presidents

Tanzania’s incumbent president, Samia Suluhu Hassan, has been re-elected with 98 percent of the vote in an election denounced by the opposition as a sham.

The government has denied that hundreds of people have been killed in a police crackdown.

So, what’s behind this crisis, and what’s next?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests: 

Tito Magoti – independent human rights lawyer and activist

Nicodemus Minde – researcher with the East Africa Peace and Security Governance Program at the Institute for Security Studies in Nairobi

Fergus Kell – research fellow with the Africa Programme at London’s Chatham House

Kai Trump, President Trump’s eldest granddaughter, a high school senior and University of Miami commit, has secured a sponsor invitation to play in an LPGA Tour event Nov. 13-16.

The 18-year-old will compete in the Annika at Pelican Golf Club in Belleair, Fla. She currently attends the Benjamin School in Palm Beach and is ranked No. 461 on the American Junior Golf Assn. rankings. She also competes on the Srixon Medalist Tour on the South Florida PGA. Her top finish was a tie for third in July.

“My dream has been to compete with the best in the world on the LPGA Tour,” Trump said in a statement. “This event will be an incredible experience. I look forward meeting and competing against so many of my heroes and mentors in golf as I make my LPGA Tour debut.”

Sponsor invitations have long been used to attract attention to a tournament through a golfer who is from a well-known family or, in recent years, has a strong social media presence. Kai Trump qualifies on both counts.

She is the oldest daughter of Donald Trump Jr. and his ex-wife, Vanessa, and has nearly 8 million followers combined on Instagram, Tiktok, YouTube and X. In addition to posting her own exploits on and off the course, she creates videos playing golf with her grandpa and chronicled their visit to the Ryder Cup.

She also recently launched her own sports apparel and lifestyle brand, KT.

“Kai’s broad following and reach are helping introduce golf to new audiences, especially among younger fans,” said Ricki Lasky, LPGA chief tour business and operations officer, in a statement.

The oldest of the president’s 11 grandchildren, Kai became known nationally when she made a speech in support of her grandfather’s campaign at the 2024 Republican National Convention. Her parents divorced in 2018, and her mother has been dating Tiger Woods for about a year.

Oct. 8 (UPI) — The motorcade of President Daniel Noboa Azin came under protester attack Tuesday in central Ecuador, according to officials who are vowing to hold those responsible to account. Protesters, meanwhile, are accusing the president of inciting the violence.

Video of the incident posted to the official X account of the office of the president shows the caravan driving through a road littered with concrete rubble and lined by hundreds of masked protesters holding Ecuadorian flags and throwing rocks at the vehicles.

“No one can come and take by force the capital that belongs to all Ecuadorians,” Noboa said in a statement following the incident.

“Those who choose violence will be met by the law. Those who act like criminals will be treated as criminals.”

The incident occurred Tuesday morning in Canar Province where Noboa’s office said he was to announce development projects.

His office said the caravan had been “the target of violent attacks.”

“These cowardly acts will not halt his commitment to building a safer, stronger and more united Ecuador.”

The incident comes amid tensions between the presidency and Ecuador’s Indigenous community following the government’s discontinuation of a diesel fuel subsidy.

In response to the attack, the Governing Council of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador accused the president and his administration of antagonizing the protesters by specifically driving through what it called “a zone of resistance.”

“This incident, far from being an accident, constitutes a provocation by the national government,” it said in a statement, accusing it of using such incidents to justify its repression of protests.

“We reiterate that our mobilizations are legitimate, born from state neglect and structural exclusion. The Indigenous movement is not terrorist; it is a historic movement of struggle for life, dignity and the rights of peoples.”

There have been roadblocks and demonstrations by Indigenous and student organizations since last month when on Sept. 13 the price of a gallon of diesel fuel shot up by a dollar when the subsidies were cancel via executive decree to save the government more than $1.1 billion a year.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says an investigation is under way after drone spotted over government buildings in Warsaw.

Authorities in Poland have said that two Belarusian citizens were detained and a drone was “neutralised” after it was flown over government buildings and the presidential residence in the capital city, Warsaw.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said early on Tuesday that members of the country’s State Protection Services apprehended the two Belarusians, and police were “investigating the circumstances of the incident”.

The Associated Press news agency quoted Colonel Boguslaw Piorkowski, a spokesperson for the protection service, saying that the drone was not shot down by Polish forces but landed after authorities apprehended the operators.

