rule

NEW YORK CITY: A five-member international bloc known as the “Quintet” on Thursday rejected the prospect of any “parallel governing structures” in Sudan.

As its representatives wrapped up a “Good Offices” mission to Khartoum, they reaffirmed the need for full respect for the country’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity.

The rebuke, a reference to a rival administration the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces seeks to establish amid its conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces, came after the Quintet — the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the Arab League, the EU and the UN — held talks with Sudanese leaders in an effort to revive a Sudanese-led political process to end the civil war, which began in April 2023.

The delegates met the chair and deputy chair of Sudan’s Transitional Sovereignty Council, the prime minister, and the undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. They also attended a working dinner hosted by the finance minister that drew a number of political and civilian figures.

Beyond government officials, the Quintet said its representatives met a range of political and civilian groups, including the Democratic Bloc, and heard from a committee tasked with fostering the conditions for a nationwide “Sudanese Dialogue,” which briefed the delegates on its work. A meeting with independent women’s and youth groups concluded the Quintet’s mission.

The bloc described the visit as being “in the spirit of listening to the stakeholders on the ground,” with the aim of linking its diplomatic engagement outside of Sudan with initiatives emerging within the country.

“There is no military solution to the conflict in Sudan,” the Quintet said, adding that any durable political process must be paired with concrete steps to protect civilians and end hostilities.

The bloc said it remained convinced that a “credible and inclusive Sudanese led and Sudanese owned” political track can still deliver a transition to a democratic, civilian-led government that reflects the aspirations of the Sudanese people.

MADRID: Spain’s ‌lower house voted on Thursday to grant citizenship to Sahrawis born when Madrid administered the North African territory of Western Sahara as a colony, a move that could inflame delicate relations with Morocco.

The legislation, which a statement from parliament said was approved with 168 votes in favor, 31 against and 145 abstentions, would also allow descendants of those granted citizenship to acquire it.

Some 70,000 to 110,000 Sahrawis could be eligible for Spanish citizenship, according ‌to local media.

Spain’s ‌ruling Socialist Party and its junior ‌left-wing partner Sumar, which filed the initiative, were among those who supported the bill, while the opposition conservative People’s Party abstained and far-right Vox voted against it.

“With the adoption of this legislation, we are restoring – and I emphasise, restoring – the Spanish national identity card to those Sahrawis who once held it and from whom this state ‌took it away,” said Tesh ‌Sidi of the leftist Sumar coalition, the first woman of Sahrawi ‌origin to serve in parliament.

Tensions with Morocco

Tensions have ‌grown between Spain and Morocco following the mass arrival of at least 70,000 migrants in Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta in July.

Spain controlled Western Sahara under various administrative arrangements ‌from 1884 until 1976. Morocco claims sovereignty over Western Sahara and began asserting control over the territory after Spanish rule ended.

The Algerian-backed Polisario Front independence movement seeks recognition of an independent state called the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Many Sahrawis live in refugee camps in Tindouf, Algeria, or elsewhere abroad, while others remain in Western Sahara. Spain had supported a referendum in the territory — in line with United Nations resolutions — until Sanchez’s government reversed course in 2022 and backed Morocco’s position. Tensions eased somewhat after that shift, with Madrid describing Rabat’s autonomy proposal for Western Sahara as “serious, credible and realistic”.

JOJO Siwa has addressed whether she’d date women again – as she lifted the lid on her relationship with Chris Hughes.

The US singer and dancer, 23, struck up a romance with Love Island alum Chris, 33, on last year’s edition of Celebrity Big Brother.

Prior to entering the House, JoJo had been in a relationship with Kath Ebbs and identified as a lesbian.

Although during her time on the show, the star later said she wanted to identify as queer.

Speaking more recently on the Wildmen podcast, JoJo refused to rule out dating women again.

She told hosts Dylan Sprouse and Brendan Columbus about her relationship with Chris: “I thought it was just another friend adding to the thing, right?

together again

JoJo Siwa strips to bikini for loved-up reunion with boyfriend Chris Hughes

HUGHE JOB

Chris Hughes lined up for huge new Big Brother job – and JoJo could join him

“Once realised I wasn’t grossed out by the thought of him being a boy, I was like “whoa.”

JoJo continued: “It was definitely… it was weird, because I’d never thought that before.”

The star explained while she had attractive male friends, she never thought of them romantically – joking her bridal party would be “all dudes.”

JoJo went on: “With Chris… it actually was fascinating because I physically thought I would never be with a dude, ever. I just never thought it was possible.

“And people always go, “What if something happened with Chris, who would you date? – boys or would you go for girls?

“At this point, I have no right to say. You can find interviews on me where I’ve sworn how gross dudes are and I’ll never be with one.

“And now I’m head over heels in love with one.

“People always ask that and it’s always just like, “I have no right to say”, but I really do think that Chris is very much so a special dude.”

For the first time since World War II, a far-right party is within reach of power at state level in Germany, after coming first in Saxony-Anhalt on Sunday.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 44 percent of the vote, stopping short of an overall majority but making clear its wide political significance.

On election night, AfD’s leader in the state called on other political groups to cooperate. “As a democrat, I will reach out to all those who wish to work with us to bring about a fundamental political turnaround,” Ulrich Siegmund said.

Yet, forming a government will prove difficult. The AfD has been classified as “far-right extremist” by the domestic intelligence agency and other political groups remain wary of striking an alliance.

The AfD has dismissed accusations of extremism and mainstream parties have been unable to halt its surge in the polls over recent months. Latest polling indicates the party, which stands for strong restrictions on immigration, restoring ties with Russia, cutting support to Ukraine and quitting the euro, is Germany’s most popular at national level.

The Saxony-Anhalt election could be a harbinger of a historic return of the far-right in the 2029 national election, when forecasts say the AfD stands a realistic chance of finishing first.

What happened in Saxony-Anhalt?

Siegmund, the charismatic 35-year-old who attracted thousands to his campaign rallies, said AfD “made history”.

“The people have made it absolutely clear that they finally want political change and, above all, they have shown that they want it with ⁠us,” he told supporters.

The AfD achieved its best-ever election result in Saxony-Anhalt with 44 percent of the vote, leaving all other parties far behind. The incumbent centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU), led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, scored less than half of that share with 17 percent.

The AfD is projected to gain 39 of the 83 seats in the state parliament in Magdeburg, leaving it three short of the 42 needed for an absolute majority.

