’t be captured by special interests that use state power to further their ends over the general welfare. Democrats instinctively understand this when it comes to corporate interests but seem blind to it for members of their own coalition. Biden’s effort to lawlessly cancel student debt wasn’t just terrible policy; it also sent the signal that the party put the interests of the few above the many.

As a conservative, I don’t typically root for the Democratic Party. But I’ve come to realize that our system depends on two healthy, sane parties competing over best policies. When one party goes off the rails, it gives permission for the other party to do likewise. If the departure of Weingarten and Saunders is a sign the party is coming to realize that, that’s good news indeed.

@JonahDispatch