Media

Aghil Keshavarz is the tenth person put to death for espionage since June conflict with Israel.

Iran has executed a man convicted of spying for Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, judicial authorities announced, as Tehran continues a widening crackdown on alleged collaborators following the 12-day Israel-United States-Iran war earlier this year.

Aghil Keshavarz was put to death on Saturday morning after the Supreme Court upheld his conviction on espionage charges, according to Mizan, the judiciary’s official news agency.

The 27-year-old architecture student was arrested earlier this year in the northwestern city of Urmia after military patrols caught him photographing an army headquarters building.

The execution adds to a growing number of people put to death for espionage since the June conflict, with at least 10 executed by September alone.

In September, Iran executed a man it said was “one of the most important spies for Israel in Iran”.

In October, Tehran toughened legislation against alleged spies for Israel and the US, making espionage automatically punishable by death and asset confiscation.

According to the Mizan report, Keshavarz was accused of conducting more than 200 missions for Israeli intelligence services across Tehran, Isfahan, Urmia and Shahroud.

The missions allegedly included photographing target sites, conducting opinion polling, and monitoring traffic patterns at specific locations.

Authorities said he communicated with both Israel’s Mossad and military officials through encrypted messaging platforms, receiving payment in cryptocurrency after completing assignments.

The judiciary said Keshavarz had “knowingly cooperated” with Israeli services with the intention of harming Iran’s Islamic Republic.

The Oslo-based Iran Human Rights group has previously disputed similar espionage convictions, saying suspects are often tortured into false confessions.

Israel’s offensive in June involved 12 days of air attacks, including several against Iran’s top generals and nuclear scientists, as well as civilians in residential areas, for which Iran retaliated with barrages of missiles and drones. The US also carried out extensive strikes, on Israel’s behalf, on Iranian nuclear sites during the conflict. According to Amnesty International, Israeli attacks on Iran killed at least 1,100 people.

In response to the June war and protests in recent years over the state of the economy and women’s rights, as well as calls for regime change, Iran has sentenced more people to death.

SEATTLE — Puka Nacua promised he would learn from his mistakes, but his pledge was unconvincing.

His speech was rushed. What he said barely made any sense.

And there was this: On Thursday night, two days after criticizing referees on a livestream, Nacua posted a sarcastic message about the officials following the Rams’ 38-37 overtime defeat by the Seattle Seahawks at Lumen Field.

“Can you say I was wrong,” he wrote on X. “Appreciate you stripes for your contribution. Lol”

The post was quickly deleted. The questions about Nacua’s judgment remained.

Rams wide receiver Puka Nacua criticized referees immediately after the Rams’ overtime loss to the Seattle Seahawks on Thursday night before deleting the post on X.

Nacua, 24, is in line for a monster contract extension in the upcoming offseason, as the Rams view their record-breaking receiver as a cornerstone. But here he was basically repeating a mistake he made only two days earlier, which can’t be what any team wants from its most popular player.

Are the Rams really about to entrust him with the responsibility of projecting their virtues?

Ironically, the most controversial aspect of his recent livestream appearance could be the most defensible. Hours before the Rams played the Seahawks, Nacua offered an explanation for the antisemitic gesture he made on Adin Ross’ and N3on’s show.

“At the time,” Nacua posted on Instagram, “I had no idea this act was antisemitic in nature and perpetuated harmful stereotypes against Jewish people.”

The story was believable. The offensive hand movements were part of a touchdown celebration Ross encouraged Nacua to perform if he scored against the Seahawks.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Gary Klein breaks down what went wrong for the Rams in their 38-37 loss to the Seattle Seahawks at Lumen Field on Thursday night.

Ross is Jewish. Earlier in the livestream he wished his viewers a Happy Hanukkah, which prompted Nacua to share that he accepted a friend’s invitation to attend Shabbat last week.

When Nacua was informed of the undertone of the celebration he practiced with Ross, he apologized. He reached the end zone twice on Thursday and didn’t perform the dance either time.