That means the party must find allies, but all other mainstream parties refuse to work with the far-right, a strategy of non-cooperation known as the “firewall”. The AfD has so far never participated in a governing coalition in Germany’s 16 states nor in its federal government.

While he now appears willing to strike deals with other parties to come to power, previously Siegmund signalled unwillingness to find middle ground with other political groups. Leading up to the vote, he stated that he was only interested in governing alone to bring about fundamental political change in Germany.

How did AfD fare in recent elections?

The election takes the AfD one step closer to advancing its agenda, while also reflecting the growing unpopularity of Germany’s ruling coalition.

In Saxony-Anhalt, the party more than doubled its vote share — from 21 percent in the last election. By contrast, the CDU’s vote halved from 37 percent to 17 percent, its worst result ever in the east-central German state.

Federal elections last year similarly resulted in a landmark performance by the AfD, which emerged as the largest opposition faction in the Bundestag, the German federal parliament in Berlin. The party came second with 21 percent of the vote, securing its highest-ever showing.

In state elections in Baden-Wurttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate earlier this year too, the AfD more than doubled its seats — though it still finished third. In 2024, the AfD emerged victorious in the Thuringia state election and second in the Brandenburg state election — both were firsts for the party.

The AfD’s electoral gains in Saxony-Anhalt mirror growing dissatisfaction among voters — especially in the former East Germany — about the stagnant economy, high unemployment and domestic security, which the party largely pins on immigration.

What challenges lie ahead for AfD?

Since its formation in 2013, the AfD has been embroiled in various scandals and has faced major controversies, including alleged foreign espionage links, secret deportation plans and internal nepotism.

The party went from a fringe Eurosceptic group to the country’s most powerful opposition force in little more than a decade, becoming too extreme even for the European Parliament’s far-right Identity & Democracy group. It kicked the party out in May 2024 after lead AfD candidate Maximilian Krah stated that not everyone in the SS – Adolf Hitler’s infamous Nazi paramilitary organisation – was a criminal.

Krah has also been under investigation by German prosecutors for alleged illegal payments, bribery and money laundering linked to China and Russia. The German parliament last year decided to lift the far-right legislator’s immunity to help investigators.

AfD politicians have also come under fire for employing family members, including in Saxony-Anhalt, where several parliamentarians are reported to have employed relatives.

Bundestag President, Julia Klockner, banned seven AfD employees from entering the German parliament over security concerns, after they failed internal background reliability checks due to their ties to right-wing extremist networks and past criminal convictions.

Senior AfD figures also faced a backlash for attending a secretive meeting to discuss mass deportation plans for people with a migration background.

What are the AfD’s prospects for the national election in 2029?

Pollsters are unanimous in forecasting the AfD as the largest party in Germany in the next national election in 2029, with around 28 percent of the vote.

That would mark a major transformation in the German political landscape from 2025, when the CDU and its ally the Christian Social Union together won 28.5 percent of the vote.

Yet even that outcome would not necessarily give AfD the ability to govern. If other parties maintain a “firewall” policy, that could prevent the far-right party from forming a coalition government.

Still, the Saxony-Anhalt election has been received by some politicians as a call for change. “Politics begins with considering reality,” Cem Ozdemir, head of government in the southwestern state of Baden-Wurttemberg and a member of the Green Party, wrote on X.

“That means the AfD is the election winner in Saxony-Anhalt. And that must mean for all democratic forces that nothing can remain as it is, and we must fundamentally reconsider our politics and our political style.”

A major travel change is set to impact British holidaymakers going to and from Europe as of today (7 September), and an expert has issued some crucial advice to avoid disruption

An expert has issued a warning to all Brits travelling to and from Europe as a significant change comes into force.

The European Union’s (EU) Entry/Exit System (EES) was rolled out across airports earlier this year, and, in a bid to reduce travel disruption, member states were permitted to relax some of its restrictions. EU countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain were allowed to temporarily “lift biometric registration” until the end of summer to ensure there was “some relief for the worst-case scenario”, and temporarily switched off the EES when required.

Many European countries utilised the eased measures, particually during the summer holidays, as the EES requires all British passport holders to create a digital record and register their biometric details, such as fingerprints and a photograph, upon arrival in the Schengen area. However, as of today, Monday, 7 September, the ability to relax EES requirements is expected to have expired, with no formal announcement made of an extension.

With uncertainty building that it could prompt airport chaos if there is no further leeway given to Brits when travelling through the EU and the digital system, an expert has issued a warning about the impacts. Anton Radchenko, aviation expert and CEO of passenger-rights company AirAdvisor, explained: “The part of this most travellers have not clocked is that the risk runs both ways. Everyone worries about queues when arriving in Europe, but British passengers can also become trapped at exit control at a Spanish, Italian or other Schengen airport when trying to fly home.

“If a passenger misses an operating flight solely because of a passport-control queue, there is generally no automatic EU261 right to compensation or free rebooking. Airlines may help voluntarily, but passengers should not assume they will, and many insurance policies only cover specified causes such as public transport failure, so the exact wording needs to be checked.

“If the airline delays the flight because passengers are stuck in the queue, its normal care obligations still apply after the relevant waiting period. If it cancels, passengers remain entitled to a refund or rerouting, even though fixed compensation is unlikely where the border disruption was outside the airline’s control.”

Anton added: “My advice is to treat the return journey as seriously as the flight out. Follow the airport’s arrival-time guidance, go to passport control promptly, alert the airline before the gate closes if the queue becomes excessive and preserve time-stamped evidence showing where the delay occurred.”

There have been reports that some member states may still allow eased measures moving forward, although nothing has been officially announced. A European Commission spokesperson told the Guardian at the beginning of last week: “We are in close and constructive contact with those few member states where some adjustments are needed at certain border crossing points. And during an additional period of operational adjustment that is needed at these few operational border crossing points, the commission stands ready to provide additional support to these member states.”

Meanwhile, Ryanair has called on the EU Commission to “immediately” extend the EES flexibility until next year. Ryanair’s COO Neal McMahon said: “The EU’s handling of EES has been a shambles from start to finish. Airlines, airports and border authorities repeatedly warned Brussels that the rollout was not ready, that it would increase processing times and that it would create excessive queues for passengers. Those warnings were ignored, with EU citizens the ones delayed and disrupted.

“Passengers should not be made to pay the price for the EU’s failed EES rollout. Ryanair calls on the EU Commission to urgently extend the EES derogation until at least Apr 2027, so that airports and border authorities have the time needed to fix malfunctioning kiosks, increase staffing levels and ensure the system can operate efficiently before full enforcement is introduced and passengers are condemned to these excessive border control delays for another season.”

