Refugees

Move part of broader immigration crackdown as ruling Labour Party comes under pressure from hard-right Reform UK party.

The United Kingdom’s Labour government has said it is suspending a scheme enabling registered refugees to bring family members into the country amid soaring support for the far right in opinion polls.

UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced on Monday that she was “temporarily” suspending new applications to the refugee family reunion route as the government draws up new rules set to be introduced by spring next year.

“The system has to be controlled and managed based on fair and properly enforced rules, not chaos and exploitation driven by criminal smuggler gangs,” she said.

Under the current system, an asylum seeker granted indefinite leave to remain in the country can bring in children under the age of 18, and their partner if they can prove they have been in a relationship for at least two years.

Cooper told Parliament that increasing numbers of family reunion applications had placed pressure on housing across the country, with many applying to bring relatives over within about a month. One of the planned reforms would mean longer waiting periods before applying.

Refugee charities blasted the move. Safe Passage, which supports child refugees, accused the government of “giving in to far-right pressure”, saying that it would leave children fleeing war and persecution in countries like Afghanistan, Sudan or Iran “trapped in danger”.

🚨 SHOCKING: The UK Government has temporarily suspended all new refugee family reunion applications.

The consequences will be devastating for the children we support, who’ve now been stripped of almost every safe route to join their loved ones. pic.twitter.com/YErszylNft

— Safe Passage International🧡 (@safepassageint) September 1, 2025

Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “Far from stopping people taking dangerous journeys to cross the Channel, these changes will only push more desperate people into the arms of smugglers in an effort to reunite with loved ones.”

Far right whipping up anger

Cooper announced the move as Labour faced a bumpy return to Parliament after a summer break that has seen anti-immigration protesters repeatedly targeting hotels housing asylum seekers in various parts of England – most recently in Epping, northeast of London, on Sunday.

Facing pressure from Nigel Farage’s hard-right Reform UK party, which has whipped up anger over people arriving in small boats over the English Channel from France, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Monday that he will accelerate plans to empty the asylum hotels.

Accused of moving too slowly, the government has been eager to demonstrate it is tackling a problem left by previous Conservative-led administrations by brokering return deals with other nations and speeding up the processing of asylum claims.

Cooper said that the UK and France will start implementing a “one in, one out” pilot scheme later this month, with the former sending refugees and asylum seekers to the latter in exchange for approved applicants.

“Applications have also been opened for the reciprocal legal route, with the first cases under consideration subject to strict security checks,” she said, adding that “family groups” would be prioritised under the deal with France.

The government will also establish a new independent body to deal with appeals as tens of thousands of people in asylum accommodation are currently awaiting a decision, Cooper said.

She added that the current average waiting time for appeals to be heard is 54 weeks.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Israeli military says city in northern Gaza is now a ‘combat zone’, suspends daily pauses in fighting there that allowed delivery of humanitarian aid.

The Israeli military says it has begun the “initial stages” of its offensive on Gaza City, as it declared the largest urban centre in the besieged territory a “combat zone” and announced the suspension of daily pauses in fighting there that allowed the entry of humanitarian aid.

“We are not waiting. We have begun preliminary operations and the initial stages of the attack on Gaza City,” Israeli military spokesman Avichay Adraee wrote in a post on X on Friday.

“We are currently operating with great force on the outskirts of the city,” he said.

The announcement came as the Israeli military confirmed it suspended so-called “tactical pauses” in its attacks on the city in northern Gaza that had previously allowed limited humanitarian operations there.

“Starting today at 10:00am (07:00 GMT), the tactical-local ceasefire of military activity will not apply to the Gaza City area, which constitutes a dangerous combat zone,” the military said on X.

Israeli forces have launched a sustained bombardment on Gaza City since early August, as the military prepares for a larger assault to seize Gaza’s largest urban centre – in an operation that could forcibly displace a million Palestinians to concentration zones in southern Gaza.

The relentless bombardment from the air and land has forced residents to flee to the western parts of the city, the Palestinian Ministry of Health has told Al Jazeera.

Gaza’s Civil Defence estimates that more than 1,000 residential buildings in the Zeitoun and Sabra neighbourhoods of Gaza City have been flattened since August 6.

Residents described relentless bombardment and attacks from helicopters. “They launched a firebelt attack only 150 metres (500ft) away from us. They scorched the entire area,” said Nihad Madoukh from Sheikh Radwan in northwestern Gaza City, speaking to Al Jazeera. “It was very scary bombardment.”

Displaced resident Ahmed Moqat said he had been moving constantly to escape Israeli attacks. “Here’s the debris that fell last night next to my head,” he said. “Now I will go out in the street, only God knows where I will go.”

Dozens killed across Gaza

At least 41 Palestinians, including six aid seekers, were killed in attacks across Gaza on Friday, medical sources told Al Jazeera.

Palestinian health workers told Al Jazeera that three of the aid seekers were shot dead by Israeli forces near the Netzarim Corridor in central Gaza on Friday.

Medical sources said Israeli air strikes hit the so-called “safe zone” of al-Mawasi, west of Khan Younis, killing at least five people and wounding dozens as they slept in tents.

“We were sleeping when the bombing happened,” said a man caring for his grandchildren, whose father was killed two months ago. “The strike hit our area … We took the wounded ourselves to Nasser Hospital before the ambulances arrived. Stop this war against us. Have mercy on the children.”

More than 62,600 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed by Israel in its nearly two-year war on Gaza, and at least 157,600 have been wounded, according to Palestinian health authorities.

Qatar’s foreign ministry said delegations were meeting in Doha to review the implementation of a truce signed in July.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the M23 armed group have resumed negotiations in Qatar as violence deepens in the country’s mineral-rich eastern provinces in spite of a recently signed an agreement to reach a full peace deal.

Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Majed al-Ansari said delegations from Kinshasa and the M23 were meeting in Doha to review the implementation of a truce signed in July. “We’ve received the two parties here in Doha to discuss the earlier agreement,” Ansari said at a news briefing on Tuesday.

The deal, brokered by Qatar, committed both sides to a ceasefire and a path to a final settlement. Under its terms, talks were supposed to begin on 8 August and conclude by 18 August. Both deadlines passed without progress, and the agreement has faltered amid accusations of violations from both sides.

Ansari said the current discussions include plans to create a mechanism for monitoring the truce, as well as an exchange of prisoners and detainees. He added that the United States and the International Committee of the Red Cross were closely involved in supporting the talks.

