security

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being treated not simply as a technology sector but as a strategic capability tied to economic power, national security and geopolitical competition. Recent warnings from leading AI researchers and executives that increasingly autonomous systems could pose extreme risks have intensified debate over whether development should be slowed.

Yet the same warnings could make a slowdown less likely. If advanced AI can provide major military, economic and technological advantages, governments may view continued development as a strategic necessity. The result could be a paradox in which growing concerns about the dangers of AI encourage countries to accelerate the race to control it.

The United States and China are at the center of this competition. Both governments have strong incentives to maintain their technological advantage, while companies are investing enormous sums in data centers, chips and computing infrastructure.

The scale of investment shows why reversing course would be difficult. Goldman Sachs estimates that cumulative global AI spending through the end of the decade could reach as much as 5% of global GDP. At the same time, financial markets are increasingly sensitive to whether the extraordinary investment in AI infrastructure will ultimately generate sufficient economic returns.

Why it matters

The central question is no longer simply whether AI development should be regulated. It is whether governments can realistically agree to meaningful limits while competing for technological dominance.

A country that slows development unilaterally risks allowing competitors to move ahead. That creates a classic security dilemma: measures intended to reduce risk can themselves create strategic vulnerability.

The problem is particularly significant because AI has applications far beyond commercial technology. Advanced systems could affect cybersecurity, intelligence, military planning, financial markets, biotechnology and critical infrastructure.

That makes AI different from many previous technology debates. Governments may be willing to regulate individual applications, but they are less likely to accept restrictions that could permanently reduce their strategic advantage.

The investment dilemma

The AI boom has already become deeply connected to wider economic growth.

Companies are spending heavily on computing capacity and data centers, while investors have placed enormous valuations on firms expected to benefit from AI adoption. A significant slowdown could therefore have consequences far beyond technology companies.

Morgan Stanley has estimated that almost $200 billion in U.S. data center projects were cancelled or delayed amid political resistance to new infrastructure. The bank has also argued that capital expenditure linked to AI could account for roughly one third of U.S. GDP growth over the current period.

This creates another obstacle to restraint. AI investment is no longer only a corporate decision. It has become connected to employment, infrastructure, financial markets and national economic growth.

The longer the investment cycle continues, the more difficult it becomes for governments and companies to voluntarily step away from it.

Washington and Beijing

The geopolitical dimension makes a coordinated slowdown even harder.

U.S. policymakers increasingly view technological leadership in AI as an element of national power. China, meanwhile, sees AI development as part of its broader effort to reduce dependence on Western technology and strengthen its own economic and strategic capabilities.

That means Washington and Beijing have incentives to monitor each other’s progress rather than simply establish limits.

The political rhetoric surrounding AI increasingly reflects this competition. Trump has portrayed opposition to AI infrastructure as benefiting China, while Chinese state media has described warnings about AI as part of a broader geopolitical strategy against Beijing.

The result is a familiar strategic dilemma: if either side believes the other may continue developing advanced AI, neither has much incentive to slow down first.

Can international rules work?

Meaningful AI restrictions would ultimately require international cooperation.

Individual countries can establish domestic safety standards, require companies to conduct risk assessments or impose restrictions on specific applications. But those measures cannot fully address the geopolitical problem if competitors outside those jurisdictions remain free to develop more powerful systems.

The nuclear comparison illustrates the difficulty. The first nuclear weapon was developed in 1945, but the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty did not emerge until 1968. Even after the treaty, nuclear proliferation continued beyond the five states formally recognized as nuclear-weapon states.

AI could present an even more complicated challenge because it is not confined to a small number of military facilities. Its development involves thousands of companies, researchers, data centers and computing systems spread across multiple countries.

Economic security could become the new arms race

The most important shift may be that AI competition does not need to resemble a conventional military arms race to produce similar strategic pressures.

Advanced AI could generate advantages in productivity, financial markets, scientific research, cybersecurity and military technology. Falling behind could therefore be perceived as an economic and national security threat even without the development of an explicit weapon.

This could produce what might be described as mutually assured economic dependence. Countries may recognize the dangers of uncontrolled AI while simultaneously believing that abandoning the technology would be even more dangerous.

That dynamic makes voluntary restraint increasingly difficult.

Implications and analysis

The growing warnings about AI may therefore have an unintended geopolitical consequence: they could accelerate the race they are intended to constrain.

If governments become convinced that highly capable AI could fundamentally alter national power, they are unlikely to leave its development to private companies or accept restrictions that allow competitors to gain an advantage. Instead, the technology could become more closely integrated with national security policy.

That could eventually mean greater government involvement in AI companies, computing infrastructure, semiconductor supply chains and access to advanced models.

The biggest danger is therefore not simply that AI becomes too powerful to control technologically. It may become too strategically important for governments to willingly slow down.

For meaningful safeguards to emerge, major powers would need to treat AI safety as a shared security interest rather than another arena of geopolitical competition. Without that shift, every warning about the potential consequences of advanced AI could strengthen the argument for moving faster.

The paradox is clear: the more dangerous AI becomes, the more governments may feel they need to control it. And the more they compete to control it, the harder it becomes to slow the race.

With information from Reuters.

NEW YORK CITY: Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UN warned the Security Council on Thursday that “the international community cannot call for de-escalation” in Yemen “while at the same time allowing the continued flow of support that enables this (Houthi) militia to continue its hostile and criminal conduct.”

The warning from Abdulaziz Alwasil came during an emergency council session to discuss Houthi attacks against the Kingdom this week. It was requested by the UK, the penholder on Yemen, and Bahrain.

He said the latest strikes on Saudi cities, which began on Tuesday, were not an isolated episode but “an extension of a systematic, hostile approach pursued by this militia since its coup against the legitimate Yemeni government in 2014,” and part of a pattern that has also targeted commercial shipping and threatened freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait.

He said a press statement by the council on Aug. 7 condemning Houthi missile strikes on the Kingdom since July 13, and attacks against commercial vessels since July 22, had gone unheeded, and the militia had answered the international warnings with further escalation.

Alwasil said Saudi Arabia had backed nearly every major effort to end the Yemen war — including the Gulf Initiative, the transitional period, the National Dialogue Conference, the Geneva, Kuwait and Stockholm talks, a 2021 initiative and the UN-brokered truce in 2022 — but the Houthis had repeatedly met those efforts with renewed violence.

“My country affirms its legitimate right to defend itself, its citizens and residents, and to safeguard our national resources,” he said, adding that Riyadh “will not hesitate to take all measures necessary to deter Houthi attacks and to protect our security, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

He called on the council to enforce Resolutions 2216, which imposed an arms embargo and sanctions on the Houthis, and 2722, which demanded an immediate halt to Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, and to send “a clear and firm message” that leaves no room for misinterpretation that attacks on the Kingdom must stop.

Yemen’s ambassador, Abdullah Alsaadi, affirmed Sanaa’s “full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its leadership, government and people,” and its “absolute rejection of the use of any part of the Yemeni territory as a platform for launching missiles and drones, or for threatening the security of the Kingdom or any neighboring country.”