“I know this guy’s heart and for anybody that was offended, terribly sorry about that,”Rams coach Sean McVay said. “I know he feels that same exact way.”

The guess here is that he won’t ever make the gesture again.

Less certain is whether Nacua will be able to continue building his personal brand without becoming a distraction to his team.

The Rams should be concerned.

In a short week, the Rams were forced to bar Ross and N3on from entering their building.

Later that afternoon, their most visible player joined the streamers in their vehicle and traveled to a club, where he claimed that referees purposely made egregious calls because they wanted TV airtime.

This is a brave new world for athletes and the teams that employ them. Younger audiences want their heroes to be open, whether they are athletes or entertainers. For stars such as Nacua, the challenge is to strike a balance between being accessible and protective of their teams.

Nacua failed to do that this week.

“Coach (McVay) has just echoed that he’s always in continuous support of me, disappointed in some of the actions that just distracted my teammates and that’s something that I know I’ll learn from and I don’t want to be a distraction in any week, especially in a short week, so we had talked about that and he’s right there behind me,” Nacua said.

Nacua nonetheless voiced his displeasure with referees again on Thursday, posting to X minutes after the Seahawks won the game by scoring a two-point conversion in overtime.

What inspired the message, Nacua said, was “just a moment of frustration after a tough, intense game like that, just thinking of the opportunities that I could have done better to take it out of their hands.”

Rams wide receiver Puka Nacua, right, celebrates next to teammate Jordan Whittington after making a touchdown catch in the fourth quarter against the Seahawks on Thursday.

(Soobum Im / Getty Images)

Whatever that meant.

McVay declined to comment about Nacua’s post, saying he was first informed of its existence when he was asked about it in his postgame news conference.

“I have to have more information before I answer any of those kinds of questions,” McVay said.

However, McVay said of Nacua’s comments about referees on the livestream, “Yeah, we don’t want to do that.”

Being asked about an unpleasant subject in the wake of a crushing defeat made McVay testy. Asked if the fallout from Nacua’s livestream was a distraction, McVay snapped, “Did you think his play showed that he was distracted?”

Nacua caught 12 passes for 225 yards.

But McVay caught himself and apologized.

“I love this team,” he said. “And, man, when you put out as much as our group does and you care so much about something and you come up short, it’s incredibly disappointing.”

Such presence of mind explains why McVay is the voice of the Rams. As competitive as he is, as intense as he can be, he knows how to keep his impulses from compromising his team’s long-term objectives.

Nacua has to figure out how to do that. By next season, he won’t be an underpaid star on his original rookie contract. He will have a deal that reflects his stature as a player, and with that comes responsibility. Recent days raised questions about whether he is capable.

US President Donald Trump said he was standing by his White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, after Vanity Fair magazine published interviews in which Wiles revealed internal tensions in Trump’s administration and painted an unflattering picture of the roles played by some of the president’s inner circle.

Trump, who regularly describes Wiles as the “most powerful woman in the world”, told the New York Post on Tuesday that he has full confidence in his chief of staff and that she had “done a fantastic job”.

Vanity Fair published two articles based on the interviews, giving insights into what Wiles thinks about other key figures in Trump’s second presidency.

Speaking about Trump, Wiles described the teetotaling president as having “an alcoholic’s personality” and an eye for vengeance against perceived enemies.

“He has an alcoholic’s personality,” Wiles said of Trump, explaining that her upbringing with an alcoholic father prepared her for managing “big personalities”.

Trump does not drink, she noted, but operates with “a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing”.

In his defence of Wiles, Trump said she was right to describe him personally as having an “alcoholic’s personality”, even though he does not drink alcohol.

“I’ve often said that if I did, I’d have a very good chance of being an alcoholic,” Trump said. “I have said that many times about myself, I do. It’s a very possessive personality,” he said.

Speaking on the Trump administration’s failure to quickly deliver its promise to share information related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Wiles suggested that Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, had failed to clearly read the situation with the public.

