peril

During a recent meeting of Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, on Friday, October 17, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Abdelatty reiterated that “the resolution of the Palestinian question” remains central to the progress of the IMEC connectivity project and strengthening the strategic ties between India and Egypt. His comments captured the essence of the challenge that confronts the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), that grand infrastructure schemes in this region cannot be separated from enduring political conflicts. Abdelatty’s emphasis indicated that IMEC, which was launched with so much enthusiasm at the 2023 G20 Summit hosted by New Delhi, will only move from rhetoric to reality if its architects reconcile geography with geopolitics.

The Strategic Vision: What IMEC proposes

IMEC was announced as a transformative connectivity framework which aims to link India, the Arabian Peninsula, and Europe through maritime, rail, energy, and digital networks. The project promised to reconfigure the trade routes and foster sustainable growth by involving India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Israel, and the EU with the support of the United States and major European economies. It also emerged as a counterpart initiative against China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, the “IMEC vs BRI” debate is as much about the narrative competition as about logistics. Yet translating that narrative into a functioning framework is a complex process.

IMEC’s blueprint comprises two interconnected legs. An eastern maritime route between India and Gulf ports and a northern corridor of railways across Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel leading into Europe. Furthermore, it envisions plans for electricity grids, a hydrogen pipeline, and digital fibre networks. The idea is to reduce shipping time between India and Europe by nearly 40% and diversify global supply chains away from vulnerable checkpoints such as the Suez Canal and the Red Sea.

Barriers to the Vision

The road to the execution of this vision remains riddled with obstacles. IMEC’s future depends on bridging political divides and closing financial gaps. The physical links across the Arabian Peninsula are still incomplete, and key rail segments between Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel exist largely on paper. Different technical standards and varied customs regimes with no unified authority to synchronise investment or implementation make the project susceptible. Moreover, the funding model lacks transparency. Neither a dedicated corpus nor a multilateral mechanism has been finalised, which leaves the corridor vulnerable to delays and competing priorities.

Furthermore, there is uncertainty due to diplomatic and security dynamics. The Israel-Gaza war has frozen Saudi-Israeli normalisation efforts that initially spirited the IMEC. Egypt’s renewed engagement suggests that Cairo intends to shape any connectivity framework that intersects its sphere of influence. Given the role of Egypt in the control of the Suez Canal and its political weight in the Arab World, Cairo’s participation is crucial. Abdelatty’s linkage of IMEC’s viability to progress on the Palestinian question implies that diplomatic legitimacy will precede logistical cooperation. Unless the participants address the regional trust deficit, the corridor politics may remain trapped between ambition and ambiguity.

Divergent Priorities of Participants

Each participant in IMEC has divergent goals. For India, the project aligns with its “Act West” policy and its long-time desire to consolidate middle-power status through connectivity leadership. For the Gulf monarchies, IMEC represents a channel to diversify beyond hydrocarbons and attract investments in technology and management. Europe views it as a hedge against over-dependence on Chinese infrastructure. To reconcile these varied interests, it is required to focus on continuous negotiations and proper planning. Tensions among Gulf states and between regional powers such as Iran and Turkey could further complicate the situation. The overlapping interests may blur the line between cooperation and competition, which will undermine cohesion before the corridor gains momentum.

From India’s viewpoint, IMEC holds immense significance if managed strategically. It will not only strengthen the supply-chain resilience but will also enhance energy security and expand India’s diplomatic footprint in the Middle East. The corridor perfectly aligns with global efforts to provide transparent alternatives to Chinese financing, for instance, the U.S.-led Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. However, this association might expose IMEC to great power rivalry, turning a development initiative into another strategic sport. This might dilute the economic rationale of the corridor.

Egypt and the Latest Turning Point

A new dimension has been added as Egypt re-emerges as a key stakeholder in the project. Cairo’s interests not only stem from geography but also from economic logic. The Suez Canal is the lifeline of the Egyptian economy, so any alternative corridor must complement rather than compete with it. Abdelatty’s emphasis on integrating political stability with economic planning reflects a broader regional lesson that peace and prosperity must progress together. Incorporating Egypt as a central player through port linkages or co-investment in logistics could enhance IMEC’s legitimacy and reliability. Contrary to this, if Egypt gets excluded, it may trigger diplomatic resistance or perceptions of marginalisation.

The most important question in the current context is whether IMEC can survive the cyclical turbulence of the world’s most unstable region. The region where energy markets are unstable and unresolved conflicts fuel the mistrust among participating states. Moreover, the delays in implementation might erode momentum. To demonstrate progress and sustain the confidence of investors, IMEC needs measurable milestones such as pilot projects, customs harmonisation or digital integration.  Even partial success, such as improved India-Gulf maritime connectivity or cooperation in renewable energy, could build credibility.