He said the attacks amounted to the “hijacking” of Yemen’s own sovereign decisions over war and peace, carried out by a militia that operates outside of state institutions and was “militarily and technically supported by the Iranian terrorist regime.”

Saudi Arabia had shown “a great degree of restraint,” Alsaadi said, and been “the principal partner of the Yemeni people and state” in supporting institutions, salaries and services throughout the war. But he cautioned that “restraint should not be misconstrued as weakness.”

The security of Yemen and of Saudi Arabia “cannot be separated from one another,” he added, as he called for full enforcement of the arms embargo on the Houthis, and accountability for those who finance and arm the group.

NEW YORK CITY: A UN Security Council committee tasked with overseeing sanctions on Iran remained blocked for a fourth consecutive quarter on Thursday.

Council members traded accusations over the panel’s inertia, against a backdrop of intensifying US-Iran hostilities and a landmark decision by the UN’s nuclear watchdog to refer Tehran back to the council for the first time in 20 years.

The 1737 Sanctions Committee has not met in the year since it was reestablished with the backing of most council members, and no report on its activities was presented during Thursday’s session after China and Russia once again blocked it.

The impasse has also stalled the appointment of experts to a panel, the mandate for which is due to expire on Sept. 27, that is intended to support the sanctions-monitoring work of the committee.

The dispute dates back to August 2025 when France, Germany and the UK triggered a so-called “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, to reimpose pre-2015 UN sanctions on Tehran.

China and Russia dispute the legality of that move, arguing that all sanctions lapsed on Oct. 19, 2025, with the scheduled expiration of the deal, and so the council’s consideration of the Iranian nuclear file was effectively ended.

Against this backdrop of an unresolved procedural fight, the Security Council session on Thursday was dominated by more recent developments: the International Atomic Energy Agency’s formal referral of Iran to the Security Council and the General Assembly this week; and the continuing military exchanges between Iran and the US.

The agency’s board of governors voted 23-3 on Wednesday to refer Iran over its noncompliance with international nuclear safeguards, the first such referral in two decades. China, Niger and Russia voted no and eight countries abstained.

Ambassador Jennifer Locetta, the US alternate representative for special political affairs, told the council that the IAEA “has not received information from Iran regarding the status of its declared nuclear materials or facilities” and has been denied access to carry out verification procedures.

The agency’s director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has again urged Tehran to engage constructively with the process, she added. Locetta dismissed Iranian claims that inspections were being blocked as a result of security concerns, noting that “Ukraine has been a worse and more constant war zone” and yet IAEA inspectors had still been able to work there throughout the conflict.

Washington, she said, would “look to partners in the coming days to weigh options” for strengthening the sanctions regime.

China’s deputy permanent representative, Sun Lei, voted against the meeting’s agenda and placed the blame for the deteriorating situation squarely on Washington. He said the US strikes and campaign of “maximum pressure” on Iran were the “primary causes” of the crisis.

A memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran in June was “undermined shortly after it took effect” by renewed military clashes, he added, and Washington had since “intensified unilateral sanctions” and “launched a new round of military strikes” against Tehran.

Beijing, he said, opposed further use of force and called for a return to efforts to reach a political and diplomatic settlement based on “equality and mutual respect.”

France’s ambassador to the UN, Jerome Bonnafont, said Iran’s stockpile of more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent had “no credible civilian justification” and was sufficient for about 10 nuclear devices.

He cited the latest report by Grossi as saying the situation “raises an issue of proliferation and should be addressed with the greatest urgency.”

France backed a US-drafted resolution for the renewal of the expert panel’s mandate, Bonnafont added. He called for the full reopening to international shipping of the Strait of Hormuz, and offered a French naval presence there, alongside the UK, to help secure freedom of navigation.

Pakistan’s permanent representative, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, told the council that the “upsurge of violence in the Middle East in the last few days” was “unsettling for the prospects of peace,” and said Islamabad was engaged in back-channel diplomacy to encourage de-escalation.

He urged “all sides to exercise restraint” and voiced concern over the continuing divisions within the council.

A memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran in June, which paused hostilities and set a 60-day window for a final nuclear agreement, expired on Aug. 17 without any deal.

The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed to international shipping, attacks on vessels have continued, and the US has revoked sanctions waivers on Iranian oil exports. A Security Council vote on renewal of the Iran sanctions expert panel’s mandate is scheduled for Sept. 17.

GAZA: An Israeli strike in Gaza on Thursday killed a family including two children, Palestinian hospital and security sources said.

“The bodies of four members of the Ahmad family were recovered in pieces after an Israeli strike hit a house in the Beit Lahia Project area in the northern Gaza Strip,” an official at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City said, identifying the children as aged 12 and eight.

The Israeli military, contacted by AFP, said it was checking.

London, United Kingdom – In a wheat field near High Wycombe in the rolling English countryside, Alex Nelms watched the harvest on his farm die in a matter of days.

His crop had looked strong until the first heatwave came in May, when temperatures surpassed 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) just as his milling wheat entered its grain-fill phase, the critical weeks when the plant fattens its kernels.

“It just killed everything stone dead,” he told Al Jazeera. “Everything was finished really early, and when we were sort of full of optimism and hope, it was scuppered almost overnight.”

Nelms farms just over 2,000 acres (809 hectares) of arable land in south Buckinghamshire, on a business his grandparents founded in 1955. His uncle, who has worked the farm for more than 40 years, has just suffered the worst harvest of his career.

Last month, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said almost three-quarters of England, 71.3 percent, remained in drought. Rainfall in August reached just 34 percent of what would normally be expected by that point in the month, Defra said, and reservoir levels were 18.2 percentage points below where they should be for the time of year.

“We’re totally reliant on Mother Nature,” Nelms said, and nature did not deliver this year.

After a historically dry spring and a run of summer heatwaves, the farm is down roughly 1,000 tonnes on its average harvest, a shortfall of some $270,000 in revenue.

The farm, tucked in the Chiltern Hills, a steep, long ridge of white limestone rock, has no irrigation and never will.

“That has serious knock-on effects on our cash flow,” he said. A third consecutive difficult year would mean hard conversations with his bank and landlord, and farming to minimise risk rather than maximise output, “consequently, probably producing less food”.

‘Financial crisis point’

The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) says farmers are at a “financial crisis point” after the worst drought in 50 years, with historically low harvests, stunted grass growth, rising fuel and fertiliser costs, and a severe outbreak of bluetongue disease in livestock.

The union puts the gross production value loss of wheat at approximately $499m and the cost of replacing a shortfall in forage at roughly $45m.

NFU president Tom Bradshaw has said farmers now lack “breathing space” and are “increasingly exposed to geopolitical shocks, as well as repeated weather extremes, animal disease and global wars”.

He believes action is needed now to ensure the future of British farming “and enable the next generation to keep producing the nation’s food”.

To manage the risk, Nelms is diversifying, planting oilseed rape again on about 350 acres (142 hectares) for the first time in 20 years. He says that the crop’s usual insecticide protection, neonicotinoid seed treatments, is now banned, leaving it exposed to cabbage stem flea beetle and to game birds that can “absolutely nibble, eat, and destroy a crop”.