The Qatar-led initiative followed a separate ceasefire agreement signed in Washington between Rwanda, who back M23, and DRC in June. But the M23 rejected that deal, demanding direct negotiations with Kinshasa to address what it called unresolved political grievances.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he ended the conflict, and several others, describing DRC as the “darkest, deepest” part of Africa and asserting that he “saved lots of lives.” On Monday, Trump claimed that nine million people were “killed with machetes” during the decades-long war, insisting, “I stopped it.”

Rights groups have dismissed Trump’s claims as misleading. “It is far from the reality to say that he has ended the war,” said Christian Rumu of Amnesty International. “People on the ground continue to experience grave human rights violations, and some of these amount to crimes against humanity,” he added, calling on Washington to accelerate efforts to secure peace.

Despite multiple ceasefire attempts, fighting has intensified in North and South Kivu provinces, forcing more than two million people from their homes this year. Human Rights Watch last week accused the M23 of carrying out ethnically targeted “mass killings,” while United Nations experts have said Rwandan forces played a “critical” role in supporting the group’s offensive.

Rwanda denies involvement, but the M23’s capture of vast areas, including the regional capital Goma earlier this year, has fuelled fears of a wider regional conflict.

The DRC’s eastern region, home to some of the world’s richest deposits of gold, cobalt, and coltan, has been devastated by years of armed conflict, with civilians bearing the brunt of atrocities despite repeated international mediation efforts.

Uganda is the latest of several countries to strike a deportation deal with the United States as President Donald Trump ramps up controversial efforts to remove migrants from the country.

In a statement on Thursday, Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Kampala had agreed for Washington to send over third-country nationals who face deportation from the US, but are unwilling to return to their home countries. The ministry said that the agreement was made under certain conditions.

Rights groups and law experts have condemned Trump’s controversial plans to deport millions of undocumented migrants. Those already deported include convicted criminals and “uniquely barbaric monsters,” according to the White House.

African countries, such as Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, have accepted similar deals, reportedly in exchange for lower tariffs. The US’s actions are exploitative and tantamount to treating the continent as a “dumping ground,” Melusi Simelane of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) told Al Jazeera, adding that Washington was especially focusing on countries with weak human rights protection.

Here’s what you need to know about the Uganda deal and what countries might be getting in return for hosting US deportees:

What did Uganda agree to?

In a statement posted on X on Thursday, Bagiire Vincent Waiswa, the permanent secretary of Uganda’s Foreign Ministry, said the country had agreed to a “temporary arrangement” with the US. He did not state the timelines for when the deportations would begin or end.

There are caveats regarding the people who would be transferred, the statement continued, including that Uganda will not accept people with criminal records or unaccompanied minors and that it “prefers” that Africans be transferred as part of the deal.

“The two parties are working out the detailed modalities on how the agreement shall be implemented,” the statement added.

A US State Department statement confirmed that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had held discussions over the phone regarding “migration, reciprocal trade, and commercial ties”.

The deal’s announcement came after weeks of speculation in local Ugandan media regarding whether the East African nation would accept US deportees.

On Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Henry Okello Oryem denied the media reports, saying Uganda did not have the facilities to accommodate deportees.

Speaking to The Associated Press news agency, Oryem said Uganda was discussing issues of “visas, tariffs, sanctions and related issues” with the US, but not of migration.

“We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?” he told the AP.

A day later, Uganda’s narrative had flipped.

What might Uganda gain from this?

The Foreign Ministry’s statement on Thursday did not state what Uganda might be getting in return.

Other countries, including Eswatini, have reportedly accepted deportees in exchange for lower tariffs.

Uganda has been hit with 15 percent tariffs on goods entering the US, as part of Trump’s reciprocal tariff wars. Senior government officials in early August told local media that the tariffs would disrupt Ugandan exports, especially in the agricultural sector, and that Kampala would enter negotiations for a better deal.

Coffee, vanilla, cocoa beans and petroleum products are some of Uganda’s key exports to the US. Kampala is particularly keen on boosting coffee exports to the US and competing with bigger suppliers like Colombia. The US, on the other hand, exports machinery, such as aircraft parts, to Uganda, which imposes an 18 percent tariff on imported products.

The US and Uganda have historically enjoyed friendly ties, with the US routinely sending aid to Kampala. However, after Uganda passed an anti-homosexuality bill into law in 2023, relations turned sour, and the US accused Uganda of “human rights violations”. The law proscribes punishment, including life sentences, for same-sex relations.

Washington thereafter cut aid funding for HIV programs and issued visa restrictions on Ugandan government officials “complicit in undermining the democratic process.” The US also banned Uganda from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade programme that helped African countries trade tariff-free with the US, but that Trump’s tariffs have effectively killed.

The World Bank additionally banned Uganda from its loans for two years, although the restriction was lifted this June.

Rights activists say the deal on deportees could make the US administration more favourably inclined towards Uganda, but at the expense of those deported.

“The proposed deal runs afoul of international law,” human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo told the AP. He added that such an arrangement leaves the legal status of deportees unclear as to whether they are refugees or prisoners.

“We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case, because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,” Opiyo said.“That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?”

Does Uganda already host refugees?

Yes, Uganda is Africa’s largest refugee host country. It already hosts some 1.7 million refugees, largely from neighbouring South Sudan, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are all dealing with armed conflict and unrest.

The United Nations has, in the past, hailed the country as having a “progressive refugee policy” and “maintaining an open-door approach to asylum”.

However, opposition activists are sounding the alarm over the government’s dismal human rights record. Uganda has been ruled by Museveni since 1986, with his party winning contested elections in landslides. Opposition members and journalists are often targeted in arrests. Some report being tortured in detention.

Speaking to the AP, opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi said the US deal could give Museveni’s government further Western legitimacy ahead of general elections scheduled for January 2026.

The deal was struck to “clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,” Nkunyingi said. He urged the US not to ignore what he described as human rights issues in Uganda.

What other countries has the US sent people to?

Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan have struck similar agreements with the US.

Eswatini, in July, accepted five unnamed men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen.

Tricia McLaughlin, Department for Homeland Security assistant secretary, described them as “individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back”. She added that they were convicted of offences ranging from child rape to murder, and faced up to 25 years in jail. The men are presently held in detention facilities and will be sent back to their countries, according to officials who did not state a timeline.