The Way Forward for IMEC

IMEC challenges the prevailing assumptions about how connectivity projects emerge in contested regions on a conceptual note. It suggests that strategic corridors can no longer depend solely on geopolitical alliances. They require inclusive governance, transparent financing, and conflict-sensitive design. Egypt’s diplomatic stance on the palestinian question and IMEC implies that development without justice is unsustainable. For India, the opportunity lies in using its credibility with multiple actors, such as Arab states, Israel, Europe and the U.S. to keep the corridor protected from zero-sum politics. This would present New Delhi not just as a participant but also as a facilitator.

In conclusion, IMEC is both a promise and a puzzle. It incorporates the aspiration for cooperative connectivity but remains hostage to the very divisions it aims to bridge. Abdelatty’s statement in New Delhi, which echoed across regional capitals, was less a warning than a reminder that infrastructure cannot transcend politics and it must be engaged with constructively. The corridor might evolve from a strategic deal into a genuine intercontinental partnership if India and its allies can translate this vision into sustained diplomacy and practical implementation. However, if it fails, IMEC will join the long list of visionary projects that turned out unsuccessful in the Middle East.

WASHINGTON — At a moment when hope for peace seemed lost, senior U.S. officials, led by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012 that would be touted for years as a historic diplomatic achievement. She would later campaign on her strategic prowess for the presidency against Donald Trump.

In 2014, a similar ceasefire was brokered between the two parties during yet another war by Clinton’s successor, John Kerry, also seen at the time as a diplomatic coup. But in the first 72 hours of that ceasefire, without clarity on the precise lines of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas operatives ambushed an Israeli Defense Forces patrol decommissioning a tunnel, throwing peace in doubt. The remains of the Israeli soldier caught in that raid have been held by Hamas ever since.

History shows that Trump’s achievement this week, brokering a new truce between Israel and Hamas after their most devastating war yet, is filled with opportunity and peril for the president.

A lasting ceasefire could cement him a legacy as a peacemaker, long sought by Trump, who has harnessed President Nixon’s madman theory of diplomacy to coerce several other warring parties into ceasefires and settlements. But the record of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows that consistent interest and engagement by the president may be necessary to ensure any peace can hold.

Hamas and Israel agreed on Wednesday to implement the first phase of Trump’s proposed 20-point peace plan, exchanging all remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas since its Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel in exchange for 1,700 detainees from Gaza, as well as 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israel.

Only the first phase has been agreed to thus far.

Guns are expected to fall silent Friday, followed by a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces that would initially leave roughly half of the Gaza Strip — along its periphery bordering Israel — within Israeli military control. A 72-hour clock would then begin after the partial withdrawal is complete, counting down to the hostage release.

Achieving this alone is a significant victory for Trump, who leveraged deep ties with Arab partners built over his first administration and political clout among the Israeli right and with its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to bring the deal to a close.

The president’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, had been working toward a ceasefire for months, starting back during the presidential transition period nearly one year ago. He found little success on his own.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio writes a note before handing it to President Trump during a White House meeting Wednesday.

(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

It was Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who designed the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term and maintains close ties with Netanyahu and Arab governments, took an unofficial yet active role in a recent diplomatic push that helped secure an agreement, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter.

“None of this would have happened without Jared,” the source said.

Speaking with reporters from the White House, Trump took a victory lap over the truce, claiming not only credit for a hostage and ceasefire deal but the historic achievement of a broader Middle East peace.

“We ended the war in Gaza and really, on a much bigger basis, created peace. And I think it’s going to be a lasting peace — hopefully an everlasting peace. Peace in the Middle East,” Trump said.

“We secured the release of all of the remaining hostages,” he added. “And they should be released on Monday or Tuesday — getting them is a complicated process. I’d rather not tell you what they have to do to get them. They’re in places you don’t want to be.”

An opening emerged for a diplomatic breakthrough after Israel conducted an extraordinary strike on a Hamas target in Doha, shaking the confidence of the Qatari government, a key U.S. ally. While Doha has hosted Hamas’ political leadership for years, Qatar’s leadership thought their relationship with Washington would protect them from Israeli violations of its territory.

Trump sought a deal with Qatar, a U.S. official said, that would assure them with security guarantees in exchange for delivering Hamas leadership on a hostage deal. Separately, Egypt — which has intelligence and sourcing capabilities in Gaza seen by the U.S. government as second only to Israel’s — agreed to apply similar pressure, the official said.