Growing it also means breaking a continuous wheat rotation that has kept a soil-borne disease called “Take-all”.

Tax allowances would make investing in grain storage and diversified income worthwhile, he said, as well as government-backed bridging loans, modelled on COVID-era support, to survive a bad year without permanent damage.

It is the kind of relief the NFU is pressing the government to provide nationally.

The union wants an interest-free “Keep Britain Growing” loan tied to drought losses, help covering the cost of disposing of livestock lost to bluetongue, faster planning permission for on-farm reservoirs, and clearer rules letting farmers access water as soon as levels allow, echoing Nelms’s case for storage on his farm.

“Drought conditions will continue to worsen until we receive sustained rainfall across the country and we still all have a role to play in conserving precious water supplies,” according to Philip Duffy, the Environment Agency’s chief executive, in a statement shared by Defra.

The Environment Agency has applied for a drought order to restrict abstraction from the River Severn, and 10 water companies, serving 30 million customers, now have restrictions in place.

“A few days or even weeks of wetter weather cannot reverse the impacts of several months of exceptionally dry conditions,” added Duffy.

Defra noted that the first meaningful rains since June have fallen but they have been patchy, so reservoirs and groundwater are still declining even as a handful of rivers see brief upticks in flow.

Despite the losses, Nelms is hopeful about farmers pulling together – sharing labour, machinery and market routes. He points to the Central Chiltern Farmer Cluster, where growers meet to talk through their problems and find solutions together.

“We’re working together, not competing with each other,” he said.

For a farm like Nelms’s, with no irrigation and no water in reserve, that patchiness is the problem. Soil parched from months without rain needs to absorb sustained rainfall before groundwater can even begin to recharge, let alone refill the reservoirs a future harvest might depend on.

“Our climate has changed,” Water Minister Emma Hardy, who chairs the National Drought Group, said late last month, “and we will continue to take all action necessary.”

A woman was left gobsmacked when she was taken for a ‘full body search’ at the airport after she set off the security scanners twice with her hand luggage. She was dumbfounded by the reason

Airport security is stressful enough without triggering a major alert. Between removing your belt and wrestling electronics out of your bag, it’s easy to feel flustered.

But one woman is warning travellers to avoid a simple pre-flight habit that got her pulled aside by security not once, but twice. George, a lawyer who posts on TikTok as @awomancalledgeorge, was travelling with just a carry-on when she became the subject of a “double security alert.”

After her bag was pulled from the scanner, she was surrounded by security staff. She explained: “The scanner seemed to have picked up traces of something that could be dangerous.” The subsequent swabs of her hands and bag also came back positive.

“It’s a double problem,” she said. “When you know you haven’t got anything, you still feel guilty. I’m a lawyer, and I was standing there thinking I know I haven’t done anything wrong, but you still feel guilty.”

The alert led to a full-body search, and security staff had to unpack and swab every single item in her bag.

George shared that she’d “never seen anything like it” when her “hand luggage bag got pulled,” and people appeared and were talking “really seriously” to her.

She recalled having to go off and have a “full body search” and they “had to unpack every single thing” in her bag. Staff “swabbed most of it”, before letting her go.

What caused the drama at airport security?

It turns out that what had set it off was “hand cream and body lotion”. George had a shower before heading to the airport and slathered herself in the really nice creams.

But she urged others to take the “life lesson” from her and not do the same thing. She explained: “It turns out the glycerin in hand cream and body lotion can trigger the security systems.

“Who knew? I certainly didn’t know. Having gone through that, I shaln’t be doing that again”.

What are swabs at the airport checking for?

Security swabs primarily test for trace chemical residues associated with explosives.

Staff wipe a small area of a passenger’s hands, bag, shoes, or electronics, and analyse the sample for microscopic particles. Because these chemicals can transfer from harmless everyday sources – like lotions, soaps, or certain fertilizers – a positive swab doesn’t automatically mean you’ve handled anything illegal.

Less commonly, depending on the country and situation, swabs can also be used to detect drug residue or other prohibited substances.

The Iran conflict and disruption to the Strait of Hormuz are forcing major oil importing countries to rethink how they source crude. Countries that once relied heavily on nearby Middle Eastern suppliers are increasingly turning to producers in the Americas and Africa, accepting longer voyages and higher shipping costs in exchange for greater energy security.

Japan Diversifies Its Oil Supplies

Japan is among the clearest examples of this shift. Before the conflict, more than 90% of its crude came from the Middle East, benefiting from short and relatively inexpensive shipping routes.

Since Gulf exports were disrupted, Japanese imports from the United States have surged. Between March and June, Japan imported more than 4.5 million metric tons of US crude, compared with less than 1 million tons during the same period in 2025.

The alternative comes with a cost. US crude takes roughly nine days longer to reach Japan, increasing freight expenses and requiring refiners to adjust their delivery schedules.

Asia Looks Beyond the Middle East

Japan is not alone. South Korea and India are also increasing purchases from suppliers in the Americas and Africa as Middle Eastern shipments decline.

China, the world’s largest crude importer, has relied heavily on strategic reserves to cushion the impact of the conflict. As those reserves are drawn down, Chinese buyers could return to international markets and intensify competition for crude from alternative producers.

The Americas Emerge as Major Suppliers

The disruption has created a major opportunity for oil exporters outside the Middle East.

US crude exports reached a record 61.6 million metric tons in the second quarter of 2026, up 43% from a year earlier. Brazil, Argentina and Guyana have also recorded strong export growth.

Brazilian shipments to India, for example, were three times higher in the first half of 2026 than during the same period in 2025.

Longer Routes, Higher Costs

The new trade patterns are considerably less efficient.

A tanker travelling from major Gulf terminals to India’s western coast can take only three to five days. A shipment from Brazil to the same destination can take around 25 days.

Longer journeys mean higher tanker demand, greater freight costs and more complicated logistics. Yet importers are increasingly willing to absorb those costs because dependence on a single vulnerable supply corridor carries its own risks.

Avoiding Strategic Chokepoints

The shift is also about reducing exposure to vulnerable maritime routes.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a major risk, while geopolitical tensions have reduced traffic through the Suez Canal. Drought has also constrained the Panama Canal.

As a result, importers are increasingly valuing suppliers whose shipping routes can bypass these chokepoints.

A New Global Energy Map

The emerging pattern is creating a more geographically dispersed oil market.

Middle Eastern producers will remain crucial because of their enormous reserves, low production costs and established infrastructure. But Asian buyers are unlikely to forget the disruption caused by the Hormuz crisis.

Regular purchases from new suppliers can therefore become a form of insurance, even after Gulf exports recover.

Analysis

The most important change is that energy security is beginning to outweigh pure economic efficiency.

For decades, Asian refiners benefited from buying Middle Eastern crude because geography made it cheaper and faster. The Iran conflict has exposed the vulnerability of that model. A short shipping route is of limited value if a single geopolitical crisis can disrupt it.

The result could be a lasting diversification of global oil trade. Importers are unlikely to completely abandon Middle Eastern crude, but they may maintain larger relationships with US, Latin American and African suppliers to create alternative sources of supply.