“The impression is that this is not something that flew in from abroad but rather launched locally,” Katarzyna Pelczynska-Nalecz, Poland’s minister of development funds and regional policy, told local media outlet TVN 24, according to the AP.

The minister also advised the public against rushing to conclusions or associating the incident with last week’s high-profile incursion by multiple Russian drones into Polish airspace during an aerial attack on neighbouring Ukraine, the AP reported.

Przed chwilą Służba Ochrony Państwa zneutralizowała drona operującego nad budynkami rządowymi (Parkowa) i Belwederem. Zatrzymano dwóch obywateli Białorusi. Policja bada okoliczności incydentu.

— Donald Tusk (@donaldtusk) September 15, 2025

Translation: Just now, the State Protection Service neutralised a drone operating over government buildings (Parkowa) and the Belweder. Two Belarusian citizens were detained. The police are investigating the circumstances of the incident.

The reported arrest of the Belarusian drone operators by Polish authorities comes as thousands of troops from Belarus and Russia take part in the “Zapad (West) 2025” military drills, which kicked off on Friday and are due to end on Tuesday.

Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, which border Belarus, closed their frontier crossings and bolstered defences in advance of the exercises, which authorities in Minsk said involve 6,000 soldiers from Belarus and 1,000 from Russia.

Poland is also on high alert after last week’s Russian drone incursions, which led to Polish and NATO fighter jets mobilising to defend against what was described as an “unprecedented violation of Polish airspace” by Moscow.

Polish F-16 and Dutch F-35 fighter jets, as well as Italian AWACS surveillance planes, deployed to counter the drones, marking the first time that NATO-allied forces have engaged Russian military assets since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

One of the drones damaged a residential building in Wyryki, eastern Poland, though nobody was reported injured, according to the Reuters news agency.

On Friday, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte announced that the Western military alliance would increase its defence “posture” in Eastern Europe following the Polish airspace violation.

Operation “Eastern Sentry” will include military assets from a range of NATO members, including Denmark, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, Rutte said, describing the incursion as “reckless” and “unacceptable”.

Amid the increased tension with Russia, NATO member Romania also reported a drone incursion on Saturday, which led to the scrambling of two F-16 fighter jets as well as two Eurofighters and a warning to Romanian citizens to take cover.

Romanian Minister of National Defence Ionut Mosteanu said the fighter jets came close to shooting down the drone before it exited Romanian airspace into neighbouring Ukraine.

Moscow’s ambassador to Romania was summoned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Sunday, where Bucharest “conveyed its strong protest against this unacceptable and irresponsible act, which constitutes a violation of [its] sovereignty”.

Russia was “urgently requested… to prevent any future violations”, the Romanian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Saint-Denis, who was born in Nimes, southern France, formed part of the French Army Special Forces when he joined aged 18.

“Most of my work as a Special Force operator was in the sub-Saharan area. So Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger. I was mostly there against Boko Haram,” says Saint-Denis.

Boko Haram is a militant Islamist group, designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Kingdom, which operates in countries such as Nigeria, Niger and Mali.

Saint-Denis’ work largely involved working in counter-terrorism to combat the threat of groups like Boko Haram.

“When we are talking about counter-terrorism, it’s going to be the arrest or the destruction of terrorist threats. Or stopping terrorist extractions in cities like Timbuktu, for example,” Saint-Denis says.

His team were also tasked with protecting important members of the French government, like Hollande, during foreign visits.

Saint-Denis looks back on his time in the French military fondly.

“It was long and fatiguing and demanding, and after this I think I was a man – I was disciplined, and I knew how to work to get things done,” he says.

“It was very adventurous, and I loved it.”

Fighting terrorism and competing in the UFC are vastly different worlds with pressures of their own, but Saint-Denis does not have to dwell for long when deciding which is tougher.

“It depends on the occasion, but globally, I would say being a UFC fighter,” he adds.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — With a preventive detention order issued by Peru’s judiciary against former President Martín Vizcarra, the country now has all of its former presidents jailed simultaneously on corruption and other serious charges — an unprecedented situation worldwide.

Former President Martín Vizcarra entered Barbadillo prison in Lima on Aug. 13 to serve five months of preventive detention while awaiting trial on corruption allegations stemming from his time as regional governor of Moquegua between 2011 and 2014. He is accused of taking more than $600,000 in bribes linked to two public works contracts.