Activists accuse the Eswatini government of engaging in the deal in exchange for lower tariffs from the US. The tiny country, which exports apparel, fruits, nuts and raw sugar to the US, was hit with a 10 percent tariff.

“No country should have to be engaged in the violation of international human rights laws, including breaching its domestic laws, to please the Global North in the name of trade,” Simulane of SALC, who is leading an ongoing court case challenging the Eswatini government’s decision, told Al Jazeera. The move, he said, was against the country’s constitution, which mandates that international agreements pass through parliament.

“What we want, at the core, is for the agreement to be published for public scrutiny, and for the public to understand (if) it indeed is in line with our national interest,” Simulane said. “We further want the agreement declared unconstitutional because it lacked parliamentary approval.”

South Africa, which borders Eswatini on three sides, summoned the smaller country’s diplomats earlier in August to raise security concerns about the arrangement.

Similarly, the US sent eight “barbaric” criminals to South Sudan in July. The DHS listed them as being from Cuba, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan. They were convicted of crimes such as first-degree murder, robbery, drug trafficking, and sexual assault, the DHS said.

The men were initially diverted to Djibouti for months pending a legal challenge in the US. However, in late June, the US Supreme Court approved the move to South Sudan.

Rwanda, too, has confirmed that it will take 250 deportees from the US at an unnamed date. According to government spokesperson Yolande Makolo, the deportees will enjoy “workforce training, health care and accommodation”. The country previously struck a controversial migrant deal for a fee with the United Kingdom. That deal, however, fell through when the new Labour government was elected in the UK in 2024.

Outside Africa, El Salvador has taken in 300 migrants, mainly from Venezuela, for a $6m fee.

Costa Rica accepted 200 asylum seekers from Afghanistan, China, Ghana, India and Vietnam. While many have been repatriated, some 28 people were still in detention by June. It is unclear what the US offered in return.

Nearly 300 people from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and China were sent to Panama in February.

PM’s office says the weapons transfer to the Lebanese army marks the start of a wider disarmament campaign.

Lebanon has launched a plan to disarm Palestinian groups in its refugee camps, beginning with the handover of weapons from Burj al-Barajneh camp in Beirut.

The prime minister’s office announced on Thursday that the weapons transfer to the Lebanese army marks the start of a wider disarmament campaign. More handovers are expected in the coming weeks across Burj al-Barajneh and other camps nationwide.

A Fatah official told the Reuters news agency the arms handed over so far were only illegal weapons that had entered the camp within the previous day. Television footage showed military vehicles inside the camp, though Reuters could not verify what type of weapons were being surrendered.

The initiative follows Lebanon’s commitment under a US-backed truce between Israel and Hezbollah in November, which restricted weapons to six state security forces. Since the November 27, 2024, ceasefire agreement, Israel has continued attacking Lebanon, often on a weekly basis.

The government has tasked the army with producing a strategy by the end of the year to consolidate all arms under state authority.

According to the prime minister’s office, the decision to disarm Palestinian factions was reached in a May meeting between Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Both leaders affirmed Lebanon’s sovereignty and insisted that only the state should hold arms. Lebanese and Palestinian officials later agreed on a timeline and mechanism for the handovers.

For decades, Palestinian groups have maintained control inside Lebanon’s 12 refugee camps, which largely operate outside state jurisdiction. The latest initiative is seen as the most serious effort in years to curb the presence of weapons inside the camps.

Palestinian resistance movements grew out of displacement and political exclusion after the creation of Israel in 1948, when some 750,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes.

Over the years, groups including Fatah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) established a presence in Lebanon’s camps to continue armed struggle against Israel.

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon remain without key civil rights, such as access to certain jobs and property ownership. With limited opportunities, many have turned to armed factions for protection or representation.

The disarmament push also comes as Hezbollah faces what analysts describe as its greatest military challenge in decades, following Israeli strikes in 2024 that decimated much of its leadership.

A passenger bus carrying Afghan returnees from Iran struck a motorcycle and a fuel truck, triggering a huge fire.

The death toll from a bus crash in western Afghanistan has risen to 79, after two survivors died from their injuries, an interim Taliban administration official said.

The incident occurred late on Tuesday in Herat province’s Guzara district, when a passenger bus carrying Afghan returnees from Iran struck a motorcycle and a fuel truck, triggering a huge fire.

At least 19 children were among those killed, Abdul Mateen Qani, spokesman for the interim Interior Ministry, told reporters in Kabul on Wednesday.

Mohammad Janan Moqadas, chief physician at the military hospital, said many bodies were too badly burned to be identified.

A journalist with the AFP news agency reported that cleanup crews were working on Wednesday to remove the burned-out bus and the twisted wreckage of the other vehicles.

“There was a lot of fire… There was a lot of screaming, but we couldn’t even get within 50 metres to rescue anyone,” witness Akbar Tawakoli, 34, told AFP. “Only three people were saved from the bus. They were also on fire and their clothes were burned.”

Abdullah, 25, another witness, told AFP, “I was very saddened that most of the passengers on the bus were children and women.”

The bus was transporting Afghans recently expelled from Iran to the capital, Kabul, provincial spokesman Mohammad Yousuf Saeedi said. The central government has ordered an investigation.

“It is with deep sorrow that we mourn the loss of numerous Afghan lives and the injuries sustained in a tragic bus collision and subsequent fire in Herat province last night,” it said in a statement.

More than 1.5 million Afghans have returned from Iran and Pakistan this year alone, according to the United Nations migration agency, as both countries step up deportations after decades of hosting Afghan refugees. Many arrive with little means and face dire conditions in a country battling poverty and mass unemployment.

The state-run Bakhtar News Agency described the incident as one of Afghanistan’s deadliest accidents in recent years.

In December 2023, two separate bus crashes involving tankers killed 52 people, while in March 2024, another 20 died in a collision in Helmand province. In late 2022, a tanker overturned in the Salang Pass, igniting a fire that killed 31.

Police in western Afghanistan’s Herat province say the accident was due to the bus’s ‘excessive speed and negligence’. 

At least 71 people, including 17 children, have been killed in western Afghanistan after a passenger bus carrying refugees, recently deported from neighbouring Iran, caught fire after colliding with a truck and motorcycle, according to provincial government spokesman Ahmadullah Muttaqi and local police.

Police in Herat province said on Tuesday that the accident was due to the bus’s “excessive speed and negligence”.

The returnees are part of a massive wave of Afghans deported or forced out of Iran in recent months.