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

Sept. 6, 2026 8:33 AM PT

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Sunday renewed its appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge blocked new restrictions on mail ballots ahead of the midterms.

The filing came after U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani extended an order against the U.S. Postal Service enforcing President Trump’s executive order for the November elections.

The legal wrangling comes even as states start sending out mail ballots, leaving the administration little time to make big changes in mail ballot rules.

“Ballots have already begun to be mailed in North Carolina, and more States will begin the mailing process as the injunction remains in place — including Alabama on September 9 and at least five States the week of September 13,” Solicitor Gen. John Sauer said in the filing.

“Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them. And while the injunction allows the Postal Service and the States to continue taking steps to ensure that their envelopes satisfy the Rule’s requirements … each day the injunction is in place risks sowing confusion and chaos because the injunction makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.”

The appeal marks the third time the administration has asked the high court to intervene. The high court has allowed the plan to move forward but not ruled on whether it is legal.

The battle could have major ramifications for this year’s elections, when control of Congress is at stake. Nearly one-third of voters in the U.S. cast mail ballots. Mail ballots are sent to every California voter.

Democratic states and voting rights groups say the changes are unconstitutional and amount to voter suppression. Election officials contend that there isn’t enough time to revise their systems to comply with the new Postal Service directives.

The Trump administration has framed the restrictions as commonsense changes that are within its power to regulate the mail.

“Simply put, the best way to address respondents’ fears about inability to comply with the Rule is to grant an immediate administrative stay of the order, followed by a full stay pending further review,” Sauer said. “That will remove the improper cloud of uncertainty that the district court has cast over the Rule, making clear to all involved that compliance with the Rule is not optional and must start without further delay.”

Trump has long sought to limit mail voting, even though he himself often uses that method to cast his own ballot. He has falsely blamed mail balloting for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, spreading baseless claims of fraud. But so far, he has been unable to change the long-standing voting procedure.

Whitehurst and Fields write for the Associated Press.

A federal judge again Friday blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enacting President Trump’s sweeping new mail ballot rules for the November election, finding that the Postal Service lacks such authority over elections and that neither it nor states such as California are capable of implementing the changes without causing chaos and disenfranchising voters.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani noted that election officials from across the country told the court that it is “likely impossible” to comply with the rules, which “makes disenfranchisement more than likely, if not probable” if the Postal Service were to proceed with them.

Talwani’s order — her latest of several halting the plan since this summer — came after a Postal Service whistleblower alleged the agency’s new computer systems for the project are fundamentally flawed; a top Postal Service official acknowledged a key online portal was unfinished; and the Trump administration filed an emergency petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the plans to proceed anyway.

All this unfolded this week as some of the first mail ballots of the election cycle started going out.

The new rules — which Trump required in a March executive order — would require states to submit complete voter lists to the Postal Service and to adopt new ballot envelopes with individualized voter bar codes designed by the Postal Service, and empower the Postal Service to reject any mail ballots that don’t match those lists.

Trump’s executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security to develop its own lists of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to be compared against the state lists.

Trump has said the changes are necessary to combat widespread voter fraud, including by non-citizens, though independent election experts say there is no evidence that such fraud exists in large numbers.

Leading Democrats and elections officials in California and other states say the new rules constitute an unlawful federal overreach into state-run elections and a thinly veiled effort by the Trump administration to suppress the vote in a midterm election the GOP is poised to lose.

Talwani, an appointee of President Obama, agreed, finding that the states and voting rights groups are likely to succeed in their claims that the U.S. Constitution reserves the right to regulate elections to the states and Congress — not the executive branch.

Talwani issued her order after holding a contentious hearing in federal court in Boston on Thursday, where she questioned the Postal Service and the dozen conservative-led states supporting it on their ability to implement the changes in time for the Nov. 3 elections. She also heard from California, other liberal-led states and voting rights groups that it would be impossible.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office is helping lead the states’ challenge, hailed Talwani’s order as a crucial reprieve.

“We’ve now secured longer-term relief that will keep the USPS changes blocked while our case moves forward,” Bonta said in a statement to The Times. “We will continue to take all steps to stop the Trump Administration from trampling on voting rights and restricting mail voting.”

Bonta’s office also criticized Department of Justice attorneys for rushing to the Supreme Court before Talwani could issue her order or the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals could weigh in on an appeal the department had already filed on the matter.

Walter Garcia, a Bonta spokesman, said the Justice Department had “flouted standard procedural rules” by approaching the high court before the lower courts had weighed in, despite the fact that the Postal Service acknowledged Thursday that it was not ready to launch its new portal.

“It defies common sense that they would seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court when USPS is unprepared to implement the rule now,” Garcia said.

State law requires that all registered voters be sent a ballot in the mail, and more than 80% of California voters have used those ballots to vote in recent elections.

In its emergency petition to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued that an earlier temporary restraining order by Talwani to halt the new rules from taking effect was “baseless” and would cause “serious irreparable harm” to the federal government, states and voting public.

“To forestall those harms and protect the public interest, this Court should grant an immediate stay, making clear to States that they should begin efforts to comply if they have not done so already,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

The swirl of litigation has created uncertainty around the Nov. 3 election. It also reflects the Trump administration’s desperate race to get the lower court orders lifted and the new rules implemented in time for that election — the rushed nature of which was a prime focus of the whistleblower.

The unidentified Postal Service employee alleged in a statement released Tuesday by congressional Democrats and submitted in court by Bonta’s office that the agency has been rushing to implement the changes — in defiance of an earlier court order — using “an entirely new and untested set of IT systems” that could cause “catastrophic problems” and disenfranchise millions of voters nationwide.

The Postal Service in a statement Friday said that while its system was developed on an “accelerated schedule,” quality and security standards “were not compromised,” and the agency stands behind “both the rigor of our process and the resulting system.”

At Thursday’s hearing, Talwani appeared frustrated when a Justice Department attorney was unable to tell her the status of the portal.

In a subsequent declaration hours later, Steven W. Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, said officials were still making “refinements” to the portal, but anticipated being able to make it available “for voluntary use by sometime next week.”

Talwani previously issued an order blocking the Postal Service changes from being implemented in California and more than 20 other suing states in June. The Trump administration appealed that decision to the 1st Circuit, which declined to lift it, and then on an emergency basis to the U.S. Supreme Court. In early August, Talwani issued a second ruling for the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, blocking the changes nationwide.