This means the cost of energy security will increasingly be reflected in the global oil market. Longer voyages, higher freight rates and more complex supply chains may become the price importers are willing to pay for resilience.

The broader shift is therefore from an oil market designed primarily around efficiency to one increasingly designed around redundancy and geopolitical risk.

With information from Reuters.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers on Sunday approved bills aimed at preventing interference in this fall’s midterm elections and requiring more transparency from social media influencers who are paid by political campaigns.

They join a growing pile of bills on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk as the legislature nears the end of its two-year session, which adjourns early this week.

Social media influencers took on a more visible role in California’s 2026 gubernatorial primary. Candidates including Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer paid thousands of dollars to influencers who posted videos endorsing Steyer or talking about him in a positive light. These videos did not always disclose that influencers were paid by a candidate’s campaign.

Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said his bill would ensure “that voters are not misled by paid content” by requiring a disclosure on paid posts and videos. Campaigns will also be required to report funds spent on social media posts.

If Newsom signs the law, it could result in fines for influencers and campaigns that fail to disclose such payments.

Two other bills sent to Newsom on Sunday would make it a felony to interfere with mail ballots or to seize ballots and other election materials before an election is certified. They come amid concern from Democratic lawmakers that President Trump or his supporters will seek to interfere with the casting and counting of ballots in the Nov. 3 election.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco drew outrage and legal challenges when he ordered his deputies to take more than 650,000 ballots from the county elections office over unproven claims of fraud. The case was argued before the California Supreme Court last week.

Newsom earlier this year signed a bill preventing local and federal law enforcement agencies from taking ballots without a warrant.

Legislation by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz) goes even further by making it a felony to take or order the seizure of ballots, election records or voting machines. Such actions would be punishable by up to four years in prison.

“The federal administration and those seeking to spread lies about our democracy continue to call for interference in elections in ways we have never seen before in this country,” Pellerin said Sunday. “AB 282 helps ensure that every lawfully cast vote can be counted, and that the will of the voters of every political party will be respected.”

Republican lawmakers argued in previous hearings that the bill is unnecessary because it is already a crime to steal ballots.

Another bill, SB 259, makes it a crime to interfere with a mail ballot on the way to or from a voter or order the seizure of ballots that are in transit to a local elections office.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto bills.

Poland has asked the European Commission to impose a €250 million ($291.3 million) fine on Meta, accusing the social media company of failing to adequately tackle fraudulent advertisements and scams on its platforms.

Polish Digital Affairs Minister Krzysztof Gawkowski said on Wednesday that Meta had failed to respond effectively despite repeated warnings from Polish authorities and cybersecurity teams.

“Despite repeated reports from the relevant Polish authorities and teams responsible for cybersecurity, Meta still does not provide an effective and adequate response to fraudulent advertisements,” Gawkowski said in a post on X.

Poland’s Cybersecurity Tests Raise Concerns

The request followed tests conducted by CERT Polska, Poland’s national cybersecurity incident response team. The team identified 122 advertisements that were classified as fraudulent.

According to Gawkowski, Meta decided not to remove 106 of those advertisements, representing 86.8% of the cases. Only 10 advertisements were removed, while authorities received no response in six cases.

The Polish minister called on Meta to introduce more effective tools to identify and remove scams, false advertising and promotions for illegal applications.

Meta did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

The dispute adds to broader regulatory and legal pressure on Meta over the content and safety of its platforms.

The company has faced criticism over allegations that its products can harm children and that it has misled the public about their safety. In Poland, Meta has also faced criticism over fraudulent advertisements and a lawsuit filed by billionaire Rafal Brzoska over fake advertisements using his identity.

In April 2026, a Warsaw appellate court ruled that Meta was responsible for advertisements hosted on its platforms. Meta has argued that it should not be held responsible for fraudulent actions carried out by its users.

Poland’s request places the issue within the broader European debate over the responsibility of major technology platforms for illegal and deceptive content. The European Commission now faces a decision over whether the evidence provided by Polish authorities warrants further enforcement action.

Analysis

The dispute highlights a growing regulatory challenge for social media companies: whether platforms can continue treating fraudulent advertising primarily as user generated content or must take greater responsibility for what they distribute.

For Poland, the requested €250 million penalty is not only about individual scam advertisements. It is also a test of whether existing European digital regulations can compel major platforms to respond more effectively when national authorities identify systemic failures.

If the European Commission takes action, it could increase pressure on Meta to strengthen its advertising verification and content moderation systems across Europe. It could also establish a broader precedent for holding technology companies accountable when their platforms repeatedly facilitate fraudulent advertising.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is weighing President Trump’s claim that his new White House ballroom is urgently needed to protect him, his staff and guests from attacks by drones, terrorists and snipers.

On Friday, with a lower-court order about to go into effect halting construction on the controversial project, Chief Justice John G. Roberts decided that the court needed more time. He issued a temporary order pausing the case and allowing construction to continue while the justices decide on a pending legal challenge.

Last week, Trump’s lawyers described the East Wing ballroom as an “integrated military complex” that is “vitally required by national security.” They argued that a judge’s order blocking further construction threatened the safety of the president and must be overturned. They also said the project is nearly two-thirds completed.

At issue is whether the president acting on his own may build a huge new ballroom complex that is expected to dwarf the historic Executive Mansion.

It is a confrontation over the boundaries of executive power at a moment when Trump has repeatedly tested the ability of courts, Congress and independent institutions to constrain his agenda.

Trump bulldozed the historic East Wing before the courts had resolved whether the administration had the authority to proceed, leaving opponents to argue the project could become effectively irreversible before judicial review was complete.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December and argued that the president had overstepped his authority.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon agreed and ordered a stop to the above-ground construction — that is, on the ballroom. He said the work on the underground bunker may proceed.

The U.S. court of appeals affirmed his order by a 2-1 vote on Aug. 7 but put the decision on hold until Friday. Roberts’ order did not explain the reason for the delay, or how soon the court might rule.

In a fast-track appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump administration lawyers sought to refocus the case as one about national security and the president’s safety.

“Given the current unprecedented levels of danger … every day the President does not have access to the vital security features of the military complex presents unacceptable risk,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said Wednesday in his final brief to the court.

Construction continues on the White House East Wing ballroom on Aug. 20.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Constitution and federal law say new buildings may not be erected on public property in the District of Columbia “without the express authority of Congress.”

But acting on his own, Trump ordered the East Wing of the White House torn down in October and work began on a new and much larger building to replace it.

He said the new ballroom could provide safe and secure seating for 1,000 dinner guests. He did not ask Congress to weigh in or approve the massive project.

In defense, Trump administration lawyers pointed to an annual appropriation from Congress that funds “the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing” and other such improvements at the White House.

They also said private donations would pay most of the $400-million cost of the new ballroom. One estimate placed the cost of the ballroom and the bunker at $600 million, with taxpayers covering half, the Washington Post reported.

The president, his family and White House employees would have secure underground space, Sauer said, while a “totally secure ballroom space” would provide a new level of protection for guests and foreign dignitaries.