The accident took place a day after Iranian Minister of Interior Eskandar Momeni announced that a further 800,000 people would have to leave the country by next March.

The bus was carrying Afghans recently returned from Iran and en route to the capital Kabul, provincial official Mohammad Yousuf Saeedi told the AFP news agency on Tuesday. He added that all the passengers boarded the vehicle in Islam Qala, a border crossing point.

Taliban government chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid confirmed to the dpa news agency that the victims had been deported from Iran, but said that further details were not available immediately.

Police in the Guzara district outside Afghanistan’s city of Herat, where the accident occurred, said a motorcycle was also involved.

The majority of those who died were on the bus, but two people travelling in the truck were also killed, as well as another two who were on the motorcycle.

Traffic accidents are common in Afghanistan, due in part to poor roads after decades of war, dangerous driving on highways and a lack of regulation.

Last December, two bus accidents, involving a fuel tanker and a truck on a highway through central Afghanistan, killed at least 52 people.

Every year, conflict, persecution, poverty and high unemployment drive large numbers of Afghans to cross the 300km (186-mile) Islam Qala border into Iran without documentation. Many work in low-wage jobs in big cities, including on construction sites, where they are valued as cheap and reliable labour.

Nearly 450,000 Afghans have returned from Iran since early June, according to the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR), after Tehran imposed a July 6 deadline for undocumented refugees to leave the country.

The surge compounds Afghanistan’s existing challenges, as the impoverished nation, back under hardline Taliban rule since 2021, struggles to integrate waves of returnees from Pakistan and Iran since 2023, amid one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises after decades of conflict.

The UNHCR reports that more than 1.4 million people have “returned or been forced to return to Afghanistan” this year alone. Iran’s late May directive potentially affects 4 million undocumented Afghans among the approximately 6 million Afghan residents claimed by Tehran.

Border crossings increased dramatically from mid-June, with some days seeing approximately 40,000 people entering Afghanistan. Between June 1 and July 5, 449,218 Afghans returned from Iran, bringing the 2024 total to 906,326, according to an International Organization for Migration spokesman.

Hong Kong activist Tony Chung and ex-lawmaker Ted Hui have been granted asylum in the UK and Australia, years after facing charges linked to the 2019 anti-government protests. Both fled amid Beijing’s crackdown under the national security law that criminalised dissent.

State Department move comes as Israel’s war and induced-famine in Gaza reach new extremes, with 61,827 killed so far.

The United States has announced that it is halting all visitor visas for people from Gaza pending a “a full and thorough” review, a day after social media posts about Palestinian refugees sparked furious reactions from right-wingers.

The Department of State’s move on Saturday came a day after far-right activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer posted on X that Palestinians “who claim to be refugees from Gaza” entered the US via San Francisco and Houston this month.

“How is allowing for Islamic immigrants to come into the US America First policy?” she said on X in a later post, going on to report further Palestinian arrivals in Missouri and claiming that “several US Senators and members of Congress” had texted her to express their fury.

Republican lawmakers speaking publicly about the matter included Chip Roy of Texas, who said he would inquire about the matter, and Randy Fine of Florida, who described the alleged arrivals as a “national security risk”.

By Saturday, the State Department announced it was stopping visas for “individuals from Gaza” while it conducted “a full and thorough review of the process and procedures used to issue a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas in recent days”. It did not provide a figure.

All visitor visas for individuals from Gaza are being stopped while we conduct a full and thorough review of the process and procedures used to issue a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas in recent days.

— Department of State (@StateDept) August 16, 2025

The US issued 640 visas to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document in May, according to the Reuters news agency. B1/B2 visitor visas permit Palestinians to seek medical treatment in the US.

Loomer greeted Saturday’s State Department announcement with glee.

“It’s amazing how fast we can get results from the Trump administration,” she said on Saturday, though she later posted that more needed to be done to “highlight the crisis of the invasion happening in our country”.

While I appreciate the State Department and @marcorubio issuing this statement, I want to press even harder to highlight the crisis of the invasion happening in our country.

The visas and arrivals of GAZANS to US airports isn’t new. This has been drastically increasing in speed… https://t.co/mI5APTairz

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) August 16, 2025

The decision to cut visas comes as Israel intensifies its attacks on Gaza, where at least 61,827 people have been killed in the past 22 months, with the United Nations warning that “widespread starvation, malnutrition and disease” are driving a rise in famine-related deaths.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing to seize Gaza City as part of a takeover of the Strip, forcibly displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to concentration zones.

Human rights groups have warned that expelling the population from Gaza would violate international law.

Israel is in discussions with South Sudan about forcibly relocating Palestinians from Gaza to the East African country, according to six people familiar with the matter who spoke to The Associated Press.

The proposal is part of an Israeli effort to displace Palestinians from Gaza – a move human rights groups warn would amount to forcible expulsion, ethnic cleansing, and would violate international law.

Critics of the transfer plan fear Palestinians would never be allowed to return to Gaza and that mass departure could pave the way for Israel to annex the enclave and re-establish Israeli settlements there, as called for by far-right ministers in the Israeli government.

South Sudan has struggled to recover from a civil war that broke out shortly after independence in 2011, killing nearly 400,000 people and leaving parts of the country facing famine. It already hosts a large refugee population from conflicts in neighbouring countries.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously said he wants to advance what he calls “voluntary migration” for much of Gaza’s population, a policy he has linked to previous statements of United States President Donald Trump.

“I think that the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there,” Netanyahu said Tuesday in an interview with i24, an Israeli TV station. He did not make reference to South Sudan.

The AP reported that Israel and the US have floated similar proposals with Sudan, Somalia, and the breakaway region of Somaliland.

Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza, has strongly opposed any forced transfer of Palestinians out of the enclave, fearing a refugee influx into its territory.

South Sudanese civil society leader Edmund Yakani told the AP that the country “should not become a dumping ground for people … and it should not accept to take people as negotiating chips to improve relations”.

Joe Szlavik, founder of a US lobbying firm working with South Sudan, said he was briefed by South Sudanese officials on the talks.

According to Szlavik, the country wants the Trump administration to lift a travel ban and remove sanctions on some South Sudanese elites, suggesting the US could be involved in any agreement about the forcible displacement of Palestinians.

Peter Martell, a journalist and author of First Raise a Flag, said “cash-strapped South Sudan needs any ally, financial gain and diplomatic security it can get”.

The Trump administration has previously pressured several countries to accept deportations, and South Sudan has already taken in eight individuals removed from the US under the administration’s mass deportation policy.