“There’s an argument here, that presumably the Qataris are making to Hamas — which is that they lost, this round anyway, and that it’s going to take them a very long time to rebuild. But the war must come to an end for the rebuilding to start,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan, George W. Bush and first Trump administrations.

“On Friday, the Nobel Peace Prize will be announced, and he won’t get it,” Abrams said, adding that, if the deal falls through, “I think the Israelis are going to be saying to him, ‘This is a game. They didn’t really accept your plan.’”

“I don’t think, in the end, he’ll blame the Israelis for ruining the deal,” Abrams continued. “I think he’ll blame Hamas.”

MAGNOLIA, Ky. — The leafy soybean plants reach Caleb Ragland’s thighs and are ripe for harvest, but the Kentucky farmer is deeply worried. He doesn’t know where he and others like him will sell their crop because China has stopped buying.

Beijing, which traditionally has snapped up at least a quarter of all soybeans grown in the U.S., is in effect boycotting them in retaliation for the high tariffs President Trump has imposed on Chinese goods and to strengthen its hand in negotiations over a new overall trade deal.

It has left American soybean farmers fretting over not only this year’s crop but the long-term viability of their businesses, built in part on China’s once-insatiable appetite for U.S. beans.

“This is a five-alarm fire for our industry,” said Ragland, who leads the American Soybean Assn. trade group.

The situation might even be enough to test farmers’ loyalty to Trump, although the president still enjoys strong support throughout rural America. If no deal is reached soon, farmers hope the government will come through with aid as it did during Trump’s first term, but they see that as only a temporary solution. Trump said Thursday he was considering an aid package.

U.S. and Chinese officials have held four rounds of trade talks between May and September, with another likely in the coming weeks. No progress on soybeans has been reported.

Getting closer to harvest, “I’m honestly getting worried that the time is running out,” said Jim Sutter, chief executive of the U.S. Soybean Export Council.

Political pressure is growing

After Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, China responded with tariffs of its own, which now total up to 34% on U.S. soybeans. That makes soybeans from other countries cheaper.

China’s retaliatory tariffs also hit U.S. growers of sorghum, corn and cotton; and even geoduck divers have been affected. But soybeans stand out because of the crop’s outsize importance to U.S. agricultural exports. Soybeans are the top U.S. food export, accounting for about 14% of all farm goods sent overseas.

And China has been by far the largest foreign buyer. Last year, the U.S. exported nearly $24.5 billion worth of soybeans, and China accounted for more than $12.5 billion. That compared with $2.45 billion by the European Union, the second-largest buyer. This year, China hasn’t bought beans since May.

With U.S. farmers hurting, the Trump administration is under growing pressure to reach a deal with China. As talks drag on, Trump appears ready to help.

“We’re going to take some of the tariff money — relatively small amount, but a lot for the farmers — and we’re going to help the farmers out a little bit,” Trump said, during what he called a transition period.

The only way most farmers survived Trump’s trade war in his first term was with tens of billions of dollars in government payments. But that’s not what most farmers want.

What farmers expect from Trump

“The American farmer, especially myself included, we don’t want aid payments,” said Brian Warpup, 52, a fourth-generation farmer from Warren, Ind. “We want to work. We work the land, we harvest the land, the crop off the land. And the worst thing that we could ever want is a handout.”

Farmers are looking to Trump for a long-term solution.

“Overwhelmingly, farmers have been in President Trump’s corner,” said Ragland, the president of the soybean association. “And I think the message that our soybean farmers as a whole want to deliver is: ‘President Trump, we’ve had your back. We need you to have ours now.’”

He said farmers appreciate the willingness to provide some short-term relief, but what they ultimately need are strong, reliable markets. “Our priority remains seeing the United States secure lasting trade agreements — particularly with China — that allow farmers to sell their crops and build a sustainable future with long-term customers,” he said.

Ragland, 39, hopes his three sons will become the 10th generation to till his 4,500 acres in Magnolia, Ky. Unless something changes soon, he worries that thousands of farmers may not survive.

Coming into this year, many farmers were just hoping to break even because crop prices were weak while their costs had only increased. Trump’s tariffs, which helped make their crops uncompetitive around the world, drove prices down further. And tariffs on steel and fertilizer sent costs up even more.

Darin Johnson, president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Assn., said he still has faith in the Trump administration to reach a good trade deal with China.

“I think where the patience is probably wearing thin is the time,” said Johnson, a fourth-generation farmer. “I don’t think anybody thought that we were going to take this much time, because we were told 90 deals — 90 deals in 90 days.”

China’s negotiating strategy

The U.S. soybean industry grew in response to Chinese demand starting back in the 1990s, when China began its rapid economic rise and turned to foreign producers to help feed its people. Protein-rich soybeans are an essential part of the diet.