Otherwise, they would be seated outside in tents on the lawn, Trump said, which was neither appealing nor safe.

President Trump speaks to the media as the construction of a new helipad on the South Lawn of the White House continues on Aug. 19.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

His solicitor general also argued it was too late to stop the project.

“A 250-person crew is working 20 hours a day, seven days a week to keep the project ahead of schedule and under budget,” he wrote on Aug. 13. “Today, the project is 65% complete in its entirety, and moving quickly toward total completion.”

Trump’s signature construction project has fueled accusations from his political opponents that he is abusing his power to build a lavish space for entertaining guests as ordinary Americans struggle with affordability.

In April, Republicans in Congress sought to put federal money behind the project, despite Trump’s earlier insistence that private donors would pay for the ballroom.

The effort never became law, faced with bipartisan opposition to a bill that would tie them to the unpopular project, leaving the administration to proceed with a privately financed effort whose legal authority was already being challenged in court.

The Society for the Rule of Law and a group of former White House lawyers warned the court against accepting Trump’s broad claims of power.

“Under the executive’s view, the President could bulldoze the entire White House and replace it with a new building of his own design, including a skyscraper. No other President has asserted such transformative power,” they wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.

“The invocation of national security is not a magic incantation that suspends the rule of law,” they added.

The biggest hurdle facing the challengers may be the issue of standing.

The court’s conservatives are often skeptical of lawsuits if it is not clear the plaintiffs have or will suffer a distinct injury that goes beyond their opposition to a government policy.

In this case, the National Trust said its historians and preservationists will be disturbed to walk by the White House grounds if there is a massive new structure that is not in keeping with the historic Executive Mansion.

Construction continues on the East Wing ballroom at the White House on Aug. 10, 2026, in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

“The subjective displeasure of an offended observer does not amount to a concrete injury,” Sauer said.

The D.C. Circuit judges were also split on the threshold issue of standing.

Judges Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, and Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee, ruled the suit may proceed because the plaintiffs suffered injuries to their “aesthetic, cultural and historical interests.”

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented and said the preservationists walking by the White House would not suffer the kind of concrete injury that gives them standing.

Taiwan Warns Chinese Vessel to Leave Sensitive Waters

Taiwan’s coast guard said on Friday it had warned off and shadowed a Chinese research vessel operating in sensitive waters west of the island, marking the third time the ship has appeared near Taiwan since May.

The vessel, the Tongji, was spotted late Thursday about 24.9 nautical miles northwest of Taiwan’s Penghu islands, which sit in the Taiwan Strait and host important Taiwanese military facilities.

Taiwan views the repeated presence of Chinese vessels near the island as part of a broader campaign of maritime pressure by Beijing.

Coast Guard Monitors Tongji as It Moves South

Taiwan said the Tongji was not seen deploying or towing scientific equipment during its latest appearance.

The coast guard dispatched a patrol vessel to sail alongside the Chinese ship and issued what it described as strong warnings for it to leave the area.

By Friday morning, the Tongji had moved to around 28 nautical miles west-southwest of Liuqiu island in southern Taiwan, continuing southeast through the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan’s coast guard said it would continue proactively deploying vessels to respond to Chinese ships and protect the country’s waters.

China’s Taiwan Affairs Office had not immediately responded to a Reuters request for comment.

Why Is the Research Ship Significant?

The Tongji was commissioned only last year and has appeared near Taiwan several times since May.

Taiwan previously reported seeing the vessel lowering ropes into the water, raising concerns that it could have been conducting scientific or survey operations without authorisation.

Chinese state media describes the ship as capable of operating in all weather conditions and carrying remotely operated vehicles, laboratories and unmanned systems.

The latest incident is therefore significant because the vessel’s presence comes amid wider concerns in Taipei over Chinese maritime activity around the island.

Taiwan Sees a Broader Grey-Zone Strategy

Taiwan has increasingly described the activities of Chinese coast guard and other vessels around the island as grey-zone pressure.

Rather than directly launching military action, such operations can create persistent pressure through patrols, maritime activity and the repeated presence of Chinese state vessels in disputed or sensitive areas.

Taiwan argues that these activities can gradually create an impression of Chinese jurisdiction while testing Taipei’s ability to monitor and respond to incursions.

The research vessel’s repeated appearances add another dimension to that pressure because scientific and survey activity can have potential strategic value even when a vessel is not openly conducting military operations.

Chinese Military Activity Continues Around Taiwan

The latest maritime encounter comes against the backdrop of China’s almost daily military activity around Taiwan.

Beijing considers Taiwan part of China and rejects the Taiwanese government’s claims to sovereignty. Taiwan’s government rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims and maintains control over the island.

This has produced an increasingly competitive environment in which military aircraft, naval vessels, coast guard ships and other Chinese platforms regularly operate around Taiwan.

Analysis: Why the Tongji Matters Beyond Scientific Research

The immediate incident does not appear to represent a direct military confrontation. Taiwan said the Tongji was not observed deploying equipment, and the coast guard’s response consisted primarily of monitoring and warnings.

But the repeated appearance of the same vessel is strategically significant.

Research ships can perform legitimate scientific functions, but their ability to operate sophisticated equipment and collect information in strategically important waters means their activities can also have implications for maritime surveillance and future military operations.

For Taiwan, the challenge is therefore to distinguish between legitimate research and activity that could contribute to China’s broader strategic objectives without unnecessarily escalating tensions.

The incident also illustrates the evolving nature of cross-Strait competition. China does not need to launch a military attack to increase pressure on Taiwan; persistent maritime activity can gradually test Taiwan’s responses, expand China’s presence and challenge Taipei’s control over the surrounding waters.

As Chinese vessels continue appearing near Taiwan, incidents involving research ships, coast guard vessels and military platforms are likely to become an increasingly important part of the island’s security challenge.

With information from Reuters.

Activist group says the ‘twisted’ Hong Kong judicial system had long ago decided that the pair were guilty.

A Hong Kong court has found two pro-democracy activists guilty on national security charges in a trial widely viewed as exemplifying the erosion of freedom of expression in the Chinese city.

Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, and Chow Hang-tung, 41, former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were found guilty of “incitement to subversion” for their role in organising candlelit vigils to mark Beijing’s deadly 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, in a Hong Kong court on Friday. The two had pleaded not guilty and were charged in 2021.

The pair could face up to 10 years in jail. Sentencing is expected at a later date.

Prosecutors argued that the pair “endanger[ed] national security in the name of human rights”.

Chow, a human rights barrister who represented herself, told the court in May that the law itself was on trial.

Friday’s verdict was “no surprise”, said Mark Clifford, president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation.

Hong Kong’s “twisted” judicial system had already decided the pair were guilty in 2021, he said. He described Lee and Chow as “true Chinese patriots” who were silenced because they “spoke truth to power” and “held up a mirror to the Chinese Communist Party”.

Hong Kong’s crackdown

For three decades, the candlelight vigil organised by the alliance was the only large-scale public commemoration of the Tiananmen crackdown, drawing tens of thousands of people annually to mourn the victims in China. The event was banned in 2020 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, weeks before Beijing imposed the security law on Hong Kong to quell the 2019 massive antigovernment protests.