The WFP says aid is being cut by 60 percent for the most vulnerable groups, including pregnant women and disabled people.

The World Food Programme (WFP) has said it will need to drastically cut rations to refugees in Kenya due to reductions in global aid, including major funding cuts from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Residents of the Kakuma and Dadaab refugee camps were beginning to feel the impact of food aid cuts on Monday as the WFP implemented a new assistance system there in which certain groups are prioritised over others.

The WFP said aid is being cut by 60 percent for the most vulnerable groups, including pregnant women and disabled people, and by 80 percent for refugees with some kind of income.

The two camps host nearly 800,000 people fleeing conflict and drought in Somalia and South Sudan, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

“WFP’s operations supporting refugees in Kenya are under immense strain,” Baimankay Sankoh, WFP’s deputy country director in Kenya, said in May. “With available resources stretched to their limits, we have had to make the difficult decision to again reduce food assistance. This will have a serious impact on vulnerable refugees, increasing the risk of hunger and malnutrition.”

“There has been a lot of tension in the last couple of weeks or so,” Al Jazeera’s Catherine Soi said, reporting from Kakuma.

“People were very angry about what WFP is calling the priority food distribution, where some people will not get food at all and others are going to get a small fraction of the food.”

These tensions boiled over, triggering protests last week, which left one person dead and several others injured, said Soi, adding that WFP officials she spoke with said the aid cuts from organisations like USAID meant they have had to make “very difficult decisions about who gets to eat and who doesn’t”.

WFP worker Thomas Chica explained to Soi that the new system was rolled out after assessments were conducted by WFP and its partners.

Refugees are now assessed based on their needs, rather than their status, said Chica. “We need to look at them separately and differently and see how best we can channel the system so that it provides.”

The impact of these cuts is severe amid concerns over malnutrition. The Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) rate among refugee children and pregnant or breastfeeding women in Kenya is above 13 percent. A GAM rate over 10 percent is classed as a nutrition emergency.

“Already the food that is being issued is quite low, 40 percent of the recommended ration, and this is being shared by a bigger chunk of the population,” Chica said, adding that stocks will therefore not last as long as hoped.

This reduction took effect in February and is based on a daily recommended intake of 2,100kcal.

With its current resources dating from last year, WFP will only be able to provide assistance until December or January, said Chica.

WFP said in May that $44m was required to provide full rations and restore cash assistance for all refugees just through August.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Rescue operations are ongoing to find dozens more missing, local authorities say.

At least 54 African refugees and migrants have died and dozens remain missing after a boat capsized off the coast of Yemen, according to health authorities in Abyan governorate in the south of the country.

Abdul Qader Bajamil, director of the health office in Zanzibar, said on Sunday that rescue teams had recovered 54 bodies from the beaches there and surrounding areas, while 12 survivors were transferred to Shaqra Hospital.

The boat carrying around 150 people, mostly from Ethiopia, capsized in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Shaqra, in the Abyan governorate, due to strong winds on Saturday evening.

Bajamil noted that authorities were making arrangements to bury the victims in an area near the city, while search operations continued amid difficult conditions.

The waterways between Yemen and the Horn of Africa are a common but perilous route for refugees and migrants travelling in both directions. The area saw a spike in Yemenis fleeing the country after the civil war broke out in 2014.

Houthi rebels and government forces reached a truce deal in April 2022 that has resulted in a decrease in violence and the slight easing of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

Meanwhile, some of those fleeing conflict in Africa, particularly in Somalia and Ethiopia, have sought refuge in Yemen or have sought to travel through the country to the more prosperous Gulf countries. The route remains one of the “busiest and most perilous” migration routes in the world, according to the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM).

To reach Yemen, people are taken by smugglers on often dangerous, overcrowded boats across the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aden.

According to the IOM, more than 60,000 refugees and migrants arrived in Yemen in 2024, marking a significant drop from the previous year’s total of 97,200.

The decreased numbers come amid increased patrols of the waters, according to an IOM report released in May.

This is a deadly route that has killed hundreds over the past two years. According to the IOM, 558 people died along the route last year.

Over the past decade, at least 2,082 people have disappeared along the route, including 693 known to have drowned, according to the IOM. Yemen currently houses around 380,000 refugees and migrants.

Italy has signed a deal with Albania, where it planned to process up to 36,000 asylum seekers per year.

The European Union’s top court has backed Italian judges who questioned a list of “safe countries” drawn up by Rome, as it prepares to deport migrants to detention centres in Albania.

The hard-right government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni denounced the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) ruling and said it “weakens policies to combat mass illegal immigration”.

Meloni’s plan to outsource migrant processing to a non-EU country and speed up repatriations of failed asylum seekers has been followed closely by others in the bloc.

The costly scheme has been frozen for months by legal challenges.

Italian magistrates have cited the European court’s decision that EU states cannot designate an entire country as “safe” when certain regions are not.

On Friday, in a long-awaited judgement, the Luxembourg-based ECJ said Italy is free to decide which countries are “safe”, but warned that such a designation should meet strict legal standards and allow applicants and courts to access and challenge the supporting evidence.

In its statement, the ECJ said a Rome court had turned to EU judges, citing the impossibility of accessing such information and thus preventing it from “challenging and reviewing the lawfulness of such a presumption of safety”.

The ECJ also said a country might not be classified “safe” if it does not offer adequate protection to its entire population, agreeing with Italian judges that had raised this issue last year.

Meloni and her Albanian counterpart, Edi Rama, had signed a migration deal in November 2023, and last year, Rome opened two centres in Albania, where it planned to process up to 36,000 asylum seekers per year.

The detention facilities have, however, been empty for months, due to the judicial obstacles. Last week, a report found that their construction cost was seven times more than that of an equivalent centre in Italy.

Government’s approach ‘dismantled’?

The European court made its judgement considering a case of two Bangladeshi nationals who were rescued at sea by Italian authorities and taken to Albania, where their asylum claims were rejected based on Italy’s classification of Bangladesh as a “safe” country.

Dario Belluccio, a lawyer who represented one of the Bangladeshi asylum seekers at the ECJ on Friday, said the Albanian migrant camps scheme had been killed off.

“It will not be possible to continue with what the Italian government had envisioned before this decision … Technically, it seems to me that the government’s approach has been completely dismantled,” he told the Reuters news agency.