While China relies on domestic crops for steamed beans and tofu, it needs far more soybeans for oil extraction and animal feed. In 2024, China produced 20 million metric tons of soybeans, while importing more than 105 million metric tons.

American farmers have come to count on China as their biggest customer, and this has “given the Chinese a point of leverage,” Sutter said. By holding off on buying U.S. soybeans, China is seen as trying to leverage that purchasing power in the trade talks.

“I think that’s the strategy,” said Sutter of the U.S. Soybean Export Council. “I think that’s why China is targeting soybeans and other agricultural products, because they know that farmers have a strong lobby and farmers are important to the U.S. government.”

Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, didn’t answer specific questions on soybean purchases but urged the U.S. to work with Beijing.

“The essence of China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation is mutual benefit and win-win,” Liu said.

China turned to Brazil when Trump launched his first trade war in 2018. Last year, Brazilian beans accounted for more than 70% of China’s imports, while the U.S. share was down to 21%, World Bank data show. Argentina and other South American countries also are selling more to China, which has diversified to boost food security.

What American farmers are doing in response

U.S. farmers also are broadening their customer base, said Sutter, who recently traveled to Japan and Indonesia in search of new markets. Taiwan pledged to purchase $10 billion worth of soybeans, corn, wheat and beef in the next four years.

“There’s strong diversification efforts underway,” Sutter said. But “China is so big, it’s hard to replace them overnight.”

Farmers are working to boost consumption at home, too. Growth in biodiesel production has taken in some of the soybeans that were once exported. Other beans are crushed to produce soybean oil and soybean meal. The United Soybean Board is investing in research into the benefits of using soybeans to feed dairy cows and hogs.

But Iowa farmer Robb Ewoldt, a director with the Soybean Board, knows that such domestic uses are growing only gradually.

“We cannot replace a China in one shot,” Ewoldt said. “It’s not going to happen. We need to be realistic in that.”

Tang and Funk write for the Associated Press. Tang reported from Washington and Funk from Omaha. AP journalists Dylan Lovan in Magnolia, Obed Lamy in Warren and Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

The ex-president, accused of seeking to overturn the 2022 election that he lost, has been backed by US President Donald Trump.

Supporters of former far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro have rallied across the main cities of the country against the Supreme Court coup trial that could land the ex-leader in prison for years.

Protesters in Sao Paolo, Rio de Janeiro and other cities on Sunday carried Brazilian and the United States flags, in an apparent reference to United States President Donald Trump’s support for a staunch ally.

They also held banners with Bolsonaro’s and Trump’s pictures on them as they shouted slogans.

Bolsonaro is accused of seeking to overturn the 2022 election won by his left-wing opponent, current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Bolsonaro supporters stormed Brazil’s congress in January 2023, ransacking the chambers and attacking police, in violent scenes that evoked Trump supporters’ attack on the US Capitol two years before.

A Brazilian general has given evidence that the alleged plotters also wanted to assassinate leftist Lula and several other public officials.

The prosecution told the court that former army officer Bolsonaro and seven others were guilty of participating in “armed criminal association” and had sought to “violently overthrow the democratic order”.

A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years. A conviction on that and other charges could bring decades behind bars for Bolsonaro.

The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and asserted that he is the target of political persecution.

‘A witch hunt’

Bolsonaro says he is the victim of political persecution, echoing Trump’s defence when the US president faced criminal charges before his White House return.

Al Jazeera’s Monica Yanakiew, reporting from Sao Paolo, said that protesters were thanking Trump for his support.

“There are a lot of American flags here and people are saying ‘Thank you Trump’,” she said.

“They are thanking President Trump for sanctioning Brazil,” Yanakiew added.

Trump has slammed the trial a “witch hunt” and his Treasury Department has sanctioned Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes in response.

Brazil has strongly criticised the US decision to impose sanctions on de Moraes.

Trump has openly admitted he is punishing Brazil for prosecuting his political ally Bolsonaro. He also signed an executive order slapping 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian imports, citing Bolsonaro’s “politically motivated persecution.”

Protesters gathered on the streets of Brazil on Friday to denounce Trump for the steep tariffs he imposed on the country’s exports. The demonstrations erupted in cities like Sao Paulo and Brasilia, as residents voiced their anger on the first day of Trump’s latest tariff campaign.

Brazil is slated to see some of the highest US tariffs in the world. The tariff is due to enter into force on August 6.

The Trump administration is forging ahead with a plan that is sure to fuel alarm across California’s immigrant communities: handing over the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients to federal immigration officials who seek to track down people living in the U.S. illegally.