The alliance’s leaders have been behind bars since they were charged.

Chow and Lee “exposed the Chinese government’s fears of the memory of its own atrocities”, Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said, urging governments around the world to hold Beijing to account for erasing Hong Kong’s freedoms.

Earlier this year, Jimmy Lai, 78, a media mogul and high-profile rights campaigner in Hong Kong, was found guilty on national security charges and sentenced to 20 years behind bars.

Led ‘like a dog on a lead’

In a personal blog published in the days leading up to the verdict, Chow detailed her treatment by correctional services, in which she described being led “like a dog on a lead”, shackled at the wrists, waist and ankles.

She described a new method of restraint, with specialised handcuffs, as the source of significant pain during her long detention: “One can only ‘choose’ which part of the body shall suffer in turn” due to the bodily contortions forced by the restraints she has been held in.

Chow is one of the few high-profile political prisoners detained in Hong Kong to continue to speak out publicly against the authorities.

In June 1989, China’s government sent tanks and soldiers to crush a pro-democracy movement that had installed itself in Beijing’s central Tiananmen Square. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people were killed by soldiers, and many were injured. Beijing has since sought to censor mention of the incident in China.

Lee and Chow were also leaders of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance (HKA).

The HKA was founded in May 1989 to support students holding pro-democracy rallies. Weeks later, the Communist Party crushed pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square with troops and tanks. Estimates of the death toll range from a few hundred to many thousands.

Over the next three decades, HKA called on authorities to accept responsibility for the crackdown, free dissidents and introduce democratic reform.

The Alliance’s leaders were charged in 2021 and have been behind bars since.

Rights group Amnesty International has said the case “relies on vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of ‘subversion'”.

Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director, said Chow and Lee had “not committed any recognisable crime”.

“Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan are prisoners of conscience who should never have been prosecuted in the first place. They must be released immediately and unconditionally”, she added.

In a separate case, Chow was arrested in June 2021 for “inciting” the public to take part in that year’s vigil and later found guilty.

However, Hong Kong’s top court overturned that conviction in 2022, with a judge ruling the police hadn’t properly justified the vigil’s ban.

Chow Hang-tung spoke to the BBC in 2021, weeks before her arrest on 4 June 2022.

“I am prepared to be arrested. That is how Hong Kong is now,” she had said.

“I am willing to pay the price for fighting for democracy”.

The Red Sea does not recognise political borders as maps draw them. Instead, it binds every country on its shores to a shared fate with its neighbours across the water. When the western shore of this sea is shaken, the eastern shore does not remain untouched. This is a hard geopolitical reality that Saudi Arabia has understood well through decades of dealing with crises in the Horn of Africa and Yemen as a direct extension of its own domestic security.

It is through this deep understanding of geography as a shared destiny that the agreement establishing the Saudi-Sudanese Coordination Council, signed in Riyadh on August 17, 2026, should be read. It is the institutional expression of a firmly held Saudi conviction: that the stability of a unified Sudan is indispensable to the stability of the kingdom itself, and that Sudan’s collapse or fragmentation would inevitably become a Saudi national security crisis.

Historical ties and cultural common ground

Long before strategic considerations and geopolitical crises came to the fore, Saudis viewed Sudanese people with great respect and as among those to whom they felt closest. Since the earliest times, Hijazis have shared cultural and linguistic traits with people on the other side of the Red Sea, particularly Sudanese people.

Throughout modern history, relations between the two countries have not been marked by serious crises. Indeed, they have been distinguished by a unique historical fact: the relationship has never witnessed a political crisis between the two states or their peoples, and there has always been mutual appreciation between them. This exceptional relationship, rooted in religious, cultural and social ties, has made the two countries a rare model of intra-Arab relations that has withstood all regional storms.

Saudi Arabia has stood by Sudanese people through every ordeal, including Nile floods and natural disasters, as well as the country’s crises and civil wars. This has created a fabric of human ties that goes beyond narrow political interests. It was this unique historical legacy that made Saudi mediation welcome to both sides when the war broke out, with the Jeddah platform working to ease the conflict and address the humanitarian crisis.

Saudi Arabia’s current position towards Sudan, then, is not merely the product of cold strategic or political calculations. It is the natural extension of a relationship that lived in people’s hearts before it was translated into institutions and agreements.

A framework for strategic partnership

This relationship culminated in the Saudi-Sudanese Coordination Council, whose founding agreement was signed in Riyadh on August 17, 2026, by the two countries’ foreign ministers, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud and Mohieddin Salem. Sources say it is not merely a conventional diplomatic framework, but a comprehensive institutional platform intended to oversee 10 major strategic areas. These reflect the depth of the partnership between the two countries and their desire to move from political and humanitarian support towards a long-term strategic, economic and investment partnership.

The 10 areas covered by the council include Sudan’s reconstruction; agriculture and food security; livestock; gold and mining; the Red Sea and ports; energy and electricity; finance and banking; industry and food processing; communications and digital transformation; and tourism, real estate and services.

Taken together, these areas constitute an integrated roadmap for turning bilateral relations into a genuine development partnership, drawing on Saudi Arabia’s investment and technological capabilities and Sudan’s enormous natural and human resources.

According to the Sudanese foreign minister, the council’s priorities centre on security, defence and the economy, with the Red Sea added as an area of strategic cooperation because of its importance to both countries. This is why Sudan joined the maritime defence alliance established by Saudi Arabia on July 30, 2026. This reflects a shared understanding that security and stability are the essential preconditions for any economic development, and that Red Sea security is a shared responsibility that cannot be separated from the stability of the states along its shores.

Sudan and the wider Arab project

For more than a decade and a half, the Arab region has witnessed a wave of systematic projects of fragmentation targeting pivotal states such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. Countries that once played an active role in the regional order have been turned into open arenas of conflict managed by regional and international actors through local proxies. With its enormous resources and vital location connecting the Arab world with the African interior, Sudan has always been an ideal target for such a project of division.

When Saudi Arabia acts to support a path that preserves the unity of the Sudanese state and its national institutions, it objectively contributes to thwarting one link in this scheme targeting the Arab world as a whole. Every Arab state protected from fragmentation represents another defeat for this project, while every state that succumbs to it represents a victory that encourages its repetition. From this perspective, Sudanese stability is a collective Arab battle, and Saudi Arabia finds itself in the position of a state capable of leading that battle in defence of a collective Arab project that cannot afford to lose another link.

Sudan in the regional equation

Sudan occupies a unique position that makes it one of the region’s most important strategic keys: it is an Arab state that borders both the Red Sea and the Nile, connects the Horn of Africa with the Sahara, the Sahel and the Arab hinterland, and borders seven African and Arab countries.

This location makes Sudan a natural bridge between the Arab world and Africa, a vital maritime gateway on the Red Sea and a strategic water nexus on the Nile.

If a state in such a position fragments, it opens a geopolitical rupture whose effects extend from the Nile Basin to the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and from the African Sahel to the Arabian Peninsula. The recent experience of Yemen has clearly demonstrated how the collapse of a state on the Red Sea can transform a vital maritime chokepoint such as Bab al-Mandeb from a safe commercial passage into an arena of direct threats to global shipping.