Meloni’s office complained that the EU judgement allows national judges to dictate policy on migration, “further reduc(ing) the already limited” capacity of parliament and government to take decisions on the matter.

“This is a development that should concern everybody,” it said.

Meanwhile, though the Albanian scheme is stuck in legal limbo, Italy’s overall effort to curb undocumented migration by sea has been successful.

There have been 36,557 such migrant arrivals in the year to date, slightly up from the same period of 2024, but far below the 89,165 recorded over the same time span in 2023.

At the transit camp in Islam Qala in western Afghanistan, Fatima steps out of the bus into the blazing heat and an uncertain future. She is one of 10,000 people who has arrived from Iran that day and one of 800,000 who has arrived over the last six months. She hurries her three children to an empty spot, slumps onto the dusty ground, and shelters her family with bed sheets. When asked where she goes from here, she says a brother might take them in in her home town.

The IFRC supports the Afghan Red Crescent Society to provide hot food and healthcare at the camp. UN agencies provide some cash. But within a day, it’s time to leave. Bus drivers call out the names of Afghan cities and towns. Fatima lugs her cases towards a bus to Owbeh, in Herat province. Her three children trail behind her. She explains that she learned carpet weaving in Iran, but wasn’t allowed to bring any materials or instruments with her. How can she start from scratch without money, she asks. And who would buy her carpets in her village anyway? They have nothing. Not even to eat.

The departure from Iran has been traumatic, but her real challenges start now. When she arrives in her hometown, there will be no jobs in the public sector for her. Men will be reluctant to hire her because of the rules and regulations associated with employing women. Her one chance to cope will be to get her own enterprise going. For that, she’ll need start-up capital. She may also need assistance from her brother to access markets. It will be a struggle, but increasing numbers of Afghan women are rising to this challenge. Fatima could, too. If only she could get access to credit.

But will anyone in her community be able to buy her products? Like most Afghans, her neighbours will largely depend on agriculture, which will depend on irrigation and rain. In much of Herat province, and across the country, irrigation is becoming impossible because of drought. Rivers are dust. Underground water sources are drying up. With no possibility to farm, men are pouring into the cities in search of daily labour, only to find the battle for water is raging there, too. Mercy Corps has claimed that half of the boreholes in Kabul have dried out and the city could run out of accessible groundwater in five years. This trajectory could be slowed down or reversed, but only with major investment in water conservation, rain vats, storage dams, and check dams. Just the sort of investment that Afghanistan is struggling to raise.

If Fatima can earn a little money and live close to water, then she can focus on her children’s schooling. Her daughter will have to attend a madrassa. This will be a significant downgrade from her education in Iran. But if she’s lucky, it will be one of the many madrassas that are already introducing more varied subjects and offering classes until 12th grade. If she’s resourceful and can invest some funds, there may be other options too, including vocational training and online courses. The restrictions she will have to navigate are extreme, but not new. They reflect a long-running struggle between cities and the countryside, between desires for self-realisation and deeply rooted patriarchy. Foreign aid may help by quietly creating multiple and flexible opportunities to exchange and learn, while recognising that the ideological battles are for the Afghans themselves and will take time. Some organisations are trying to do this, but not to scale.

It will take a lot of luck for Fatima to get investment in her social enterprise, to access clean drinking water and to get an education for her children. The alternative is grim, and sadly, much more likely. Like most new arrivals, she will probably be destitute within weeks. She won’t access the rare opportunities for business support. Lack of water will empty the villages around her. If she stays put, her health will fail. Medical care will be too far to reach or too expensive. She may be forced to marry her daughter off early and nudge her boys away from school into some cheap, daily labour. This is what is happening across the country. If she can, to avoid such a terrible fate, she will try to get back to Iran.

Can foreign aid play a role in supporting Fatima and the millions like her? Despite all the reservations, humanitarian funding has been generous in the last four years. More than $7bn has been spent on assistance. Enough to have helped tens of thousands of women to start small businesses. Enough to have irrigated farms, deepened bore holes and stored water across the country. Enough to have created thousands of alternative learning options for children. Humanitarian agencies have tried to assist in all these areas, but the demand for emergency relief has taken the bulk of the funds, and many donors have been reticent to invest in anything longer term for fear of appearing to legitimise those in power.

The need for a new approach is compelling. There is less money available now due to aid cuts, but what little is left can still be invested into locally led strategies for livelihoods, water infrastructure, health and learning. This may give people like Fatima a spark of hope in their futures. This is what IFRC will focus on, as much as its resources allow.

If the moral case for that is not compelling enough, it is worth reflecting that on the current trajectory, the historic repatriation to Afghanistan taking place this year is likely to be a prelude to a much bigger exodus in the years to come. It would be far wiser to invest now and give people a chance to thrive in their home country than to invest much more in refugee camps and anti-trafficking work in the near future.

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

Crisis compounded after United States, which provided 40 percent of UNHCR funding last year, slashed its contribution.

More than 11 million refugees risk losing access to humanitarian aid owing to a “dramatic” funding crisis, according to the United Nations refugee agency.

The extent of UNHCR’s funding shortfall was revealed in a report released on Friday, which said it had so far received only 23 percent of this year’s goal of $10.6bn, projecting an overall budget of only $3.5bn by the end of the year to meet the needs of 122 million people.

“Our funding situation is dramatic,” Dominique Hyde, director of external relations for UNHCR, said.

“We fear that up to 11.6 million refugees and people forced to flee are losing access to humanitarian assistance provided by UNHCR.”

While countries that have slashed contributions were not named in the report, the crisis has been compounded by a major reduction in funding from the United States, which provided 40 percent – more than $2bn – of the agency’s total donations last year.

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump’s administration has made funding cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and its aid programmes worldwide in what it says is part of its broader plan to remove wasteful spending.

UNHCR said it has had to stop or suspend about $1.4bn worth of aid programmes, including a 60 percent reduction in financial aid and emergency relief supplies in many countries, including Sudan, Myanmar and Afghanistan.

Critical areas such as medical aid, education, shelter, nutrition, and protection are among the services suffering deep cuts, said the report, entitled “On the Brink: The devastating toll of aid cuts on people forced to flee”.

In Bangladesh, where Rohingya refugees have lived for years in overcrowded camps, education for some 230,000 children is at risk of being suspended.

Women and girls are disproportionately affected by UNHCR funding cuts, with the agency having to cut one quarter of its support for programmes on gender-based violence.

Women and girls in Afghanistan are the hardest hit by cuts, according to the report.