The huge trove of private information, which includes home addresses, social security numbers and ethnicities of 79 million Medicaid enrollees, will allow officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement greater latitude to locate immigrants they suspect are undocumented, according to an agreement signed this week between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Homeland Security and obtained by the Associated Press.

“ICE will use the CMS data to allow ICE to receive identity and location information on aliens identified by ICE,” the agreement says.

The plan, which has not been announced publicly, is the latest step by the Trump administration to gather sensitive information about people living in the U.S. as it seeks to deliver on its pledge to crack down on illegal immigration and arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants a day. It is certain to face legal challenges.

Critics have sounded the alarm ever since the Trump administration directed the CMS last month to send the DHS personal information on Medicaid enrollees, including non-U.S. citizens registered in state-funded programs in California, Illinois, Washington and Washington, D.C.

These states operate state-funded Medicaid programs for immigrants who are otherwise ineligible for federal Medicaid and had committed not to bill the federal government.

California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff warned last month of potential violations of federal privacy laws as Trump officials made plans to share personal health data.

“These actions not only raise ethical issues but are contrary to longstanding HHS policy and raise significant concerns about possible violations of federal law,” the Senators wrote in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz.

“We are deeply troubled that this administration intends to use individuals’ private health information for the unrelated purpose of possible enforcement actions targeting lawful noncitizens and mixed status families,” Padilla and Schiff said in a statement. “The decision by HHS to share confidential health information with DHS is a remarkable departure from established federal privacy protections that should alarm all Americans.”

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin declined to answer questions about whether immigration officials are now accessing the personal Medicaid data or how they plan to use it.

“President Trump consistently promised to protect Medicaid for eligible beneficiaries,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “To keep that promise after Joe Biden flooded our country with tens of millions of illegal aliens CMS and DHS are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans.”

Undocumented immigrants are not permitted to enroll in Medicaid, a joint federal and state program that helps cover medical costs for low-income individuals. The program also limits benefits for other lawfully present immigrants, with some required to undergo waiting periods before they can receive coverage.

However, federal law requires states to offer emergency Medicaid, coverage that pays for lifesaving services in emergency rooms to everyone, including non-U.S. citizens.

A 2024 Congressional Budget Office report found that a total of $27 billion was spent on emergency Medicaid for non-citizens between 2017 and 2023. That number represents less than 1% of overall spending on Medicaid during that time period. Nevertheless, Trump and other federal leaders have pushed to reduce spending on Medicaid, alleging that undocumented immigrants have been taking advantage of the program.

Hannah Katch, a CMS advisor during the Biden administration who previously worked for California Medicaid, told The Times that the Trump administration’s plan to turn over Medicaid data represented “an incredible violation of trust.”

The data that states send to CMS has certain protections and requirements in statute and also by custom, Katch said. For CMS to share the information of Medicaid enrollees outside the agency, she said, would have a devastating impact on people who depend on emergency Medicaid to access critical care.

“Making people afraid to seek care when they are experiencing a medical emergency, or when their child is experiencing a medical emergency, it is an incredibly cruel action to take,” Katch said.

Elizabeth Laird, the director of equity in civic technology at the Center for Democracy & Technology, said the sharing of such data would further erode people’s trust in government.

“By turning over some of our most sensitive healthcare data to ICE, Health and Human Services has fundamentally betrayed the trust of almost 80 million people,” she said in a statement to The Times.

“This jaw-dropping development proves that the Administration’s claim of using this information to prevent fraud is a Trojan horse that instead will primarily advance their goal of deporting millions of people,” she said. “Over 90 percent of entitlement fraud is committed by U.S. citizens, underscoring the false pretense of sharing this information with ICE.”

The plan to share Medicaid data is not the first time the Trump administration has sought to share personal information across departments. In May, the Department of Agriculture told states they had to turn over data on the recipients of SNAP food benefits.

Last month, the California Medical Assn. warned that the Trump administration’s sharing of personal Medicaid data would put nearly 15 million patients and their families at risk statewide.

Dr. René Bravo, CMA’s president elect, said that sending sensitive patient information to deportation officials “will have a devastating impact on communities and access to care that all people need.”

“Our job is not protecting the borders, it’s protecting our patients and providing the best health care possible, “ Bravo said in a statement. “When patients come to us it’s often the most vulnerable times in their lives, and we offer a safe space for their care.”

Orange County’s Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs notified the public last month that the CMS had been directed to send DHS personal information of Medicaid enrollees, including non-citizens.

“This data, provided for the purpose of administering healthcare, may now be used to locate individuals for immigration enforcement or to challenge their future immigration applications,” the statement read.