“First, she gave them binders full of nothingness,” Wiles said of Bondi, noting that Vice President JD Vance had more fully grasped how important the issue was to some people, since he is himself “a conspiracy theorist”.

Of Trump’s inclusion in the Epstein files, Wiles said, “We know he’s in the file”, but claimed the file did not show him doing “anything awful”.

Referring to other members of the Trump administration, Wiles called Russ Vought, the chief of the White House Office of Management and Budget, a “right-wing absolute zealot” and branded tech tycoon Elon Musk an “odd, odd duck”, Vanity Fair said.

On Ukraine, Wiles said that Trump believes Russian President Vladimir Putin “wants the whole country”, despite Washington’s push for a peace deal.

Wiles also affirmed that Trump wants to keep bombing alleged drug boats in the waters off the coast of Venezuela until that country’s leader, Nicolas Maduro, “cries uncle”.

In a post on X, Wiles called the Vanity Fair story “a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history”, saying it omitted important context and selectively quoted her to create a negative narrative.

Other members of Trump’s inner circle also defended Wiles after the articles were published.

Vance said in a speech in Pennsylvania that he and Wiles had “joked in private and in public” about him believing conspiracy theories.

“We have our disagreements, we agree on much more than we disagree, but I’ve never seen her be disloyal to the president of the United States,” Vance said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters outside the West Wing that Wiles was “incredible” and accused Vanity Fair of the “bias of omission”, while Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on X that there was “absolutely nobody better!” than Wiles.

Lawyers for US President Donald Trump say the BBC caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

United States President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking at least $10bn from the BBC over a documentary that edited his speech to supporters before the US Capitol riot in 2021.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami on Monday, seeks “damages in an amount not less than $5,000,000,000” for each of two counts against the United Kingdom broadcaster for alleged defamation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Earlier in the day, Trump confirmed his plans to file the lawsuit.

“I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally… I guess they used AI or something,” he told reporters at the White House.

“That’s called fake news .”

President Trump: “I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally…I guess they used AI or something…they actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with January 6th that I didn’t say.” pic.twitter.com/cUwXqBq3Zd

— CSPAN (@cspan) December 15, 2025

Trump has accused the UK publicly-owned broadcaster of defaming him by splicing together parts of a January 6, 2021, speech, including one section where he told supporters to march on the Capitol, and another where he said, “Fight like hell”.

The edited sections of his speech omitted words in which Trump also called for peaceful protest.

Trump’s lawsuit alleges that the BBC defamed him, and his lawyers say the documentary caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

The BBC has already apologised to Trump, admitted an error of judgement and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action.

The broadcaster also said that there was no legal basis for the lawsuit, and that to overcome the US Constitution’s strong legal protections for free speech and the press, Trump will need to prove in court not only that the edit was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.

The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the programme did not damage Trump’s reputation.

Trump, in his lawsuit, said that the BBC, despite its apology, “has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses”.

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement that the BBC had “a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda”.

The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the lawsuit was filed on Monday.

The dispute over the edited speech, featured on the BBC’s Panorama documentary show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, prompted a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior officials.

Other media organisations have settled with Trump, including CBS and ABC, when Trump sued them following his comeback win in the November 2024 election.

Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a newspaper in Iowa, all of which have denied wrongdoing.

For more than a century, Warner Bros has been one of Hollywood’s biggest players, a legacy studio that helped define the Golden Age of cinema with iconic blockbuster movies. Now, it’s at the centre of a contentious, billion-dollar bidding war between Netflix, the world’s leading streaming platform, and Paramount Skydance, owned by the powerful Ellison family, which has close ties to President Trump.

Whichever way this goes, the outcome isn’t looking great.

Contributors:
Matt Craig – Reporter, Forbes
Daheli Hall – Writer and director
Lee Hepner – Antitrust lawyer
Dominic Patten – Executive editor, Deadline

On our radar

This week, Australia became the first country in the world to impose a social media ban for children less than the age of 16. The Australian government says it is taking on Big Tech and safeguarding children, but some young people were able to quickly bypass the new rules. Ryan Kohls reports.