On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court set aside Talwani’s order in the states’ case, finding that the states’ challenge was essentially premature because the Postal Service had yet to formally initiate the changes or require state compliance. However, the court explicitly noted that it was not reaching any conclusions as to the legality of the pending rules themselves. “On that score, time will tell,” it said.

The states and voting rights groups promptly filed new lawsuits challenging the legality of the rules, which the Postal Service formally issued Aug. 21. And it is in those cases that Talwani issued her ruling Friday.

She wrote that the voting rights groups had standing to challenge the Postal Service rules nationwide in part because the “chaos” created by the rules’ stiff deadlines significantly interfered with their mission to provide voters with accurate and reliable information about how to vote — and whether to use mail ballots to do so.

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said in remarks prior to Talwani’s Friday order that he was “very, very confident” that the Postal Service changes will be blocked for the upcoming elections, and that “mail voting is going to go forward as conveniently and securely as it always has.”

That’s in part because election officials nationwide are “telling the courts that even if they wanted to, they could not implement it,” he said — including in a legal filing Becker helped nearly 100 local elections officials from red and blue states file in separate litigation challenging the rules.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche’s fidelity to President Trump nearly cost him his confirmation. Now comes Blanche’s real test.

Trump’s former personal attorney has stepped into the commanding role facing a challenge that other leaders of the Republican president’s Department of Justice could not overcome: threading the needle between Trump’s boundary-busting demands and a prosecutor’s duty to uphold the rule of law. At the same time, Blanche must try to stabilize a workforce shaken by an exodus of experienced lawyers and an erosion of trust in the judicial branch.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Associated Press during a trip to Puerto Rico this week, Blanche promised to lead the department with integrity, dismissing concerns from critics who say his actions so far — including an indictment against longtime Trump foe and former FBI Director James Comey — call into question whether Blanche is still functioning as Trump’s personal lawyer.

A slew of ongoing politically charged investigations under Blanche’s watch could force him to choose between his long-standing loyalty to the president and the foundational principles of the Cabinet agency he leads. At stake is the fate of a department already reeling under a president who has made clear his desire for retribution over the criminal scrutiny he faced.

“My integrity, my commitment to the rule of law is the same today that it was the day I graduated,” Blanche told the AP when asked where he would draw the line on requests from the White House. “I would never do anything unethical or improper or violate my oath, no matter the circumstances.”

Critics disagree.

As acting attorney general, Blanche came under fire from lawmakers, including many Republicans, for signing off on a $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate Trump’s allies who believed they were politically prosecuted. He also greenlit a deal that granted Trump, the Trump Organization, and two of his sons immunity from tax audits. Those moves, unusual steps aimed at granting the president and his allies far-reaching benefits, put Blanche’s confirmation at risk, prompting key senators to express concern.

Blanche, like Trump’s other attorneys general, walks a tightrope

In the AP interview, Blanche addressed criticism of the department under his leadership, his priorities as attorney general and losses the administration has had in high-profile cases. He also depicted the Justice Department as an institution whose independence had eroded long ago — a characterization at odds with decades of fierce autonomy that challenged the highest echelons of power in Washington and beyond.

Blanche, a former federal prosecutor in New York, is walking the same tightrope as Trump’s three other Senate-confirmed attorneys general. They found their pledges to uphold the rule of law and the department’s ethical norms at odds with the president’s demands to bend the institution to his will.

During Trump’s first term, one attorney general infuriated Trump over his withdrawal from an investigation into Trump’s winning White House campaign and was forced out. Another submitted his resignation weeks after breaking with Trump over Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Blanche’s immediate predecessor, Pam Bondi, was ousted in April after failing to deliver successful prosecutions against the president’s political enemies.

Blanche’s narrow confirmation this month over opposition from two Republican senators underscored growing concerns about the dismantling of the Justice Department’s long-standing tradition of independence from the White House, which is meant to protect the impartiality of politically sensitive investigations and prosecutions.

Concerns that the Justice Department is being weaponized

Blanche bristles at the suggestion that the Justice Department should be independent of the president and he has made clear his view that the executive has both the power and the right to shape and control the law enforcement agency.

He has staunchly defended the integrity of cases the administration has brought against the president’s perceived political opponents, often pointing to his own experience representing Trump in criminal cases brought by Democratic President Joe Biden’s Justice Department. Blanche and the president have characterized those cases as politically motivated.

“I think attorneys general and others have said, ‘Oh, we’re independent.’ I don’t think that’s actually true,” Blanche told the AP.

Blanche claimed the Justice Department was not truly independent when he was a federal prosecutor or during the Biden administration. But that characterization ignores the fact that under Biden, the Justice Department investigated Biden himself over his handling of classified documents and secured felony charges in two separate cases against his son Hunter before Biden pardoned him.

The two criminal cases filed by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump were based on allegations, supported by long-running investigations, that Trump had classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and obstructed government efforts to get them back, and conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

Growing distrust of the Justice Department among judges

Blanche has sought to highlight the administration’s focus on tackling illegal immigration, violent crime and drug-trafficking cartels, spotlighting cases such as the takedown of a Puerto Rican gang that he announced during his visit to the U.S. island territory.

But Blanche’s policy priorities are often overshadowed by a growing number of investigations that have drawn criticism that the department is being used as a weapon in the president’s campaign of retribution.

Blanche’s supporters have argued that the close relationship he developed with Trump while serving as his criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at pushing back on or explaining the legal constraints of the president’s demands. Others wonder whether he will fare any better than Bondi up against the same skeptical court system, and factual and legal hurdles, that impeded efforts to deliver the sought-after results.

Blanche is also confronting growing distrust of the Justice Department among judges, who in multiple cases have accused government lawyers of withholding information or misleading courts. Courts in some cases have quashed subpoenas or ordered the review of grand jury transcripts, and the criminal cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor who brought them was illegally appointed.

But Blanche played down concerns that the erosion of judicial trust could impede his efforts to advance his agenda.

“The isolated incidents that make the news are not reflective of the way the bench feels in my view, or the way prosecutors are doing their job around the country,” Blanche said.

Richer writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Aug. 22 (UPI) — The United States Postal Service has prepared a final rule changing how mail voting is administered under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump despite a pair of court injunctions against it, documents show.

An unpublished version of the rule was entered into the Federal Register late on Friday, indicating the USPS intends to press ahead with implementation of a measure the administration says is necessary to prevent fraud in mail-in voting — a popular method of casting ballots that Trump has called “inherently corrupt.”