The agency wrote that it had already heard of increased anxiety among clients who are fearful that their personal information could be used against them if they seek health care services.

“We are concerned this will further erode trust in public institutions and care providers,” the agency wrote.

Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, who represents a large Latino population that includes Santa Ana and portions of Anaheim, said the families enrolled in Medi-Cal did so with the reasonable expectation their information would be kept private.

He called the action a “cruel breach” that erodes people’s trust in government.

“These actions discourage participation in healthcare and mean that some individuals may not seek needed medical services,” he said in a statement. “This hurts the overall community, creates serious public health concerns, and increases costs for our healthcare system.”

Jose Serrano, director of Orange County’s Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, said certain information about those who sign up for benefits has long been shared with the state, which passes it along to the federal government for research, funding and eligibility purposes.

“The one thing that is different during this time is that the information is being used against people, especially those who are immigrants,” he said.

The situation has already caused anxiety among immigrant populations in Orange County, Serrano said. Some have reached out to the agency asking whether they can un-enroll from programs or change their addresses for fear that they or their families may be targeted by immigration officials.

“The truth is immigrants spend more and invest more in our communities and the economy then they take away,” Serrano said, adding that it’s unfortunate that this medical information is “going to be used against the same families that are already investing in our communities through the taxes they pay on a yearly basis.”

Already, miners have successfully protested a proposal by the Trump administration to close more than 30 field offices run by the Mining Safety and Health Administration, a branch of the Labor Department that enforces safety standards.

Another government bureau, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), faced staffing cuts of nearly 90 percent under Trump. Miners pushed back, arguing that NIOSH’s research is necessary for their protection.

“For generations, the United Mine Workers of America has fought to protect the health and safety of coal miners and all working people,” union president Cecil Roberts said in a statement announcing a lawsuit against the cuts in May.

“The dismantling of NIOSH and the elimination of its critical programs — like black lung screenings — puts miners’ lives at risk and turns back decades of progress.”

Some of NIOSH’s workers were reinstated. Others were not. The upheaval left some investigations in states like Wyoming in limbo.

Marshal Cummings, a United Steelworkers union representative in southwest Wyoming, was among those seeking NIOSH’s help. He had grown concerned about the potential for trona miners like himself to be exposed to high levels of silica dust, a known carcinogen.

“We know what silica does to people,” Cummings told Al Jazeera. “We know that it causes people to get their lungs cut up by jagged edges of a silica particle, and then they slowly die. They lose that same quality of life that people who work on the surface have.”

Cummings believes there is too little research to fully understand the toll silica exposure is taking on trona miners.

Already, trona miners work in extreme conditions. Their mines cut deep into the earth. One of Wyoming’s biggest trona pits plunges to a depth of 1,600 feet or 488 metres: deep enough to swallow three full-sized copies of the Great Pyramid of Giza, stacked on top of each other.

Cummings was also dismayed to learn that a new rule slated to take effect in April had been pushed back until at least mid-August.

The rule would have lowered the acceptable levels of silica dust in mines. Heavy exposure has been tied to respiratory diseases. Black lung — a potentially fatal condition caused by dust scarring the lungs — has been on the rise in Wyoming, as it is throughout the US.

To Cummings, blame rests squarely on the shoulders of mining executives whom he sees as more interested in their wallets than their employees’ health. He believes the silica rule’s delay is part of their political manoeuvring.

“The pause is not just the pause,” Cummings said. “It’s giving people who care more about a favourable quarterly report than they do their employees an opportunity to get this rule completely thrown out. And that’s unacceptable.”

Travis Deti, the executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, represents some of the industry leaders who opposed the new rule. They felt the silica rule was “a little bit of overreach”, he explained.

“I know that a lot of our folks have a little heartburn over it, that it might go a little too far,” Deti said.

He pointed out that coal mining, for instance, is different in Wyoming than it is in the Appalachia region. While Appalachian miners have to tunnel to harvest the fossil fuel, Wyoming has surface mines that require less digging.

“My guys feel they mitigate their silica issues appropriately,” Deti said.

The US and other Western countries have been reducing their funding, prioritising their defence spending instead.

The plight of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh could rapidly deteriorate further unless more funding can be secured for critical assistance services, according to the United Nations refugee agency.

Bangladesh has registered its biggest influx of Myanmar’s largest Muslim minority over the past 18 months since a mass exodus from an orchestrated campaign of death, rape and persecution nearly a decade ago by Myanmar’s military.

“There is a huge gap in terms of what we need and what resources are available. These funding gaps will affect the daily living of Rohingya refugees as they depend on humanitarian support on a daily basis for food, health and education,” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) spokesperson Babar Baloch told reporters in Geneva on Friday.