The Imran Khan rumour mill

Despite being in jail for more than two years, Imran Khan continues to occupy airtime in Pakistan. After the army restricted access to Khan, rumours of his death ricocheted across social media.  Pressure from his supporters and family forced the military to lift the restrictions and grant Khan’s sisters access to speak to him. Meenakshi Ravi reports on the showdown between Imran Khan and powerful Field Marshal Asim Munir, and what it reveals about power, politics and narrative control in Pakistan.

Featuring: 
Amber Rahim Shamsi – Pakistan Editor, Nukta
Moeed Pirzada – Political YouTuber
Mohammed Hanif – Author and journalist

A New York Times reporter told Jeffrey Epstein that he could write an article that would define the financier on his own terms as he faced allegations of sexually abusing minors in the months leading up to his 2008 conviction, newly uncovered emails reveal.

After a negative article about Epstein was published in September 2007, then-New York Times journalist Landon Thomas Jr advised Epstein to “get ahead” of more bad publicity by doing an interview that would define the story “on your terms”.

“I Just read the Post. Now the floodgates will open — you can expect Vanity Fair and NYMag to pile on,” Thomas wrote to Epstein in an email dated September 20, 2007, referring to the magazines Vanity Fair and New York Magazine.

“My view is that the quicker you get out ahead of this and define the story and who you are on your terms in the NYT, the better it will be for you.”

Thomas, who left the Times in 2019, urged Epstein to quickly do an interview to prevent the “popular tabloid perception” about him from hardening, and expressed sympathy over his legal troubles.

“I know this is tough and hard for you, but remember jail may [be] bad, but it is not forever,” Thomas wrote.

As part of his pitch to Epstein, Thomas recalled a 2002 profile he wrote about the financier for New York Magazine, titled Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery.

Written before Epstein’s first arrest in 2006, the profile portrayed the financier as an enigmatic but highly successful businessman with the appearance of a “taller, younger Ralph Lauren” and a “relentless brain that challenges Nobel Prize-winning scientists”.

The piece contained glowing appraisals from Epstein’s many high-profile associates, whose praise-filled descriptions included that he was “very smart”, “amazing”, “extraordinary”, and “talented”.

“Remember how for a while my NY Mag piece was the defining piece on you? That is no longer the case after all this,” Thomas wrote to Epstein.

“But I think if we did a piece for the Times, with the documents and evidence that you mention, plus you speaking for the record, we can again have a story that becomes the last public word on Jeffrey Epstein.”

A little more than a week later, on September 28, Thomas sent Epstein an email reiterating the importance of “getting out ahead” of other publications.

Thomas suggested that he begin reaching out to associates of Epstein who could talk about the financier’s business activities and scientific and philanthropic work, including former Harvard President Larry Summers and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

“Before I get a glimpse of the legal material, I was thinking that I should at least start calling around to people who know you. Again to focus on the business and scientific/philanthropic aspect of the piece,” Thomas wrote.

“Could I start to do that — call people like Larry Summers, Jess Staley, George Mitchell, Ehud Barak, Bill Richardson and others?” Thomas finished the email expressing his hope that Epstein was “holding up okay” and stating his view that “we need to move on this.”

It is not clear how Epstein responded to Thomas’s emails, which were included in a trove of emails from Epstein’s personal accounts that were made available to Al Jazeera by the whistleblower website Distributed Denial of Secrets.

Thomas did not respond to a request for comment.

Following Thomas’s correspondence with Epstein, the Times went on to publish an article by the journalist detailing the financier’s downfall the following year.

The article, published a day after Epstein’s guilty plea on June 30, 2008, drew from in-person and phone interviews that Thomas had conducted with the financier, including during a visit to Epstein’s island of Little St James several months earlier.

In the article, Thomas described the financier sitting on the patio of his island mansion as he likened himself to the eponymous character of the satirical novel Gulliver’s Travels.

“Gulliver’s playfulness had unintended consequences,” Epstein was quoted as saying.