“Protection activities have been slashed by over 50 percent, undermining programmes on women’s empowerment, mental health and prevention and response to gender-based violence,” said Hyde.

Globally, UNHCR is downsizing by a third, cutting 3,500 staff positions at its Geneva headquarters and in regional offices.

The report comes after the UN’s 2025 Global AIDS Update warned last week that Trump’s halt to foreign funding could reverse “decades of progress” on HIV/AIDS. If funding is not replaced, the world could see six million extra HIV infections and four million more AIDS-related deaths by 2029, it said.

Berlin calls itself ‘locomotive’ of European crackdown on immigration, expelling 81 Afghans before meeting.

Germany’s interior minister has hosted five of his European counterparts to discuss ways of tightening the region’s asylum rules, as his country deported 81 Afghans to their Taliban-controlled homeland.

The European Union’s immigration system needed to be “tougher and stricter”, Minister Alexander Dobrindt said after Friday’s meeting in southern Germany with the interior ministers of France, Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Denmark, as well as EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner.

The cohort issued a five-page communique on their aims, which included the establishment of “return hubs” for holding people outside the EU, enabling asylum procedures in third countries, and allowing deportations to Afghanistan and Syria as standard practice.

All measures would require approval from Brussels.

“When we analyse what has been agreed here, it’s lofty ambitions, but not much detail about how they intend to pursue what’s in these five pages,” said Al Jazeera’s Dominic Kane, reporting from Berlin.

Ministers, he said, had talked about “the sorts of things that they agree on, but they know they can’t implement them themselves as unilateral decisions.”

Speaking after the meeting, Dobrindt said, “We wanted to send a signal that Germany is no longer sitting in the brakeman’s cab on migration issues in Europe, but is in the locomotive.”

Afghans deported

Hours before the meeting, Germany demonstrated just how serious it was about cracking down on migration by sending 81 Afghan nationals back to their homeland, prompting an outcry from rights organisations.

Amnesty International criticised the deportations, saying the situation in Afghanistan was “catastrophic” and that “extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and torture are commonplace”.

Europe’s top economy had stopped deportations to Afghanistan and closed its embassy in Kabul following the Taliban movement’s return to power in 2021.

But Berlin resumed expulsions last year when the previous government of Olaf Scholz expelled 28 convicted Afghans.

Current Chancellor Friedrich Merz defended the expulsions of the 81 Afghan men, saying he was “grateful” to be able to deliver on promises made when entering government in May.

None of those deported “had a residence status any more. All asylum applications were legally rejected without further legal recourse”, he said at a news conference.

Bavaria state’s Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said 15 of the deported Afghans had been incarcerated for crimes, including murder and manslaughter, sexual offences and property crimes.

The state of Baden-Wuerttemberg said 13 Afghans deported from there had been jailed for crimes including homicide, bodily harm, drug offences and serious arson.

In the wake of the announcement, the United Nations said no one should be sent back to Afghanistan, whatever their status.

The UN human rights commissioner called for an “immediate halt to the forcible return of all Afghan refugees and asylum-seekers”, highlighting the risks faced by returnees.

The British government has secretly resettled thousands of Afghans in the United Kingdom for fear they might be targeted by the Taliban after their personal details were leaked, Defence Secretary John Healey revealed on Tuesday.

Details about the accidental data breach by a British soldier and the secret relocation programme for Afghans were made public after a rare court order known as a “superinjuction”, which barred the media from even disclosing its existence, was lifted on Tuesday.

Here is what we know about what happened and how the government responded:

Whose data was leaked and how did it happen?

A spreadsheet containing the personal information of about 18,700 Afghans and their relatives – a total of about 33,000 people – was accidentally forwarded to the wrong recipients by email in February 2022, Healey told lawmakers in the House of Commons.

These were people who had applied for relocation to the UK between August 2021 and January 7, 2022. That was the six-month period following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan after the US and allied forces withdrew from the country. Most had worked as translators, assistants or in other capacities for the British military in Afghanistan.

They had applied for the UK’s Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) scheme, which, like its predecessor, the Ex-Gratia Scheme (EGS), had been set up for Afghans who had worked for the British forces.

The EGS was originally established in 2013 following a long campaign by activists and media in support of people who had assisted the British military in Afghanistan and who were considered likely to face reprisals from the Taliban.

The British soldier at the centre of the leak, who had been tasked with verifying applications for relocation, is understood to have mistakenly believed the database contained the names of 150 applicants, when it actually contained personal information linked to some 18,714 people.

The soldier was under the command of General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who was director of special forces at the time and now heads the British Navy. His name had also been suppressed by the court order until this week.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) became aware of the leak when someone else posted parts of the data on Facebook on August 14, 2023. The Facebook post was first spotted by an activist who was assisting Afghans who had worked with UK forces.

The activist contacted the MoD, saying: “The Taliban may now have a 33,000-long kill list – essentially provided to them by the British government. If any of these families are murdered, the government will be liable,” The Guardian newspaper reported.

How did the government respond to the leak?

The MoD told Facebook to take down the post with the leaked information, citing security threats from the Taliban. It also warned some 1,800 ARAP applicants who had fled to Pakistan that they or their families could be in danger.

The UK government, led by former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, then sought a court order barring any media disclosure of the data breach.

On September 1, 2023, a High Court judge in London issued a “superinjunction”, which not only prohibits the disclosure of any details but also forbids revealing that the order exists at all. That superinjunction was lifted on Tuesday following a campaign led by The Times newspaper in London.

In April 2024, the government created the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) to support Afghans who were not eligible for ARAP but were considered at high risk of reprisals from the Taliban as a result of the data leak.

This scheme, which was kept secret, has now been closed, Healey told the House of Commons. However, he added that hundreds of invitations were issued to Afghans and their families under the scheme and these invitations “will be honoured”.

The government also launched the secret Operation Rubific to evacuate those Afghans deemed to be at risk directly to the UK.

How many Afghans have been relocated to the UK under the secret scheme?

As a direct result of the leak, the government says 900 people and about 3,000 relatives have already been flown to the UK under the secret relocation scheme and put up in hotels or military bases. In total, about 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach have either been brought to the UK already or will be in the near future, according to UK media reports.

Through broader resettlement schemes, 35,245 Afghans have so far been relocated to the UK, official data suggests.

Why is this information being disclosed now?

The court order barring the details about the leak from being disclosed was lifted at noon (11:00 GMT) on Tuesday.