But critics contend actual fraud in mail-in voting is exceedingly rare and have denounced the measure as one of the most serious attempts by the administration to federalize control of elections in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves such power for the states.

A federal judge 10 days ago expanded an earlier injunction against Trump’s executive order, under which the USPS would be required to decide who will get mail-in ballots.

The injunction blocked it from implementing Section 3 of the order for this year’s midterm elections, which most polls shows will likely favor Democratic congressional candidates.

Despite the court rulings, USPS promulgated the final rule with Friday’s filing, thus making it available to be officially published in the Federal Register on Wednesday. After that it would theoretically take effect immediately, even though it will be blocked for this year’s midterm elections unless a court decides otherwise.

The current filing is an amended version of the initial proposal which received more than 200,000 comments during its review phase.

Trump signed the order on March 31 directing the Department of Homeland Security to build a list of citizens from federal data, which would then be sent to state election officials.

The USPS would then only send absentee or mail-in ballots to people it has determined are eligible to vote, and the U.S. Attorney General would investigate and prosecute election officials who issue federal ballots to those ineligible to vote.

Twenty-three mostly Democratic-led states sued to block the order and U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed with the plaintiffs.

The administration appealed the decision and failed. It appealed again on July 27 to the Supreme Court, which has yet to make a ruling.

“Yesterday’s new mail-in voting rule is an attempt to weaponize USPS as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to take over elections,” Michael McNulty of the bipartisan political reform group Issue One said in a statement issued Saturday.

“If it holds up in court, it would mean postal workers shift from neutral transporters of a state-led process to a federal gatekeeper of states’ outbound mail ballots — requiring states to provide USPS with voter-level ballot information and giving USPS authority to reject ballots that do not meet the new federal requirements.”

He dismissed Trump’s oft-stated concerns about voter fraud as “tired, debunked conspiracy theories to justify gaining control over secure, verified, and effective methods of voting, including mail-in voting, to tilt the playing field” in favor of Republican candidates.

A federal judge in New York has vacated a Trump administration policy that suspended the processing of visas from 75 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Somalia, whose nationals the Trump administration deemed likely to require public assistance in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, an appointee of President Biden, described the policy Friday as “contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio exceeded his authority by issuing the policy, which “runs afoul” of the Immigration and Nationality Act by mandating “the refusal of visas to eligible applicants without any basis in law,” the judge ruled.

Power lies with consular officers, judge says

Vargas said the policy also undermines the congressional requirement that puts consular officers at the forefront of any visa decision.

“Congress imbued these officers with exclusive authority and discretion to determine if an immigrant is eligible for a visa based upon review of specific and detailed criteria set forth in the statute,” she wrote. “The Policy, which categorically prohibits the issuance of immigrant visas based upon the nationality of the applicant, represents a direct abrogation of this statutory scheme.”

The policy was challenged by two nonprofit organizations along with 11 individuals, including six whose family members had been refused visas. The remaining five are outside the country and had filed “employment-based petitions” to come to the United States.

‘This case is about keeping families together,’ advocate says

“We welcome this ruling because, at its heart, this case is about keeping families together,” said Anna Gallagher, the executive director of CLINIC, a national nonprofit that provides training, resources and support to a network of immigration legal service providers and was one of the plaintiffs.

“Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and recognize the family as the foundation of society,” she said in a statement. “This decision affirms both those values and the rule of law, allowing families to once again move forward toward reunification.”

Another plaintiff is African Communities Together, a Harlem-based nonprofit. One of its leaders called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the rule of law.”

“This unlawful and racist ban caused immeasurable harm, cruelly keeping families and loved ones apart,” Diana Konate, deputy executive director for policy and advocacy, said in a statement. “Today, we are elated to tell our community members: this ban is no more.”

Trump expands anti-immigration agenda

President Trump has imposed a growing list of immigration and travel bans mostly for people from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The State Department said Saturday that the Trump administration is “protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants,” and that it would not comment on pending litigation.

At the time the policy was issued, the State Department said it had instructed consular officers to halt immigrant visa applications from the 75 countries in accordance with a broader order in November that tightened rules around potential immigrants who might become “public charges.”

Relying on Council of Economic Advisors data, the State Department said that more than 30% of households with immigrants from these countries received some form of public assistance.

A separate notice sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates said that non-immigrant visa applicants also should be “fully vetted and screened” for the possibility that they might seek public benefits in the United States.

The cable, a copy of which was obtained by the Associated Press, noted several times that the applicant must prove they won’t apply for public benefits while in the U.S., and that consular officers who suspect the applicant might apply should require them to fill out a form proving their financial bona fides.

The ruling is the latest example of the courts upending Trump’s immigration agenda.

In June, a federal judge struck down a Trump administration policy that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to enter and stay in the United States — affecting elements including asylum, work permits, green cards and citizenship applications. That judge said the policy threw countless immigrants’ lives “into indeterminate legal limbo,” and accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

Cruisers are being warned over a common balcony habit that breaks strict P&O rules and could see their holiday terminated early

Passengers looking forward to a cruise holiday may have packed their cigarettes or vape without giving much thought as to whether or not they can be used on the ship. But P&O Cruises has strict rules about smoking on board, with some breaches potentially putting the rest of a traveller’s holiday at risk.

Smoking is not permitted in cabins, on cabin balconies or in public rooms across P&O Cruises ships. Instead, guests are restricted to designated smoking areas on the open deck, which can vary depending on the weather and cleaning arrangements.

The same rule applies to electronic cigarettes. P&O says e-cigarettes, including those which do not produce smoke or vapour, can only be used in designated smoking areas and are prohibited in the same public areas.

This means a passenger who steps onto their private balcony for a cigarette is still breaking the cruise line’s rules, despite being outside. Guests are instead told to use the ashtrays and receptacles provided in designated smoking areas and make sure smoking materials are fully extinguished. The permitted locations are signposted, although the cruise line says they can change.

Consequences of breaking P&O rules

P&O’s code of conduct sets out the potential consequences of serious or disruptive behaviour on board. The cruise line says disrespectful or offensive behaviour can result in a holiday being terminated, with onward travel arranged at the guest’s own cost.

Its FAQ separately states that dangerous or violent behaviour may result in an individual guest or an entire party having their holiday terminated and having to make their own way home.

P&O’s published smoking policy does not say that every smoking breach will automatically result in immediate removal from the ship. However, passengers should not assume that breaking on-board rules is consequence-free, particularly where behaviour is considered serious or disruptive.