Saudi Arabia, which has paid a heavy price in both security and economic terms as a result of the war in Yemen, has realised that the security of waterways cannot be safeguarded merely by guarding the passages themselves, but by ensuring the stability of the states whose coastlines surround them.

Security beyond borders

In classical and contemporary strategic thought, the security of any major state is measured not only at its immediate borders, but also through its “strategic depth”: the wider geographical sphere that absorbs shocks before they reach the core. This idea, whose roots can be traced to strategic thinkers such as Nicholas Spykman and Walter Lippmann, holds that a state exists within a geopolitical environment that either acts as a buffer and absorbs crises, or transmits and amplifies them.

Given Saudi Arabia’s position as a pivotal regional power, it cannot content itself with securing its immediate borders while crises rage throughout its strategic surroundings. From this perspective, Sudan is not merely a neighbour across the sea, but one of the most important components of Saudi strategic depth. Its stability means stability along the kingdom’s western maritime frontier, control over flows of irregular migration and smuggling, and keeping at bay the spectre of a security vacuum that could be exploited by armed groups and extremist organisations.

When Riyadh invests in Sudan’s reconstruction and development through permanent institutional frameworks such as the Coordination Council, it is building a wall of stability around its strategic depth. It has understood that genuine security cannot be bought with walls alone, but is built through the prosperity of its neighbours.

A new Saudi approach to Red Sea security

The security of major waterways is not simply the product of military protection of the passage itself, but of the strength and stability of the states along its shores. A Red Sea bordered or surrounded by fragile or collapsed states, or states penetrated by irregular forces, is an insecure Red Sea regardless of the military capabilities of the major powers along its shores.

From this lesson, a more mature Saudi vision has emerged: it is not enough for the kingdom to be strong on the eastern shore. The states along the western shore and the Red Sea’s southern approaches, including Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia, must also be strong, cohesive and capable of exercising full sovereignty over their coastlines. By placing the “Red Sea” alongside security and defence among its areas of focus, the Saudi-Sudanese Coordination Council puts this philosophy into practice: strengthening Sudan’s ability to control its coastline is a direct Saudi investment in the security of the Red Sea as a whole.

The responsibility of regional power

The Saudi-Sudanese Coordination Council is an expression of a broader political philosophy embraced by Riyadh: genuine regional power does not grow stronger by isolating itself behind borders, but by assuming responsibility for the stability of its surroundings. At a time when projects of fragmentation are proliferating, supporting Sudan’s unity, strengthening Saudi strategic depth and safeguarding Red Sea security are three sides of the same coin.

When Saudi Arabia safeguards the unity of its neighbour, it safeguards the integrity of its own strategic project. When it protects the stability of the Sudanese coast, it protects the stability of its own. This is the dialectic of shared geography: neither neighbour can be secure without the other, and neither shore can be stable without the one opposite it.

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

GOING to the airport follows a strict process – check in, drop your bags off, head through security and – for many of us – get stopped for a search.

And when that inevitably happens, nine out of 10 times the reason is something that seems silly or you could have easily prevented.

And there are actually two items that we all carry that cause issues.

The first is our gadgets – whether that be a laptop, iPad or phone.

According to Which?, layering electronics can trigger a manual search.

Smiths Detections has said that layering electronics should be avoided.

Read more on travel inspo

SEA IT

All 25 of the English Riviera beaches ranked from best to worst – by a Devon local

ALL IN

I found the best value all inclusive London hotel… just £55pp with free food & booze

Instead, travellers should place them next to each other.

They explained: : “Where possible, avoid stacking multiple electronic devices directly on top of one another in cabin baggage. Instead, place them side by side.”

And another popular item most of us travel with – a water bottle – can also cause an issue.

Smiths Detection explained that travellers should avoid packing bottles and liquid containers near to gadgets.

They explained that they “should ideally be packed separately from electronic devices and not directly underneath or immediately adjacent to them”.

While in a lot of airports new CT scanners allow us to keep all our gadgets and liquids in our bag, these items can still be flagged.

The scanners are meant to make the security process faster, but you could still queue to have your bag manually checked.

If you are heading through an airport as a family, make sure to look out for family lanes which can help you bypass queues.

At London Luton Airport you can reserve a 30-minute window online from between four days and 60 minutes before you arrive at security to bypass the queues, for free.

Manchester Airport has a similar system but you get a 15-minute slot.

Californians are more concerned about the Trump administration interfering in the state’s midterm elections than they are about voter fraud, noncitizens voting illegally or foreign interference, according to a new poll.

A majority of voters — 61% — identified potential federal interference as a “major concern” heading into November, slightly more than the 59% who cited possible foreign interference as such, according to the poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times.

By comparison, 41% of California voters identified voter fraud and 37% identified noncitizens voting as major concerns, the poll found.

The polling reflects the liberal leanings of the state, where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, as well as the nation’s hyperpartisan divide on voting issues and vulnerabilities.

That divide has been driven for years by President Trump’s relentless criticism of U.S. elections, particularly in large blue states such as California, and recently by his administration’s attempts to wrest control over voting processes from the states based on unverified claims of widespread fraud and the fierce pushback against those claims from California Democrats and other liberal leaders around the country.

The White House has dismissed concerns about interference and accused Democrats of obstructing its efforts to protect American elections from fraud, including through the proposed SAVE America Act — which would enforce strict new ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters nationwide.

While 80% of Democratic respondents to the poll said potential federal interference in the state’s elections was a major concern, just 28% of Republican respondents identified it as such.

Voter fraud was identified as a major concern by 84% of Republican voters but just 21% of Democratic voters, the poll found. Noncitizens voting illegally also was identified as a major concern by 85% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats.

Republicans also have substantial concerns about the security of mail ballots and how slowly California counts its vote, while Democrats were far less concerned about those issues, the poll found.

Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director, said it clearly reflects the partisan divide around election issues and “shows that in this state, federal interference is a big deal — more so than in other places around the country.”

He called that a “big finding” in line with previous polls that found “Californians are very concerned about prioritizing efforts to defend democracy and to protect election systems,” including in the face of threats from Trump — who routinely has focused on the state in his regular attacks on election integrity.

“For 61% of Californians to say that’s a major concern to them in terms of the threats to the election system, I think that’s very newsworthy,” DiCamillo said.

He also noted the particularly stark difference between state Democrats and Republicans on the issue of noncitizens voting.

“Nearly 90% of Democrats say that’s not a concern, whereas 85% of Republicans feel it is,” he said. “Californians have a lot of noncitizens in the state, but Democrats don’t think they’re infecting the voter rolls, so they’re not concerned about it.”

That was striking, DiCamillo said, given how much Trump has pointed to California to claim that noncitizens are voting.

“Obviously, the Democrats are very strongly opposed to the president, what he’s trying to do, and the Republicans are supportive,” DiCamillo said.

Other findings in the poll also support that conclusion.

For instance, while Trump has claimed without evidence that mail ballots are a major source of fraud and their use should be reined in, the poll found that 72% of Californians approve of mail ballots as a primary method for voting in the state — with 58% saying they strongly approve.