“That is what happens with wealth. There are unexpected burdens as well as benefits.”

A 2019 report by NPR said colleagues of Thomas at the Times had been “appalled” by the article when they reviewed it years later, following the journalist’s admission that he had solicited a $30,000 donation from Epstein for a cultural centre.

The emails obtained by Al Jazeera also show that Epstein emailed an error-strewn Word document to himself in which Thomas is described discussing the legal case against Epstein with then-Florida prosecutor David Weinstein.

The purpose and origin of the document, which describes Thomas and Weinstein discussing technical aspects of the charges facing Epstein, is unclear. Weinstein said he spoke to Thomas in January 2008, but that the document did not contain an accurate description of their conversation.

Weinstein said they had spoken about the “criminal justice process and general state and federal statutes”, but not Epstein’s case specifically.

He said he did not know where the information in the document came from or who provided it to Epstein.

“I never spoke with him about the specific facts of the late Mr Epstein’s case, nor did I offer any opinion about that matter,” Weinstein told Al Jazeera.

The emergence of the emails between Thomas and Epstein comes after correspondence the two men shared from 2015 to 2018 came to light last month in a batch of documents released by US lawmakers.

Among other revelations, those emails showed that Thomas let Epstein know that the late investigative journalist John Connolly had contacted him for information for Connolly’s 2016 book Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story.

“He seems very interested in your relationship with the news media,” Thomas wrote to Epstein in an email dated June 1, 2016. “I told him you were a hell of a guy :)”.

A spokesperson for the Times said Thomas had not worked for the newspaper since early 2019 “after editors discovered his failure to abide by our ethical standards”.

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Friday released 19 photographs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private email server showing a collection of powerful men in politics, media and Hollywood in the convicted sex offender’s orbit.

The photographs do not reveal any wrongdoing, but offer more detail about who Epstein associated with.

The images show Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser, meeting with Epstein at an office; Bill Gates standing by what appears to be Epstein’s private jet; former President Clinton with Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell; Epstein with American filmmaker Woody Allen on a movie set; and President Trump with six unidentified women.

The images — which were released without information on the timing, location or context of the events portrayed — are the latest records from Epstein’s private estate to be released to the public, adding pressure on the Trump administration to follow through with a congressional mandate to publish all of its Epstein files by next week.

An image released by a House committee shows former president Bill Clinton, center, with Jeffrey Epstein, right, and Ghislaine Maxwell, second from right.

(House Oversight Committee )

Trump has denied any involvement or knowledge of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operations, but thousands of emails released last month have suggested the president may have known more about his abuse than he had acknowledged.

The photographs released on Friday are part of more than 95,000 images that were recently turned over to a House committee in response to a set of subpoenas issued for records related to Epstein’s estate.

Rep. Robert Garcia, of Long Beach, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in a statement Friday said Democrats on the panel are reviewing the full set of photos and will continue to release them to the public in the days and weeks ahead.

“These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Garcia said. “We will not rest until the American people get the truth. The Department of Justice must release all of the files, NOW.”

One of the images released by a House committee shows Steve Bannon, left, with Jeffrey Epstein.

(House Oversight Committee )

Trump had tried to thwart the release of the what have become commonly known as the “Epstein files” for several months, but reversed course in November under growing pressure form his party.

The president then signed legislation that requires the Department of Justice to release its investigative files related to Epstein by Dec. 19. But his past resistance has led to skepticism among some lawmakers on Capitol Hill who question whether the Justice Department may try to conceal information.

“The real test will be, will the Department of Justice release the files or will it all remain tied up in investigations?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said last month.

Epstein, a convicted sex offender who is believed to have abused more than 200 women and girls, died by suicide in federal prison in 2019. His longtime associate, Maxwell, is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in a sex-trafficking scheme to groom and sexually abuse underage girls with Epstein.

The 156-day trial, the most high-profile use of Beijing’s draconian national security law, is set to come to a close.