Although the case does not involve his time as head of state, Vizcarra becomes the fifth former Peruvian president sent to prison in the past 18 years. Barbadillo prison already holds Pedro Castillo, Alejandro Toledo and Ollanta Humala, and was first adapted to house Alberto Fujimori in facilities built specifically for a former president.

“Peru is clearly facing a legitimacy crisis in its political class, one with deep roots that reinforces the public perception that corruption permeates every level of power,” said Carlos Escaffi, a professor of international relations at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru.

Within this context, Escaffi pointed to the role of Peru’s judiciary, particularly the Public Ministry, “which has shown no hesitation in bringing the accused to trial, something that can be seen as progress in the fight against corruption.”

In 2009, former President Alberto Fujimori was sentenced to 25 years in prison, mainly for crimes tied to human rights violations and corruption during his 1990 to 2000 presidency.

After serving more than 15 years, he was granted a humanitarian pardon in 2017 for health reasons, though the measure was annulled and reinstated several times before he was freed for good in 2023 under an order from Peru’s Constitutional Court. He died in September 2024.

In the case of Alan García, who twice served as president, he died by suicide in 2019 as police tried to arrest him on corruption allegations tied to Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, which paid massive bribes across Latin America.

Among the other former presidents held in Barbadillo prison, Alejandro Toledo is serving a 20-year sentence for collusion and money laundering related to Odebrecht bribes, while Ollanta Humala is serving a sentence for illicit contributions to his presidential campaigns.

Pedro Castillo has been in preventive detention since late 2022 on corruption allegations during his presidency and for attempting a failed coup.

Martín Vizcarra became president of Peru in 2018 after then-President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski resigned rather than face impeachment by Congress. In 2022, Vizcarra was placed under house arrest. He is currently free with restrictions — barred from leaving Peru — and faces money laundering and collusion charges, though no final sentence has been issued.

As for current President Dina Boluarte, Peru’s Constitutional Court ruled Tuesday in favor of a petition from the executive branch and ordered all criminal investigations and impeachment proceedings against her suspended until her term ends on July 28, 2026.

The cases — including deaths during protests in 2022 and 2023, the so-called “Rolexgate” scandal over alleged illicit enrichment, and accusations of abandoning office — can resume only after she leaves the presidency.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares for a summit in Alaska with his United States counterpart Donald Trump, he can draw on his experiences from 48 previous meetings with American presidents.

Over 25 years as Russia’s leader, Putin has met and worked with five US presidents: Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden.

While some of the earlier meetings were relatively warm, reflecting the hopes of US-Russia friendship between the end of the Cold War and the early 2000s, most of Putin’s more recent interactions — especially with Obama and Biden — have been frostier, as bilateral ties have worsened.

Here’s a recap of some of the key moments from those past meetings, and how jazz concerts and fishing trips gave way to threats.

June 2000: Putin-Clinton

Less than three months after he formally became president of Russia, Putin hosted US President Clinton in Moscow. The Russian leader took Clinton on a tour of the Kremlin, after which a Russian jazz group performed for them.

Clinton congratulated Putin on Russia’s decision to ratify two arms control treaties. “President Yeltsin led Russia to freedom. Under President Putin, Russia has the chance to build prosperity and strength, while safeguarding that freedom and the rule of law,” Clinton said, referring to Boris Yeltsin, Putin’s predecessor as president.

Putin, on his part, described the US as “one of our main partners”. Moscow, he said, would never again seek confrontation with Washington. “Never. We are for cooperation. We are for coming to agreement on problems that might arise,” he said.

But Clinton acknowledged their differences over Chechnya, where Russian forces had launched a major war the previous year, after a series of apartment blasts in Russia killed more than 300 people. Moscow blamed Chechen separatists for the explosions.

The Moscow meeting was the first of four between Putin and Clinton in 2000, the others on the margins of multilateral events, before the US president left office in January the following year.

November 2001: Putin-Bush

After the September 11 attacks, Putin was the first world leader to call then-US President Bush and offer support. Two months later, Bush hosted Putin at his Crawford, Texas ranch, optimism about ties dripping from his words.