Beyond the threat of early disembarkation, guests caught lighting up inside their stateroom also risk steep cleaning charges billed directly to their onboard account. Because fire is considered the primary safety threat at sea, cabin smoke detectors are highly sensitive and actively monitored around the clock.

Passengers are advised to check their ship’s daily newsletter or speak to guest services upon embarkation to locate designated smoking zones. Taking a moment to double-check permitted deck areas ensures holidaymakers avoid costly fines or an unwanted confrontation with security.

BRITS heading to Europe now have to go through the new Entry/Exit System (EES), but some parents have been unclear on whether kids have to use it too.

Some families hadn’t realised that children under 12-years-old need certain biometrics taken at the border.

On ABTA, the confirmed advice reads: “People of all ages will need to go through the EES checks.

“Children under 12 will not need to provide fingerprints, but they will need to have a facial scan taken.”

This is where the confusion lay as some parents believed their younger children were exempt from checks altogether.

Any Brit over the age of 12 is required to have both their fingerprints taken and their face scanned for registering.

HOL YES

Cheap holiday destinations with 86p beers, £15 flights & £129pp package breaks

CHEAP CHIC

Cheap UK stays from £9.50pp – with FREE bottomless wine & £11pp coastal cottages

If you are heading abroad as a family, it’s important to leave extra time for EES checks as delays have been reported to be up to six hours.

Some passengers have even missed flights as a result.

Passengers returning to the UK from Athens in June were still in the airport queuing through passport control and missed their flight to London Luton.

One holidaymaker told the BBC there had been a “mega queue” at Athens International Airport.

Hundreds of people were waiting at both security and passport control and the plane was forced to leave without them.

Something else to be aware of if travelling as a parent with a different surname, as this can result in airport delays.

Tough rules at the border are in place to prevent child trafficking and parents could be asked for proof of relation.

Along with valid passports, it’s advised to keep important documents to hand, these include;

• A sealed copy of any Court Order you have permitting you to travel alone.
• A consent letter from the parent(s) or holders of parental responsibility not accompanying you.
• Your child’s birth or adoption certificate.
• Your marriage certificate or Decree Absolute if you were married to the non-accompanying parent but are no longer married.

While we can’t guarantee that it will make journeys any quicker, Sun Travel do have suggestions on how to make it a bit more bearable with kids.

The first is bring entertainment, it could be worth setting the kids up with an iPad or something that will keep them occupied.

Take advantage of the priority lane if there is one for families – usually this is for those with young children.

For more tips on how to avoid EES chaos at the airports, head here.

US Agriculture Department says rescinding the 2001 rule will help reduce wildfire risk and return control to local managers.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has filed a proposal to rescind the entirety of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which prohibits road construction and logging on nearly 45 million acres (18 million hectares) of national forest land.

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins submitted the proposal on Tuesday, saying it will mitigate wildfire risk by returning authority to local forest managers, who “know the land best”.

“For too long, outdated restrictions have kept tens of millions of forested acres off-limits to the very treatments that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk to our communities,” Rollins said in a statement. “It’s time to turn the page on the failed roadless rule and return our forests to health and productivity.”

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers say building roads in these areas would make it easier for firefighters to access the land if a wildfire breaks out.

“For 25 years, the heavy thumb of Washington, D.C., has hindered Montana’s ability to properly manage wildfire risk and road development on nearly 60 percent of Forest Service land across the Treasure State,” Republican Governor Greg Gianforte of Montana said in a statement.

While the areas are referred to as “roadless”, there are thousands of miles of existing roads within the lands with federal, state, and county ownership. About half of these lands are within 1 mile (1.6km) of a road, and 31 percent are within 0.5 miles (800 metres) of a road, according to the National Forest Service.

The USDA clarified that it is not forcing timber cutting or road construction.

But environmental groups say rescinding the conservation rule will open the door to developments that will increase the risk of wildfire. Fires are four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless forests, according to research from The Wilderness Society.

“Roadless forests are where wildlife live,” Taylor McKinnon, southwest director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “They’re home to jaguars, Mexican spotted owls, and ocelots, some of the most iconic animals on the continent. Plowing roads into their habitat will bring human-caused wildfires and disturbances that they don’t need and can’t afford.”

The US is experiencing one of its worst wildfire years in the last decade, with 7.3 million acres (3 million hectares) burned in about 49,000 fires through August 17, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

More than 95 percent of the affected areas would be in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

In early August, the state of Washington fought a highly destructive wildfire that burned more than 8,000 acres (3,200 hectares) and forced approximately 65,000 people to evacuate.

Last month, the Trump administration finalised rollbacks of two regulations affecting the Endangered Species Act. One change requires officials to weigh economic and national security considerations when determining whether an area should be designated as “critical habitat”.

The public will have until September 21 to comment on the proposed Roadless Rule.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — A group of university organizations and labor unions filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new government rule that limits the time international students can spend in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the final rule last month, ending the previous “duration of status” policy for international students.

Under that rule, the United States admitted students with F-1 and J-1 visas for the duration of their status: That is, they entered to pursue a course of study and remained until they earned their chosen degree or degrees.

Students needed to maintain a required course load and comply with the general conditions of their immigration status. There are about 1.5 million students with F-1 and J-1 visas in the United States.

Under the changed policy, international students are capped at four-year stays unless they undergo a federal review to be considered for an extension. Such reviews are to include submitting biometric information and undergoing security, identity and fraud screening.

In announcing the final rule, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the duration of status policy “undermined national security” and that the new rule restores the U.S. ability to “properly screen and manage those who remain in our country.”

The group filing the lawsuit Tuesday asked for a preliminary injunction stopping the new rule before it is implemented. The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration (one of the parties to the lawsuit) said the Department of Homeland Security did not adequately justify or assess the rule, address public comments on it or consider better alternatives.

“These changes will create significant uncertainty and administrative burdens for international students and exchange visitors and the institutions that support them,” the Alliance said in a statement. “They will also interfere with academic decision-making, disrupt students’ educational and professional plans and undermine the ability of U.S. colleges and universities to attract and retain global talent.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, also a party to the lawsuit, said the new rule shows that the United States is “once again breaking the law for its own political purposes and, in doing so, is hurting Americans and American enterprise.”

“And it’s using international students — who we’ve welcomed here to help us — as its pawns,” Weingarten said. “American is a leader in cutting-edge research because generations of scientists from every corner of the globe have been free to pursue difficult questions, challenge conventional wisdom, collaborate openly and publish their findings — without political interference.”