Hong Kong’s High Court is set to hand down a verdict in the case of pro-democracy campaigner and media mogul Jimmy Lai next week, bringing an end to his lengthy national security trial.

Lai’s verdict will be delivered by a three-judge panel in a hearing that begins at 10am local time (02:00 GMT) on Monday, according to a court diary notice seen on Friday.

Founder of the now-shuttered pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, Lai, 78, is charged with foreign collusion under Hong Kong’s national security law, which Beijing imposed following huge and sometimes violent pro-democracy protests in 2019.

He previously pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces, as well as a third count of sedition under a colonial-era law.

Authorities accuse Lai, who has been detained since December 2020, of using the Apple Daily to conspire with six former executives and others to produce seditious publications between April 2019 and June 2021.

He is accused of using his publication to conspire with paralegal Chan Tsz-wah, activist Andy Li, and others to invite foreign countries – including the United States, Britain and Japan – to impose sanctions, blockades and other hostile measures against Hong Kong and China.

Prosecutors also accuse Lai of stoking hatred against authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong through writing and publishing more than 150 critical op-eds in the outlet.

He faces life imprisonment if convicted.

Lai has been held in solitary confinement for more than 1,800 days, with his family saying they fear for his wellbeing and his health is deteriorating as he suffers from diabetes, high blood pressure, as well as heart palpitations that require medication.

In August, the court postponed closing arguments in his 156-day trial – which began in December 2023 – citing a “medical issue” involving the 78-year-old’s heart.

Authorities say Lai has received proper treatment and medical care during his detention.

Trump to do ‘everything I can to save him’

Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 after more than 150 years under British colonial rule.

As part of the “one country, two systems” approach, Hong Kong officially operates a separate judicial system based on Common Law traditions, meaning Lai has greater legal protections than he would in mainland China.

But Hong Kong has experienced significant democratic backsliding in recent years, which accelerated following mass pro-democracy protests in 2019-20, which resulted in a harsh crackdown on dissent in the territory by Beijing.

In 2020, Chinese authorities introduced a draconian national security law to crush the protest movement, establishing secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations as crimes carrying hefty punishments.

Lai’s trial represents the most high-profile use of that law, with critics condemning his trial as politically motivated.

The Chinese and Hong Kong governments insist Lai is being given a fair trial and have said the legal process must be allowed to reach its conclusion.

But his case has drawn international scrutiny, including from US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly promised to “save” Lai. In August, Trump promised to do “everything I can to save him”.

“His name has already entered the circle of things that we’re talking about, and we’ll see what we can do,” Trump told Fox News Radio.

Trump also reportedly raised Lai’s case during a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping when the pair met in South Korea in October.

The Danish government has announced a new plan to restrict the use of social media for anyone under the age of 15, though in some cases parents will be able to let their children use social platforms from age 13. The reforms come amid concerns that kids are getting too swept up in a digital world with harmful content.

Tourists from 42 countries may soon need to also disclose email accounts, extensive family history and biometrics to enter US.

Visitors who are eligible to enter the United States without a visa may soon be required to provide the Department of Homeland Security with significantly more personal information, including details about their social media activity, email accounts and family background.

According to a notice published on Wednesday in the Federal Register, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to collect up to five years of social media data from travellers from certain visa-waiver countries.

The proposed requirement would apply to travellers using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) under the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens of 42 countries – including the United Kingdom, Germany, Qatar, Greece, Malta, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Israel and South Korea – to travel to the US for tourism or business for up to 90 days.

Currently, the ESTA automatically screens applicants and grants travel approval without requiring an in-person interview at a US embassy or consulate, unlike standard visa applications.

At present, ESTA applicants are required to provide a more limited set of information, such as their parents’ names, current email address, and details of any past criminal record.

A question asking travellers to disclose their social media information was first added to the ESTA application in 2016, though it has remained optional.

New rules also target metadata, email history

The new notice also states that the CBP plans to request additional personal information from visitors, including telephone numbers used over the past five years and email addresses used over the last 10 years.