“When I was in high school, Russia was an enemy. Now the high school students can know Russia as a friend; that we’re working together to break the old ties, to establish a new spirit of cooperation and trust so that we can work together to make the world more peaceful,” Bush said. Bush drove Putin in a pick-up truck to a waterfall on the ranch.

But by the time they met in Russia in November 2002, US-led efforts for NATO expansion had injected unease into the relationship.

July 2007: Putin-Bush

By this point, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 had amplified tensions between the two countries. But despite differences, Bush continued to maintain a warm personal relationship with Putin, whom he hosted at his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Both acknowledged areas where their views diverged, but they each credited the other with transparency.

Bush took Putin fishing. The Russian president was the only one who caught a fish on that trip – it was set free, Putin said.

April 2008: Putin-Bush

The final meeting between Bush and Putin as presidents took place in Sochi, Russia, and was focused on US plans to expand a missile defence system in Europe that Russia was opposing.

There was no breakthrough – the two leaders agreed to disagree.

But their personal rapport appeared intact. Bush met Putin 28 times in total. He only met British Prime Minister Tony Blair more.

July 2009: Putin-Obama

Putin was now prime minister, with ally Dmitry Medvedev the Russian president.

US President Obama met Putin during a visit to Moscow. By now, differences had grown over Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, which the US had opposed.

“We may not end up agreeing on everything, but I think that we can have a tone of mutual respect and consultation that will serve both the American people and the Russian people well,” Obama told Putin.

June 2013: Putin-Obama

As Obama met Putin on the margins of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland — Russia had been added to the grouping in 1998 and was expelled in 2014 after its annexation of Crimea — their frustration with each other was visible in an awkward photo that made headlines.

The US and its allies wanted then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to quit amid the civil war in that country, but Russia was backing him.

“With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence; securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they’re neither used nor are they subject to proliferation,” Obama said.

November 2016: Putin-Obama

By the time Obama and Putin met for the ninth and final time at the APEC Summit in Peru, there was no pretence of bonhomie.

Russia had accused the US of engineering a coup against its ally and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. The US and its allies had imposed sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Crimea.

Putin and Obama spoke for barely four minutes on the sidelines of the summit, with the US president asking his Russian counterpart to stick to his commitments under the Minsk agreements that were meant to bring peace to Ukraine.

July 2018: Putin-Trump

A year and a half into his first presidency, Trump’s victory in the 2016 US presidential election was still clouded by accusations that Russia had interfered in the election on his behalf when he met Putin in Helsinki.

The two met alone, with only interpreters. In a media interaction after that, Putin tried to recast the relationship in optimistic hues. “The Cold War is a thing of past,” he said, before listing a series of modern challenges facing the world — from an environmental crisis to terrorism. “We can only cope with these challenges if we join the ranks and work together. Hopefully, we will reach this understanding with our American partners.”

But it was Trump who made headlines. After he acknowledged that he had discussed the allegations of election interference with Putin, Trump was asked whether he believed US intelligence agencies that had concluded that Moscow had intervened in the vote.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said. “He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

Trump met Putin six times in all in his first term.

June 2021: Putin-Biden

US President Joe Biden flew to Geneva for his only face-to-face meeting with Putin.

After years of steady deterioration, relations had reached their nadir after Biden had described Putin as a killer in March, prompting Russia to withdraw its ambassador from Washington. The US had followed.

The Geneva meeting helped reset ties – a bit. Both countries agreed to reappoint ambassadors.

But Biden was also blunt with Putin about US concerns over Russian election interference and cyberattacks, and said he had, in effect, threatened Moscow that Washington could launch tit-for-tat cyberstrikes.

Russia by then was building up its troop presence along the border with Ukraine, a key source of stress in ties with the US that came up during the Putin-Biden meeting.

Eight months later, Russia would launch a fully fledged invasion of Ukraine, marking the start of Europe’s largest war since World War II — a war Trump says he wants to end through the summit in Alaska on August 15.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump’s effort Wednesday to influence the federal appeals judges who are considering whether to reinstate his restrictions on entry into the U.S. was notable for both the highly public setting — a televised speech — and the vitriol that Trump aimed at sitting judges still deciding the case.

Here’s how it compares with other recent presidents weighing in on pending court cases, ranging from cajoling to avoiding the topic altogether.

Lyndon Johnson, Civil Rights Act

In a speech at a dinner in Cleveland, Johnson lamented the struggles of implementing the 1964 Civil Rights Act while a challenge to the law — a case known as Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States — sat before the court. He did not comment on the case itself.