Following several private hearings, a High Court judge ruled in May that the injunction should be lifted, citing, among other reasons, the inability of the public or parliament to scrutinise the government’s decisions.

British news outlet The Times reported it had spearheaded the two-year legal battle which resulted in the injunction being lifted.

That decision was, however, overturned by the Court of Appeal in July 2024, due to concerns about the potential risks to individuals whose information had been leaked.

Then came the “Rimmer review”.

Healey, a member of current Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ruling Labour party, said he was briefed about the leak when it happened as he was serving as shadow defence secretary at the time. However, he added that other cabinet members were only informed about the leak when Starmer’s party was elected to power in the general election of July 2024.

“As Parliamentarians – and as Government Ministers – it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained in reporting to this House. And I am grateful today to be able to disclose the details to Parliament,” Healey said on Tuesday.

Healey said that at the beginning of this year, he commissioned former senior civil servant and former Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence Paul Rimmer to conduct an independent review.

Quoting the “Rimmer review” in Parliament on Tuesday, Healey said that four years since the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan, “there is little evidence of intent by the Taleban [sic] to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials.”

He added that the information the Taliban inherited from the former Afghan government would have already allowed them to target individuals if they had wished. Therefore, Rimmer concluded it was “highly unlikely” that someone’s information being on the leaked spreadsheet would be a key piece of information enabling or prompting the Taliban to take action.

“However, Rimmer is clear – he stresses the uncertainty in any judgements … and he does not rule out any risk,” Healey said.

How safe are the people named in the leak now?

The Times reported that after the superinjunction had been lifted, a new temporary court order was issued, barring the media from publishing specific sensitive details about what exactly was in the database.

The Times said the government cited reasons of confidentiality and national security, arguing that the leaked list still poses a threat to the safety of the Afghans.

In a webpage published on Tuesday, the MoD states: “At present, there is no evidence to suggest that the spreadsheet has been seen or used by others who might seek to exploit the information; however, the UK Government cannot rule out that possibility.”

It now advises those who applied for the ARAP or EGS programmes before January 7, 2022, to exercise caution, avoid phone calls or messages from unknown numbers, limit their social media profiles and use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) where possible.

UK-based media outlets have reported that a law firm is suing the MoD on behalf of at least 1,000 Afghans affected by the data leak.

How much has the leak cost the UK government?

Healey said on Tuesday that it had already cost 400 million pounds ($540m) to bring an initial 900 Afghans and their 3,600 family members to the UK under the ARR.

However, this does not account for the expenditures by other government schemes to relocate Afghans to the UK. Healey estimated that the total cost of relocating Afghans to the UK was between 5.5 billion and 6 billion pounds ($7.4bn to $8bn).

Different figures for how much the leak cost the UK have emerged. An unnamed government official told Reuters that the leak cost the UK about 2 billion pounds ($2.7bn). Other outlets have reported that ARR is expected to cost the UK government a total of 850 million pounds ($1.1bn).

The Trump administration has faced a raft of legal challenges as it seeks to radically restrict immigration to the US.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump cannot block approved refugees from entering the country under the guise of a wider travel ban.

US District Judge Jamal Whitehead ruled late on Monday that Trump’s June order barring people from 12 countries from entering the US expressly states that it will not stop people from seeking refugee status.

“In other words, by its plain terms, the Proclamation excludes refugees from its scope,” Whitehead wrote.

The ruling is the latest development in a dizzying number of court cases challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to radically restrict immigration through a raft of policies that have stretched the limits of executive power.

The judge ordered the administration to continue processing a group of 80 refugees who had already been through vetting and were “presumptively protected refugees” who were nonetheless turned back due to the travel ban.

That ban applies to 12 countries and expands on a similar effort pursued by Trump during his first term in office, when his so-called “Muslim ban” prompted widespread anger and faced legal challenges before being ultimately upheld by the conservative-majority Supreme Court.

The June order applies to countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, and Sudan, as well as Haiti and Myanmar, among others.

The administration has also revoked existing legal status for scores of people from countries like Afghanistan and Haiti, throwing their future in the country into doubt and opening them up to the possibility of deportations to countries that experts say remain mired in conflict and unsafe conditions.

A US court temporarily paused an order by the Trump administration ending Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for Afghans living in the US on Monday, several hours before it was set to expire, extending that status by one week as the court deliberates on the issue further.

Trump suspended the US refugee admissions programme upon entering office at the beginning of his second term in January, leaving thousands of people who had already been cleared for admission, sometimes after years of an arduous bureaucratic and vetting process, in a state of limbo.

A handful of refugees and advocacy groups sued, and Whitehead ruled in February that the administration could not suspend a programme created and funded by Congress. A US Circuit court put that decision on hold in March, however, ruling that the president has wide latitude over the question of who may enter the country.

A federal judge barred the Trump administration from using its ban on travelers from some countries to keep 80 already-vetted refugees from entering the United States.

In a decision late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead in Seattle said President Trump’s June order banning the entry of people from 12 countries “expressly states” that it does not limit the ability of people to seek refugee status.

“In other words, by its plain terms, the Proclamation excludes refugees from its scope,” the judge wrote.

Barring refugees from entering the U.S. would limit their ability to seek refugee status and therefore run counter to the Republican president’s order, the judge said.

He ordered the administration to immediately resume processing 80 “presumptively protected refugees” that were rejected based on the travel ban.

The State Department did not immediately have comment Tuesday.

Whitehead also set out a framework for the government to vet refugees from the countries covered by the travel ban and other countries who were denied entry when the president suspended the nation’s refugee admissions program within hours of taking office on Jan. 20.

The decision left thousands of refugees who had already gone through a sometimes years-long vetting process to start new lives in America stranded at various locations around the world, including relatives of active-duty U.S. military personnel and more than 1,600 Afghans who assisted America’s war efforts.

Some individual refugees sued, along with refugee aid organizations who said the administration froze their funding. They later asked the judge to make the case a class-action lawsuit so that the rulings could apply to other refugees facing similar circumstances.

In May, Whitehead said the suspension likely amounted to a nullification of congressional will, since Congress created and funded the refugee admissions program. He issued a preliminary injunction in February barring the federal government from suspending refugee processing and refugee aid funding.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit put most of that decision on hold in March, finding the administration was likely to win the case because the president has broad authority to determine who is allowed to enter the country.

Boone and Thanawala write for the Associated Press.