The humanitarian sector has been roiled by funding reductions from major donors, led by the United States under President Donald Trump and other Western countries, as they prioritise defence spending prompted by growing concerns over Russia and China.

Baloch added: “With the acute global funding crisis, the critical needs of both newly arrived refugees and those already present will be unmet, and essential services for the whole Rohingya refugee population are at risk of collapsing unless additional funds are secured.”

If not enough funding is secured, health services will be severely disrupted by September, and by December, essential food assistance will stop, said the UNHCR, which says that its appeal for $255m has only been 35 percent funded.

In March, the World Food Programme announced that “severe funding shortfalls” for Rohingya were forcing a cut in monthly food vouchers from $12.50 to $6 per person.

More than one million Rohingya have been crammed into camps in southeastern Bangladesh, the world’s largest refugee settlement. Most fled the brutal crackdown in 2017 by Myanmar’s military, although some have been there for longer.

These camps cover an area of just 24 square kilometres (nine square miles) and have become “one of the world’s most densely populated places”, said Baloch.

Continued violence and persecution against the Rohingya, a mostly Muslim minority in mainly Buddhist Myanmar’s western Rakhine state, have kept forcing thousands to seek protection across the border in Bangladesh, according to the UNHCR. At least 150,000 Rohingya refugees have arrived in Cox’s Bazar in southeast Bangladesh over the past 18 months.

The Rohingya refugees also face institutionalised discrimination in Myanmar and most are denied citizenship.

“Targeted violence and persecution in Rakhine State and the ongoing conflict in Myanmar have continued to force thousands of Rohingya to seek protection in Bangladesh,” said Baloch. “This movement of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh, spread over months, is the largest from Myanmar since 2017, when some 750,000 fled the deadly violence in their native Rakhine State.”

Baloch also hailed Muslim-majority Bangladesh for generously hosting Rohingya refugees for generations.

SACRAMENTO — An overwhelming number of California voters think American democracy is being threatened or, at the very least, tested, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

The poll, conducted for the nonprofit Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, found that concerns cut across the partisan spectrum. They are shared regardless of income or education level, race or ethnicity. Californians living in big cities and rural countrysides, young and old, expressed similar unease.

“I do think that it’s at a pretty dangerous point right now. The concerns are justified,” said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Berkeley institute. “Our democracy is not healthy when you have a president that’s acting to unilaterally stop money from being spent that’s been appropriated, or going to war with colleges and universities or sending troops to L.A.”

In the survey, 64% of California voters said they thought American democracy was under attack, and 26% felt our system of government was being tested but was not under attack. The poll did not investigate what voters blamed for putting democracy in peril.

Democrats, who dominate the California electorate, were the most fearful, with 81% saying it was under attack and 16% who described democracy as being tested. Among voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties, 61% felt democracy was under assault, and 32% said it was being tested.

Republicans expressed more faith — nearly a quarter of those polled said they felt democracy was in no danger. But 38% said it was under attack and 39% said it was being tested but not under attack.

Concerns among Democrats may have been expected in California, given the state’s liberal tilt and the widespread and relentless government upheaval since President Trump took office in January. But the opinions shared by Republicans indicates just how pervasive the concerns are about the future of a country seen as a worldwide beacon of freedom and democracy.

Emily Ekins, director of polling for the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said those findings are evidence of an unsettling new development in American politics.

“A couple years ago, Republicans felt that democracy was at risk and now Democrats feel that democracy is at risk. I think that this is pretty worrisome, because people are starting to view the stakes of each election as being higher and higher,” said Ekins, who had no involvement with the Berkeley poll. “They may feel like they could lose their rights and freedoms. They may not feel like the rules apply to them anymore because they feel like so much is on the line.”

Schickler said the political perceptions among Republicans have been recently fed, in part, by Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. Continuous allegations that the U.S. Department. of Justice, including the FBI, and a “deep state” federal government bureaucracy were weaponized against him since his first term in office also contributed to the fear.

Those claims were magnified by conservative news outlets, including Fox News, as well as Trump loyalists on social media, popular podcasts and talk shows.

Even some Republicans who support the president or are agnostic about his tenure are likely concerned about the discord in American politics in recent months, Schickler said, especially after the Trump administration sent U.S. Marines and the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles as a protective force during widespread federal immigration raids and subsequent protests.

Recent decisions by media companies to settle Trump’s lawsuits over complaints about stories and coverage also are concerning, he said, despite the merits of those allegations being suspect.