“It is now in the Supreme Court and we have had lots of difficulty with it, but we have tried to be patient and we have tried to be understanding.”

The court would go on to decide that the Constitution gave the government the power to force businesses to comply with the Civil Rights Act.

Jimmy Carter, affirmative action

Asked during a Q&A about Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, which challenged affirmative action, Carter pointed to the separation of powers in avoiding comment.

“It’s in the hands of the Supreme Court and we have filed our position, that there’s nothing additionally that we would do until after the Supreme Court rules.”

Ronald Reagan, separation of powers

Bowsher vs. Synar, a case that challenged a key provision of the Gramm-Rudman budget-balancing act, produced a landmark decision on the separation of powers itself. Reagan opened a news conference by remarking on a recent lower-court ruling in the case but chose to steer the conversation to the underlying issue, the federal budget.

“We await a final Supreme Court decision, but nothing the court says should or will remove our obligation to bring overspending under control.”

George H.W. Bush, abortion

On the day that an abortion-related case, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, was argued before the Supreme Court, Bush was asked about it at a news conference but demurred. When a reporter pressed him, Bush, who had spoken out multiple times against abortion, hinted that he wanted to make his position known but stopped short of stating it plainly.

“I hate to not respond to your question,” he said. “But the court is probably going to make a decision very soon, and I would prefer to address myself to the question after the court has decided.”

Barack Obama, Affordable Care Act

Obama was the first president to make a persistent public push for his side of a pending court case; his landmark healthcare law hung in the balance.

But his tone was subtler than Trump.

First, during a news conference in 2012, Obama, who once taught constitutional law, urged justices to respect the separation of powers.

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” he said.

Obama followed up a day later by suggesting the justices follow precedent. “I expect the Supreme Court actually to — to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedents out there,” he said.

His persistence marked a departure for the presidency, Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law, wrote in his book “Unraveled.”

“Very few presidents have spoken about pending Supreme Court cases after arguments were submitted. Even fewer discussed the merits of the cases,” Blackman wrote. “Only a handful could be seen as preemptively faulting the justices for ruling against the government.”

The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of the Obama administration in the case, National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, as it would later in King vs. Burwell.

Obama, money in politics

The Affordable Care Act was not Obama’s first venture into court commentary, though. He also used one of the president’s most high-profile venues to address a ruling: the State of the Union.

In addressing lawmakers in late January 2010, Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission of a few days earlier that held that corporations had the same right to free speech as people. The court’s conservative majority concluded that the government thus could not stop corporations from spending on candidates.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Obama drew applause from Democrats, but an immediate rebuke from one justice who was present: Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed “not true” as Obama spoke.

As a senator, Obama had voted against Alito’s confirmation in 2006.

[email protected]

Twitter: @amyfiscus

ALSO:

Trump takes aim at judges, saying ‘a bad high school student’ would see the law favors him

Not just ‘bad hombres’: Trump is targeting up to 8 million people for deportation

Homeland Security secretary says a border wall won’t be built all at once

UPDATES:

12:40 p.m., Feb. 9: This story was updated with Obama’s comments on the Citizens United ruling.

This story was originally published at 3:20 p.m. on Feb. 8.

We, the presidents of Gaza’s three non-profit universities— Al-Aqsa University, Al-Azhar University-Gaza, and the Islamic University of Gaza — together accounting for the vast majority of Gaza’s students and faculty members, issue this unified statement to the international academic community at a time of unprecedented devastation of higher education in Gaza.

Israel’s ongoing genocidal war has brought about scholasticide—a systematic and deliberate attempt to eliminate our universities, their infrastructure, faculty, and students. This destruction is not collateral; it is part of a targeted effort to eradicate the foundations of higher education in Gaza—foundations that have long stood as pillars of resilience, hope, and intellectual freedom under conditions of occupation and siege. While academic institutions across Palestine have faced attacks for decades, what we are witnessing today is an escalation: a shift from repeated acts of destruction to an attempt at total annihilation.

Yet, we remain resolute. For more than a year, we have mobilised and taken steps to resist this assault and ensure that our universities endure.

Despite the physical obliteration of campuses, laboratories, libraries, and other facilities, and the assassination of our students and colleagues, our universities continue to exist. We are more than buildings — we are academic communities, comprised of students, faculty, and staff, still alive and determined to carry forward our mission.