Authorities also said they plan to add what they describe as “high-value data fields” to the ESTA application “when feasible”. These would include metadata from electronically submitted photographs, extensive personal details about applicants’ family members, such as their places of birth and telephone numbers used over the past five years, as well as biometric information, including fingerprints, DNA and iris data.

The announcement did not say what the administration was looking for in the social media accounts of visitors or why it was asking for more information.

But the CBP said it was complying with an executive order that US President Donald Trump signed in January that called for more screening of people coming to the US to prevent the entry of possible national security threats.

Travellers from countries that are not part of the Visa Waiver Program system are already required to submit their social media information, a policy that dates back to the first Trump administration. The policy remained during US President Joe Biden’s administration.

The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposed changes before they are finalised, the notice in the Federal Register states.

WASHINGTON — Foreigners who are allowed to come to the United States without a visa could soon be required to submit information about their social media, email accounts and extensive family history to the Department of Homeland Security before being approved for travel.

The notice published Wednesday in the Federal Register said Customs and Border Protection is proposing collecting five years worth of social media information from travelers from select countries who do not have to get visas to come to the U.S. The Trump administration has been stepping up monitoring of international travelers and immigrants.

The announcement refers to travelers from more than three dozen countries who take part in the Visa Waiver Program and submit their information to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA, which automatically screens them and then approves them for travel to the U.S. Unlike visa applicants, they generally do not have to go into an embassy or consulate for an interview.

The Department of Homeland Security administers the program, which currently allows citizens of roughly 40 mostly European and Asian countries to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for three months without visas.

The announcement also said that CBP would start requesting a list of other information, including telephone numbers the person has used over the last five years or email addresses used over the last decade. Also sought would be metadata from electronically submitted photos, as well as extensive information from the applicant’s family members, including their places of birth and their telephone numbers.

The application that people are now required to fill out to take part in ESTA asks a more limited set of questions such as parents’ names and current email address.

The public has 60 days to comment on the proposed changes before they go into effect, the notice said.

CBP officials did not immediately respond to questions about the new rules.

The announcement did not say what the administration was looking for in the social media accounts or why it was asking for more information.

But the agency said it was complying with an executive order that Republican President Trump signed in January that called for more screening of people coming to the U.S. to prevent the entry of possible national security threats.

Travelers from countries that are not part of the Visa Waiver Program system are already required to submit their social media information, a policy that dates to the first Trump administration. The policy remained during Democratic President Biden’s administration.

But citizens from visa waiver countries were not obligated to do so.

Since January, the Trump administration has stepped up checks of immigrants and travelers, both those trying to enter the U.S. as well as those already in the country. Officials have tightened visa rules by requiring that applicants set all of their social media accounts to public so that they can be more easily scrutinized and checked for what authorities view as potential derogatory information. Refusing to set an account to public can be considered grounds for visa denial, according to guidelines provided by the State Department.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services now considers whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused” anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views.

The heightened interest in social media screening has drawn concern from immigration and free speech advocates about what the Trump administration is looking for and whether the measures target people critical of the administration in an infringement of free speech rights.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was joined by 12-year-old campaigner Florence Brodribb at an event to welcome the start of Australia’s world-first ban on social media for under-16s.

Dec. 9 (UPI) — Australian youth under age 16 are losing access to their social media accounts amid a national law that takes effect on Wednesday and is the world’s first such ban.

The nation’s lawmakers in 2024 enacted the social media ban that blocks access to 10 internationally popular social media sites — Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Reddit, YouTube, Twitch, Kick, Snapchat and Threads.

Others could be added if they add significantly more users or otherwise are deemed social media instead of gaming or peer-to-peer communication sites, such as Bluesky, Steam, YouTube Kids, WhatsApp and Steam.

The law punishes the respective social media companies with up to $32 million in fines instead of children who might access the sites or their parents, according to the BBC.

The social media companies are required to ensure users are of legal age before accessing the respective sites by subjecting them to facial age assurance tests.