This month, Paramount Global decided to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris; the president claimed it was done to help her presidential campaign against him. Paramount’s leaders hope the settlement will help clear a path for Trump-appointed regulators to bless the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

“That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work,” Schickler said. “I think the voters’ concerns are rooted in a reality, one that’s been building up for a while. It’s not something that’s just started in 2025 but it’s been kind of gradually getting more serious over the last 20 or 30 years.”

The survey also found that 75% of California voters believe strongly or somewhat that special interest money has too much influence in state politics, a sentiment especially strong among Republicans.

Slim majorities of California voters had little or no trust that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature act in the best interest of the public. According to the poll, 42% of voters said they have a lot or some trust in Newsom to act in the public’s interest; 53% said they trust his actions just a little or not at all.

Those surveyed had similar sentiments about the legislature.

The courts received the most favorable marks, with 57% of voters saying they trusted the judicial system to act in the best interest of the public.

Technology companies and their leaders were labeled completely untrustworthy by 58% of those surveyed.

Russia Chavis Cardenas, deputy director of the nonpartisan government accountability organization group California Common Cause, which has received grants from the poll-sponsoring Haas Fund, said the findings show just how much special interest influence in Sacramento, and Washington, erodes public trust in government, which may provide insight into their concerns about the health of the American democracy.

“I want to see folks from every political party, every race and every walk of life to be able to be engaged in their democracy, to be able to have a say, to be able to have representation,” Chavis Cardinas said.

“So these numbers are concerning, but they also don’t lie,” she said. “They’re letting us know that folks here in California recognize the influence that big money has, and that the tech companies have too much power over elected officials.”

The poll surveyed 6,474 registered voters throughout California from June 2-6.

Constitutional Court hears petition seeking premier’s dismissal as separate court hears defamation case against her father.

Thailand’s ruling political dynasty is facing legal peril, as the country’s Constitutional Court considers a petition seeking the dismissal of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, while a separate court hears a royal defamation suit against her father, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The petition filed by 36 senators and being heard on Tuesday accuses Paetongtarn of dishonesty and breaching ethical standards in violation of the constitution over a leaked telephone conversation with Cambodia’s influential former leader, Hun Sen. If the court accepts the case, it could decide to suspend the premier from duty with immediate effect.

Thaksin also has his first hearing at Bangkok’s Criminal Court on Tuesday in a case centred on allegations that he insulted Thailand’s powerful monarchy, a serious offence punishable by up to 15 years in prison if found guilty. He denies the charges and has repeatedly pledged allegiance to the crown.

The kingdom’s politics have for years been dominated by a battle between the conservative, pro-military, pro-royalist elite and the Shinawatra family, whom the elite consider a threat to Thailand’s traditional social order.

On Tuesday, Thailand’s Constitutional Court is due to meet for the first time since a group of conservative senators lodged a case against Paetongtarn, accusing her of breaching ministerial ethics during a diplomatic spat with Cambodia.

If the court decides to hear the case, they could suspend the prime minister as they enter months-long deliberations, plunging Thailand into chaos as it grapples with a spluttering economy and the threat of tariffs from the United States.

The controversy stems from a June 15 call intended to defuse escalating border tensions with Cambodia. During the call, Paetongtarn, 38, referred to Hun Sen as “uncle”, and criticised a Thai army commander, a red line in a country where the military has significant clout. She has apologised and said her remarks were a negotiating tactic.

The leaked conversation triggered outrage and has left Paetongtarn’s coalition with a razor-thin majority, with a key party abandoning the alliance and expected to soon seek a no-confidence vote in parliament, as thousands of demonstrators demand the premier resign.

“I will let the process take its course,” a downcast Paetongtarn told reporters on Monday. “If you are asking whether I am worried, I am.”

If Paetongtarn is suspended, power will pass to her deputy, Phumtham Wechayachai.

The 38-year-old Paetongtarn took office less than a year ago but has been badly weakened by the Cambodia controversy.

Thailand’s king on Tuesday approved Paetongtarn’s cabinet reshuffle after her allies quit. She has appointed herself as culture minister.

Meanwhile, Thaksin, the 75-year-old family patriarch and billionaire twice elected leader in the early 2000s, appeared at a Bangkok criminal court to face accusations of breaching strict lese-majeste laws used to shield Thailand’s king from criticism.

The allegations stem from a 2015 interview he gave to South Korean media and he faces up to 15 years in jail after the trial, which is set to last for weeks, with a verdict not expected for at least a month after that.

A court official confirmed to the AFP news agency that the trial had started but media would not be allowed in.

Thaksin has denied the charges against him and repeatedly pledged allegiance to the crown.

Thaksin dodged jail and spent six months in hospital detention on medical grounds before being released on parole in February last year. The Supreme Court will this month scrutinise that hospital stay and could potentially send him back to jail.