As articulated in the Unified Emergency Statement from Palestinian Academics and Administrators issued on May 29, 2024, “Israeli occupation forces have demolished our buildings, but our universities live on.”

For over a year, our faculty, staff and students have persisted in our core mission — teaching — under unimaginably harsh conditions. Constant bombardment, starvation, restrictions on internet access, unstable electricity, and the ongoing horrors of genocide have not broken our will. We are still here, still teaching, and still committed to the future of education in Gaza.

We urgently call on our colleagues around the world to work for:

• A sustainable and lasting ceasefire, without which no education system can thrive, and an end to all complicity with this genocide.
• Immediate international mobilisation to support and protect Gaza’s higher education institutions as vital to the survival and long-term future of the Palestinian people.
• Recognition of scholasticide as a systematic war on education, and the necessity of coordinated and strategic international support in partnership with our universities for the resilience and rebuilding of our academic infrastructure and communities.

We appeal to the international academic community — our colleagues, institutions, and friends — to:

• Support our efforts to continue teaching and conducting research, under siege and amidst loss.
• Commit to the long-term rebuilding of Gaza’s universities in partnership with us, respecting our institutional autonomy and academic agency.
• Work in partnership with us. Engage directly with and support the very institutions that continue to embody academic life and collective intellectual resistance in Gaza.

Last year, we formally established the Emergency Committee of the Universities in Gaza, representing our three institutions and affiliated colleges — together enrolling between 80 and 85 percent of Gaza universities’ students. The committee exists to resist the erasure of our universities and offer a unified voice for Gaza’s academic community. It has since established subject-focused subcommittees to serve as trusted and coordinated channels for support.

We call upon academic communities around the world to coordinate themselves in response to this call. The time for symbolic solidarity has passed. We now ask for practical, structured, and enduring partnership.

Work alongside us to ensure that Gaza’s universities live on and remain a vital part of our collective future.

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

July 9 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday met the presidents of five African nations — Senegal, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Gabon — in what the White House describes as a push to deepen trade, including that involving precious metals.

During the public portion of the lunch in the State Dining Room, Trump said the United States was “working tirelessly to forge new economic opportunities involving both the United States and many African nations.”

The luncheon is part of a three-day summit of the nations in Washington, D.C.

“We’re shifting from aid to trade,” Trump said. “In the long run, this will be far more effective and sustainable and beneficial than anything else that we could be doing together.”

Trump said these five counties might be exempt from reciprocal tariffs on Aug. 1. Most U.S. trading partners already have been slapped with a 10% baseline tariffs.

The five African leaders praised Trump.

One by one, the leaders encouraged the United States to invest in their countries and develop their plentiful natural resources.

“I didn’t know I’d be treated this nicely,” Trump said. “This is great. We could do this all day long.”

In 2017, during Trump’s first term in office, nine African nation’s heads of state participated in a “working lunch” that included bigger nations, including Nigeria, Ethiopia and South Africa.

“This discussion and lunch dialog with African heads of state was arranged because President Trump believes that African countries offer incredible commercial opportunities which benefit both the American people and our African partners,” a White House official said.

The five invited nations have a combined population of 33 million people in a contingent with 1.55 billion people. Senegal, with 18 million, is the largest of the group. The five nations’ combined gross domestic product is only around $75 billion, according to the International Monetary Fund.

“It’s hard to tell why these five countries were picked,” Professor Paul Agwu of Nigeria’s University of Port Harcourt, told NPR. “We’ll see what comes out of it — but I doubt it’ll be anything new.”

Of the nations invited, all but Gabon, with a population of 2.2 million, are along routes used by migrants and drug traffickers from Latin America.

“All these countries are also departure points for illegal emigration,” Babacar Diagne, Senegal’s former ambassador to Washington, told the BBC. “That’s an extremely important point in his migration policy, and every day people are turned back at the borders.”

Liberia may be considering a proposal by the United States to accept people deported, including criminals.

In June, Trump issued a full travel ban for 12 nations, including seven from Africa: Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. With partial bans in Africa are Burindi, Sierra Leone and Tongo.

All of the five nations invited to the White House are rich in mineral resources, including oil and gas, gold, iron ore and rare earth elements.