Officials at Elon Musk-owned X discussed with Australian officials the measures they would take to abide by Australia’s new law but have not shared that information with X users, Australian eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant told The Guardian.

The owners and operators of the nine other affected social media sites likewise confirmed they will abide by the new Australian law.

Officials for at least one other, Bluesky, have said they proactively will block access for Australians under age 16 despite it being deemed a “low risk” for children by the country’s eSafety commission due to its total user base of about 50,000 in Australia.

Australia-based k-ID service co-founder Kieran Donovan told The Guardian that the company has conducted hundreds of thousands of age verifications in recent weeks for Snapchat users and others.

The parent of one child suggested the age verification system is flawed and told The Guardian that her 15-year-old daughter is upset because “all of her 14- to 15-year-old friends have been ageverified as 18 by Snapchat,” but she wasn’t.

Another parent said his child will use a virtual private network and other tactics to bypass the age restrictions on social media.

Many free speech advocates say they support the effort to protect children but warned that the law could cause unintended harm.

Such harm might include making it harder to restrict harmful content or behaviors, creating security risks and inhibiting free speech and restricting minors’ access to information while restricting their speech.

Many also accuse the Australian government of saying it is better equipped to determine what is best for children than their parents by making it impossible for parents to choose whether or not to allow their children to access the banned social media sites.

Some Australian teens have filed a legal challenge to the new law.

While the Australian law takes effect on Wednesday, Malaysian officials have enacted a similar ban there that is scheduled to take effect in 2026.

Children under 16 can no longer access 10 of the world’s biggest platforms, including Facebook, TikTok and Instagram.

Australia has banned children under 16 from social media in a world-first, as other countries consider similar age-based measures amid rising concerns over its effects on children’s health and safety.

Under the new law, which came into effect at midnight local time on Wednesday (13:00 GMT on Tuesday), 10 of the biggest platforms face $33m in fines if they fail to purge Australia-based users younger than 16.

The law has been criticised by major technology companies and free speech campaigners, but praised by parents and child advocates.

The Australian government says unprecedented measures are needed to protect children from “predatory algorithms” filling phone screens with bullying, sex and violence.

“Too often, social media isn’t social at all,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in advance of the ban.

“Instead, it’s used as a weapon for bullies, a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers and, worst of all, a tool for online predators.”

The law states that Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat and Reddit are forbidden from creating or keeping accounts belonging to users in Australia under 16.

Streaming platforms Kick and Twitch are also on the government’s blacklist, as are message boards Threads and X. Popular apps and websites such as Roblox, Pinterest and WhatsApp are currently exempt – but the government has stressed that the list remains under review.

Meta, YouTube and other social media giants have already condemned the ban.

YouTube, in particular, has attacked the law, describing it as “rushed” and saying it would only push children into deeper, darker corners of the internet.

While most platforms have begrudgingly agreed to comply, for now, legal challenges are in the wind.

Online discussion site Reddit said Tuesday it could not confirm local media reports that said it would seek to overturn the ban in Australia’s High Court.

The Sydney-based internet rights group Digital Freedom Project has already launched its own bid to have teenagers reinstated to social media.

Some parents, tired of seeing children stuck to their phones, see the ban as a relief.

Father-of-five Dany Elachi said the restrictions were a long-overdue “line in the sand”.

“We need to err on the side of caution before putting anything addictive in the hands of children,” he told the AFP news agency.

The Australian government concedes the ban will be far from perfect at the outset, and canny teenagers will find ways to circumvent it.

Social media companies bear the sole responsibility for checking users are 16 or older.

Some platforms say they will use AI tools to estimate ages based on photos, while young users may also choose to prove their age by uploading a government ID.

There is keen interest in whether Australia’s sweeping restrictions can work as regulators around the globe wrestle with the potential dangers of social media.

Malaysia indicated it was planning to introduce a similar ban next year.

Australia’s Communications Minister Anika Wells said last week that the European Commission, France, Denmark, Greece, Romania and New Zealand were also interested in setting a minimum age for social media.