The new rule also requires journalists with I visas to renew their status every 240 days. Jon Schleuss — the president of the NewsGuild-CWA, also a party to the lawsuit — said those visas support the important work of international journalists in the United States.

“Our First Amendment makes it clear that the United States is supposed to be a champion of a free press, not an opponent,” Schleuss said. “These rule changes are just another attempt by this administration to chill reporting done by talented journalists.”

Many households could be overpaying for their TV Licence without realising it

Many people may be able to get their TV Licence for less than they think, with some eligible households saving up to £90 a year.

TV Licensing says discounts are available to certain groups. For example, if you’re aged 74 or over and you, or a partner living at the same address, receive Pension Credit, you may be entitled to a free licence.

People in a care home or sheltered accommodation may also qualify for a reduced fee of £7.50, while those who only watch on a black-and-white TV pay £60.50. Meanwhile, anyone who is blind (severely sight impaired) can apply for a 50% discount, cutting the cost to £90.

50% TV Licence discount

A TV Licence costs £180 per year, following a price rise on April 1, 2026. However, TV Licensing rules state you could get it for £90.

It explains: “If you are blind (severely sight impaired) and can provide the appropriate evidence, you are eligible to apply for a 50% concession.”

“Your licence will also cover anyone who lives with you”, it confirms. However, it adds that “if you are partially sighted (sight impaired), you are not eligible.”

Do I qualify for a 50% blind concession TV Licence?

TV Licensing explains that a blind concession Licence costs £90 for colour and £30.25 for a black and white Licence. It asks that it be provided with a copy of ONE of these documents to confirm that you’re certified as blind (severely sight-impaired):

• CVI (Certificate of Visual Impairment) to confirm that you’re certified as blind (severely sight impaired)
• BD8 Certificate to confirm that you’re certified as blind (severely sight impaired)
• A certificate or document issued by a Local Authority that shows you are registered as blind (severely sight impaired)
• A copy of a certificate from an Ophthalmologist (eye surgeon), stating that you are blind (severely sight impaired).
• Tax coding notice from HMRC showing you receive Blind person’s allowance
• A copy of your National Registration Card signed by an Ophthalmologist stating that your are blind (severely sight impaired)
• DHSS documentation or certificate stating that your are blind (severely sight impaired) for Isle of Man residents only
• Health and Social Services documentation or letter from Optometrist for residents of Northern Ireland only

I live with someone who is blind, can I still get the discount?

Yes. The TV Licence experts note that if you or someone you live with is blind (severely sight impaired), regardless of their age, you can apply for a blind concession.

If you already have a TV Licence but it isn’t in the blind person’s name, you’ll need to transfer it to them. This can be done by submitting a first-time blind application and entering the TV Licence number currently linked to your address.

I am partially sighted (sight-impaired). Can I get the discount?

No. TV Licence rules state: “People who are partially sighted (sight impaired) do not qualify for a 50% blind concession.”

How to apply for a blind concession

If you already have a blind licence, you can sign in here to renew it. If you are applying for the first time, you can fill out the official form here.

People picking this side of the plane could get a lot less – and for some that could actually be a good thing

When aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus build planes, they design the windows to line up perfectly with standard, comfortable legroom (usually a 31-to-32-inch seat pitch). But most budget airlines make a change to their seating set-up that some passengers might actually prefer.

Because aircraft seats are mounted on floor tracks, airlines can move them freely. Budget airlines like Ryanair, Jet2, TUI and Easyjet will often deliberately push the seat rows much closer together (down to a tight 28-to-29-inch pitch) to fit extra rows onto the plane.

Although the seats move, the window cut-outs in the metal body of the plane stay. It’s this shrinking legroom that instantly forces the seats and windows out of sync.

Most window seats that passengers pick will have a view out of the plane, but some are known to have restricted views. In some cases, there are seats that have no window at all.

While this might sound like a complaint waiting to happen, some people may actually see this as a perk. Unlike the ‘extra legroom’ trick, this flat surface offers the best spot for those wanting to take a nap during their flight – or those nervous fliers who would rather not know what being 30,000ft in the air looks like.

Certain people claim that the window-free wall space offers a great place to rest a pillow. These misaligned seats often run down the left-hand side of the plane.

For people wanting to benefit from less of a view, check your plane’s seating chart before confirming your choice. You can often see how the window situation will work.

• Ryanair (Boeing 737-800): The misalignment runs heavily down the left side of the aircraft. It is so pronounced that Seat 11A and 11F often has no window at all.
• EasyJet (Airbus A319/A320): Highly noticeable misalignment on the left-hand side. The final rows (Row 31 on A320s and Row 26 on A319s) are completely windowless as well as certain overwing exit rows which may also have slightly altered alignment.
• Jet2 (Boeing 737-800 or Airbus A321neo): On their Boeing 737s, you will find the Jet2 windows out of alignment past the front bulkhead. If you book an “A” seat on the left, you will frequently find yourself staring directly at the plastic pillar between two windows rather than out of the glass.
• TUI (Boeing 737 MAX or 787 Dreamliner): On TUI’s short-haul Boeing 737s, the misalignment works exactly like Ryanair and Jet2 models. However, if you are flying on TUI’s long-haul Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the rule does not apply as long-haul aircrafts usually maintain standard legroom pitches, meaning the seats and windows stay properly aligned.

If your goal is to sleep on your next flight, sitting on the left side (Seats A) of a short-haul flight on these airlines gives you a higher statistical chance of getting a solid wall or a heavily forward-shifted window to rest your head against.

If you actually want to enjoy the view, you are better off sitting on the right side (Seats F). Booking these seats may also offer a little ‘extra’ legroom at a fraction of the cost.

Palestinian politicians and analysts have warned against what they describe as an Israeli plan to illegally annex the occupied West Bank by implementing a series of decisions and actions under different pretexts.

Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz, on Friday, ordered the military to prepare a plan for transferring civilian law enforcement in the occupied West Bank to the Israeli police.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the decision follows criticism over the army’s handling of Israeli settlers who besieged a Palestinian home in the village of Qusra.

Katz justified the shift, saying, “The army’s role is to combat Palestinian terrorism … and not chase hilltop youth.”

The Defence Ministry indicated the police would establish a dedicated force to handle these civilian matters.

However, Palestinian officials and a wide array of political experts warn this structural shift represents a dangerous acceleration of illegal annexation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.

Mustafa Barghouti, secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative, told Al Jazeera that the settlers are the “spearhead in the process of annexation and Judaisation”.