“We are not poor countries,” Nguema said. “We are rich countries when it comes to raw materials. But we need partners to support us and help us develop those resources with win-win partnerships.”

Nguema also pushed Trump to purchase directly from Gabon instead of companies.

“I’m sure that it’s more expensive compared to when you can come and buy directly from us,” he said.

Gabon holds around a quarter of the world’s known reserves of manganese, which is used in the production of batteries and stainless steel.

Last month, the Trump administration brokered a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, including potentially unlocking “substantial” untapped deposits of gold, cobalt and high-grade copper, as well as diamonds and lithium, which key element for powering the green power transition.

The DRC reportedly offered access to its resources to the United States in exchange for assistance in resolving the conflict after it effectively lost control of the east of the country at the beginning of the year.

“Tump is transactional — he wants to know what these nations can offer,” Professor David Okoye of Nigeria’s Niger Delta University told NPR.

The United States is concerned about China’s expanding impact in Africa. Beijing reportedly is scouting port locations along West Africa’s coast for possible military use.

“The U.S. has been watching Chinese interest in places like Gabon, Guinea, and Mauritania very closely,” said Cameron Hudson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

China is Africa’s top trade and investment partner.

The five nations’ leaders at the White House are not aligned with the 11-member BRICS, a group of headed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, as well as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Indonesia.

On Monday, Trump said countries that support BRICS nations would be slapped with an additional 10% tariff when across-the-board import duties on the United States’ trading partners take effect Aug. 1.

BRICS leaders earlier attended a two-day summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brfazil, that issued a formal statement critical of the U.S. tariff stance.

Liberia has been the victim of the closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier this year, forcing the closure of health centers, and shortages in HIV medication and contraceptives. U.S. support previously made up nearly 3% of Liberia’s national income, which is the highest of any country, according to the Center for Global Development.

During the luncheon, Trump touted the closure of USAID.

“Trump is a businessman,” political analyst Mamadou Thior told CNN. “The USAID, which was a key partner for countries like Senegal, no longer exists. It’s up to them to talk to Trump, to see what new cooperation they can put forward.”

The move follows the lifting of sanctions on Damascus after the fall of the al-Assad government last year.

The United States will revoke its designation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) as a foreign terrorist organisation (FTO) as Washington softens its approach to post-war Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government last year.

The decision, which takes effect on Tuesday, comes as part of US President Donald Trump’s broader strategy to re-engage with Syria and support its reconstruction after more than a decade of devastating conflict.

“This FTO revocation is an important step in fulfilling President Trump’s vision of a stable, unified, and peaceful Syria,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement Monday.

HTS had been designated as a “terrorist” group by the US since 2018 due to its former ties to al-Qaeda.

The group emerged out of the al-Nusra Front, once al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, but formally severed those ties in 2016 after HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa declared the group’s independence.

Al-Sharaa, who led the opposition forces that removed al-Assad in a lightning offensive last December, has since become Syria’s president.

He has launched what many experts have described as a charm offensive aimed at Western powers, including meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron and, most recently, Trump in Riyadh in May.

The Trump administration and the European Union have since lifted sanctions on Syria.

“In line with President Trump’s May 13 promise to deliver sanctions relief to Syria, I am announcing my intent to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation of al-Nusrah Front, also known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), under the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Rubio said.

“Tomorrow’s action follows the announced dissolution of HTS and the Syrian government’s commitment to combat terrorism in all its forms.”

HTS was dissolved in late January, with its forces folded into the official Syrian military and security forces.

Damascus welcomed the US decision as a step towards normalisation. In a statement, Syria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the delisting of HTS was a “positive step toward correcting a course that previously hindered constructive engagement”.

The ministry added that it hoped the move would “contribute to the removal of remaining restrictions that continue to impact Syrian institutions and officials, and open the door to a rational, sovereign-based approach to international cooperation”.

Meanwhile, HTS remains under United Nations Security Council sanctions, which were imposed in 2014 over its previous affiliation with al-Qaeda. Al-Sharaa also remains under UNSC sanctions, which can only be removed by the Council itself.

Al-Sharaa is reportedly preparing to attend the UN General Assembly in New York this September.

BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Elon Musk said he’s carrying out his threat to form a new political party after his fissure with President Trump, announcing the America Party in response to the president’s sweeping tax cuts law.

Musk, once an ever-present ally to Trump as he headed up the White House advisory team, which he calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, broke with the Republican president over his signature legislation, which was signed into law Friday.

As the bill made its way through Congress, Musk threatened to form the “America Party” if “this insane spending bill passes.”

“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Musk said Saturday on X, the social media company he owns. “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

The formation of new political parties is not uncommon, but they typically struggle to pull any significant support away from the Republican and Democratic parties. But Musk, the world’s richest man who spent at least $250 million supporting Trump in the 2024 election, could affect the 2026 elections determining control of Congress if he is willing to spend significant amounts of money.

His reignited feud with the president could also be costly for Musk, whose businesses rely on billions of dollars in government contracts and publicly traded company Tesla has taken a hit in the market.

It wasn’t clear whether Musk had taken steps to formally create the new political party. Spokespeople for Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, didn’t immediately comment Sunday.

As of Sunday morning, there were multiple political parties listed in the Federal Election Commission database that had been formed in the the hours since Musk’s Saturday X post with versions of “America Party” of “DOGE” or “X” in the name, or Musk listed among people affiliated with the entity.

But none appeared to be authentic, listing contacts for the organization as email addresses such as ” [email protected]″ or untraceable Protonmail addresses.

Musk on Sunday spent the morning on X taking feedback from users about the party and indicated he’d use the party to get involved in the 2026 midterm elections.

Last month, he threatened to try to oust every member of Congress who voted for Trump’s bill. Musk had called the tax breaks and spending cuts package a “disgusting abomination,” warning it would increase the federal deficit, among other critiques.

“The Republican Party has a clean sweep of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and STILL had the nerve to massively increase the size of government, expanding the national debt by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS,” Musk said Sunday on X.

His critiques of the bill and move to form a political party mark a reversal from May, when his time in the White House was winding down and the head of rocket company SpaceX and electric vehicle maker Tesla said he would spend “a lot less” on politics in the future.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who clashed with Musk while he ran DOGE, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that DOGE’s “principles” were popular but “if you look at the polling, Elon was not.”

“I imagine that those board of directors did not like this announcement yesterday and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities,” he said.

Price writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump isn’t the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad.

Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.

His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict.

Even after Trump announced late Monday that a “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump’s action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran.

Here’s a closer look at what the act does and doesn’t do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond:

Dividing war powers between Congress and the president

Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn’t already issued a declaration of war.

It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its “collective judgement” to send troops into “hostilities.” The War Powers Resolution calls for the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

But when Congress enacted the law, “it didn’t install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,” said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

“Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,” Anderson said. And “the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it’s hard to say it’s in clear contradiction” to the War Powers Resolution.

Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term.

If Congress doesn’t authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president “terminate any use” of the armed forces. “That’s the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,” Anderson said.

How past presidents have used it

Congress hasn’t declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Nixon’s veto.

Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn’t require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn’t an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.

Throughout his presidency, President Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn’t rise to the level of “hostilities” set forth in the War Powers Resolution.

What Congress is doing now

Trump’s actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn’t broken cleanly along party lines.

Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total” ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours.

Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill’s sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come “as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.” He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday.

“There will be Republicans who will support it,” Kaine said. “Exactly how many, I don’t know.”

He added that, “this is as fluid a vote as I’ve been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.”

Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump’s actions on Monday and said he’s operating within his authority.

“There’s always a tension between Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s power as commander in chief,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.”

A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached.

Khanna was undeterred.

“In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization,” Khanna said. “We still need a vote.”

Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump has signed several economic deals on his visit to the Gulf region.

One of the biggest deals was signed in Qatar, where Boeing secured its largest-ever order of wide-body jets from Qatar Airways.

Doha also promised to invest more than $10bn in the Al Udeid Air Base, one of the US’s biggest military facilities in the world.

Trump says he’s forging a future with the Middle East defined by commerce, not chaos. But could that mean regional stability and security are now taking a back seat?

And how likely is it that the US president would throw US weight behind ending the devastating war in Gaza?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Faisal al-Mudahka – Editor-in-chief, Gulf Times

Andreas Krieg – Senior lecturer, King’s College London’s School of Security Studies

Paul Musgrave – Associate professor of government, Georgetown University in Qatar

Syrians celebrated throughout the night after US President Donald Trump announced he would lift US sanctions on Syria during his visit to Saudi Arabia. Imran Khan breaks down what this means for the Syrian people.