He drew direct historical parallels to the mass displacement of Palestinians, stating, “They repeat what the Zionist terror gangs did in 1948, like the Haganah and the Stern Gang.”

Barghouti warned that placing security in the hands of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and illegal Israeli settlements under Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich amounts to “handing over the West Bank to the settlers”.

He stressed that this is an open war on the population, adding, “The actual ruler in the West Bank is the known fascist terrorist Smotrich.”

De facto annexation

Analysts argue that replacing military occupation law with domestic civilian law fundamentally alters the legal reality of the territory. Mohanad Mustafa, an academic and researcher in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera that the decision legally erases the borders.

“The government is dealing with the West Bank not as an occupied territory,” Mustafa said. He explained that by transferring power to a civilian police force, “this means that the government has annexed the West Bank”.

He noted this move absolves the military of its obligations under international law, placing enforcement under Ben-Gvir.

Mustafa warned that Ben-Gvir, who previously oversaw the demolition of thousands of Arab homes in Israel, will now command the police to “support the settlers more and more and push them more and more towards deepening their repression and terrorism against the Palestinians”.

Palestinian leadership strongly condemned the mandate. Hussein al-Sheikh, secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee, described the move as a blatant violation of international agreements and an attempt to “impose Israeli law and sovereignty over the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and to entrench the illegal annexation of Palestinian land”.

The Palestinian group Hamas echoed this sentiment, releasing a statement calling the order a “dangerous step on the path to imposing de facto annexation” that provides “cover and more protection for the escalating attacks and crimes of the settlers”.

Fascist militias

The Palestinian Authority has accused the Israeli government and its military of sponsoring settlers’ violence. Even Israeli members of parliament have accused the army of being complicit.

Analysts stress that relieving the military of its duties essentially deputises settler violence, turning them into an armed extension of the state.

Nihad Abu Ghosh, an expert in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera that there is no contradiction between the army and the settlers. He noted that the settlers have evolved into “fascist militia formations” that perform the state’s dirty work.

“These are fascist militia formations, and there are similar precedents in many countries that were ruled by fascism, whether in Spain, Italy, Germany, or even Chile,” Abu Ghosh said.

He added that these militias carry out roles that “require evading any discipline, rules, or laws” to achieve a “creeping, gradual annexation to make it a reality”.

Apartheid and displacement

The dual legal framework resulting from this shift has drawn sharp international and local criticism. Shadi al-Shurafa, a researcher in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera that the situation is a textbook definition of segregation.

“We are facing an application of an overt racist apartheid system in the West Bank,” al-Shurafa said, noting it involves one regime operating with two entirely different laws based on ethnicity.

He added that the ultimate goal of the current government is carrying out complete ethnic cleansing and trapping Palestinians in “isolated cantons and isolated Bantustans”.

Other experts argue that the move completely alters the international legal status of the territory, pushing the crisis into a new, more dangerous phase.

“The subject has bypassed the issue of annexation to a post-annexation phase and creating a reality where the Palestinian finds himself forced to think about migration,” said Adel Shadid, expert in Israeli affairs.

International complicity

Analysts also pointed to the role of the international community, particularly the United States, in enabling this systemic shift.

Shadid dismissed recent US condemnations of settler violence as mere theatre to “mislead global public opinion”.

He argued that the underlying project has full US backing, noting that “all that is happening now is an American-Israeli plan and there is harmony between the two right-wing administrations in Washington and here in Israel”.

Andrew Whitley, a former United Nations official and director of the Balfour Project, stressed that the planned transfer is “completely illegal” and urged immediate global intervention.

He told Al Jazeera that the “Palestinian state is disappearing before our eyes”, demanding that the international community move beyond rhetoric.

“We have to do much more than just wring our hands and complain that governments are not doing anything about this,” Whitley said, calling for concrete sanctions to halt the rapid erasure of the Palestinian presence.

More than half of women’s organisations still operating in Afghanistan could cease operations within the next year, UN Women warns.

Five years since the Taliban came to power, the United Nations has warned that funding issues mean more than half of women’s organisations still operating in Afghanistan could cease operations within the next year.

Susan Ferguson, UN Women’s special representative in Afghanistan, appealed to donor countries on Friday not to cut funding for women’s programmes, saying to do so would only deepen the suffering of Afghan women.

More than half of 74 women’s organisations surveyed in April are likely to have to suspend operations or close in the next year due to funding problems, Ferguson said.

The UN’s $1.7bn humanitarian appeal for Afghanistan was only 25 percent funded, and nearly three-quarters of the women’s organisations had experienced funding cuts in 2025, while about two-thirds reported that they had six months or less of operational funding remaining, she added.

The UN’s call comes as the Taliban marks five years since US forces withdrew from the country, effectively handing back power to the group in August 2021, after 20 years of war.

Bright white flags of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have been installed this week across the Afghan capital Kabul, with new murals declaring: “Independence is a sign of dignity, pride and identity”.

The Taliban is also hosting a cricket match as part of the celebrations – but, just like much of public life in Afghanistan, women and girls are barred from attending.

Crippling restrictions for Afghan women

The Taliban has imposed more than 100 decrees restricting women’s rights since returning to power, affecting nearly every aspect of their daily lives, from education and employment to freedom of movement, healthcare and access to justice, Ferguson said.

Despite repeated Taliban promises to find an ideologically compliant way for them to attend school, girls are still banned from secondary schools and women from universities.

More than half of 3,200 women surveyed by UN Women said they now leave their homes only once or twice a month.

Seven in 10 women described their mental health as bad or very bad, Ferguson said.

On Friday, a group of 56 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Lebanon, the United States and the United Arab Emirates, issued a joint statement at the UN renewing calls on the Taliban to reverse restrictions on women and girls, saying its “systematic repression of women and girls has become a defining feature of the current system”.

A slew of challenges

Five years of Taliban rule have left wider Afghan society facing a slew of other challenges.

More than half of primary school-aged children are out of school, and child malnutrition has reached critical levels in a third of Afghanistan’s provinces, according to the UN World Food Programme.

Infrastructure in the country has been damaged by a series of deadly earthquakes and floods that have also killed thousands.

While deaths from “terrorism” have fallen precipitously since the Taliban took power, according to data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the country has become embroiled in a series of deadly border confrontations with its neighbours in both Iran and Pakistan.

The country also remains relatively diplomatically isolated, with Russia being the only country worldwide to formally recognise Taliban rule.