California law requires every registered voter in the state to be sent a mail ballot, and more than 80% of voters have used such ballots in recent elections.

Trump also repeatedly has accused California officials of failing to secure state elections against fraud and of cheating as they count later-arriving mail ballots. But the poll found that Californians by greater than a 2-to-1 margin — 65% to 31% — are confident local election officials are accurately and fairly counting ballots. However, the poll did find that more than half of respondents, 53%, had concerns about delays in California’s vote-counting process.

Overall, 64% of respondents were confident in the integrity of the state’s election system, compared to 34% who were not.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, downplayed the threats of voter fraud and noncitizens voting in the state, but acknowledged they are real concerns for some voters — which is a problem in itself.

“I see election security as both a matter of actual security and perceived security. And the truth is that we have a great deal of actual security in California elections, but, unfortunately, that security is not being perceived by some voters,” she said. She attributed that in part to the “constant drumbeat that we’ve had now for a decade, coming from the occupant of the White House, that our elections are rigged.”

Alexander said California law requires registering voters to prove and attest to their identity and has multiple verification measures to ensure people casting ballots are who they say they are. She said there are “common sense” reasons why noncitizens do not try to vote — including that it requires them to turn over personal information and could be grounds for criminal charges and deportation, which is “a huge disincentive.”

Alexander also said Trump administration interference in the midterms is a real concern, but so is overhyping the threat to the point it discourages voters from casting ballots.

“Not to dismiss the threats — the threats are real — but the more we talk about them, the more we scare voters,” Alexander said. “I’ve encountered voters who’ve said this to me: ‘What’s the point in voting when they’re just gonna cheat?’ Or, you know: ‘It’s all rigged.’ And that’s part of the play here — is to scare people into thinking that voting doesn’t matter.”

To counter that, Alexander said it is “really important that people be aware that there are threats, but to not let those threats be debilitating or to allow them to dissuade people from wanting to participate.”

The poll surveyed 4,207 registered voters in California from Aug. 3 to 9, online in English and Spanish, and has an estimated margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

The Iran war has pushed the global energy system into a deeper crisis, with the disruption increasingly shifting from crude oil supplies to the refined fuels that power transportation, industry and economies worldwide.

While global oil markets have adapted relatively well to the loss of a significant share of Middle Eastern crude production, the refining industry has had far fewer options to compensate.

That imbalance is already visible in fuel prices.

Brent crude is around $90 a barrel, roughly 25% above its level when the conflict began on February 28 but well below its wartime peak of $118.

Refined fuel prices, however, have remained much higher. European diesel prices have risen more than 70% since the start of the war, while U.S. gasoline prices have increased around 60%.

The growing divergence suggests that the biggest energy shock may no longer be coming from crude oil itself, but from the world’s ability to turn crude into usable fuel.

Why Are Fuel Prices Rising Faster Than Oil?

The key problem is declining refinery capacity.

The International Energy Agency estimates that more than 20% of the Middle East’s 9.6 million barrels per day of refining capacity was knocked out during the conflict.

At the same time, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has restricted fuel exports and disrupted the movement of Gulf crude.

The result has been a chain reaction.

Refineries, particularly in Asia, have had to reduce operations because of difficulties obtaining crude, while damaged Middle Eastern facilities have struggled to return to normal production.

This has created a shortage of diesel, gasoline and other refined products even as crude oil prices have retreated from their wartime highs.

How Has Russia Made the Fuel Crisis Worse?

The Middle East is not the only source of disruption.

Months of Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure have also reduced global refining capacity.

Russian refinery throughput has fallen by nearly 30% in recent months to below 4 million barrels per day.

The decline has forced Moscow to restrict diesel exports, removing another major source of refined fuel from international markets.

The combination of Middle Eastern refinery damage and reduced Russian output has left the global market with fewer alternatives.

That is particularly important for diesel, which is essential for freight transportation, agriculture, construction and industrial activity.

Why Are Diesel Refining Margins Surging?

The shortage is reflected in refining margins.

European diesel refining margins have more than tripled since February, rising above $75 a barrel.

U.S. diesel margins have increased more than 140%, reaching a record $100 earlier this week.

These figures demonstrate how severe the shortage has become.

Refineries capable of producing diesel and other fuels are commanding exceptionally high margins because demand remains strong while available capacity is shrinking.

The problem is that simply increasing refining margins does not immediately create new refining capacity.

Building or repairing refineries can take months or years, particularly when specialised equipment is required.

Have Global Fuel Inventories Been Depleted?

Yes, and that could become one of the biggest problems in the months ahead.

Fuel stockpiles provided an important buffer when the conflict began.

That buffer is now largely gone.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, global oil inventories fell at a rate of around 3.5 million barrels per day between March and July.

Stocks are expected to continue declining through the end of the year.

U.S. diesel inventories are already at their lowest seasonal level in three decades, while gasoline stocks are at their weakest seasonal level since 2012.

This leaves the market increasingly exposed to any additional disruption.

Is There a Global Fuel Production Shortfall?

The data suggests there is.

Global refinery runs during the second quarter were 5.1 million barrels per day lower than a year earlier, according to the IEA.

High fuel prices have reduced consumption, with demand for refined products falling by around 4 million barrels per day.

But that reduction has not been sufficient.

The result was still a shortfall of more than 1 million barrels per day.

The imbalance could become even worse during the third quarter.

Refinery runs are expected to remain 4.1 million barrels per day below last year’s level, while demand is projected to fall by only 2.4 million barrels per day.

In other words, fuel supply is declining faster than demand.

Would Reopening the Strait of Hormuz Solve the Crisis?

Not necessarily.

A diplomatic breakthrough between Washington and Tehran that permanently reopened the Strait of Hormuz could send crude prices sharply lower.

But cheaper crude would not automatically translate into cheaper gasoline and diesel.

The reason is that the refining infrastructure itself has been damaged.

More than 20 Gulf refineries suffered damage during the war, and many require extensive repairs.

Crucial equipment such as compressors, heat exchangers and specialised catalysts can take significant time to obtain.

Lead times for some of these components were already stretched before the conflict.

Consequently, even if crude shipments resume quickly, refinery capacity could remain constrained for much longer.

Why Is China Important to the Energy Crisis?

China’s response could have a major impact on global fuel markets.

China is the world’s second-largest refining centre and sharply reduced refinery processing rates and fuel exports during the conflict.

If Beijing keeps exports limited, the international market will lose another potential source of refined products.

Conversely, an increase in Chinese refinery utilisation and exports could provide some relief.

But China must also balance domestic fuel demand, inventory requirements and its own energy security.

That makes its decisions particularly important for Asia and the wider global market.

Could the Energy Crisis Fuel Global Inflation?

The answer could be yes.

The immediate impact of higher fuel prices is already appearing in inflation data.

U.S. consumer prices rose 3.4% year-on-year in July, with energy costs increasing 14.7% and gasoline prices rising 24.6%.

Euro zone inflation accelerated to 2.9%, driven partly by a 10% increase in energy costs.

Japan’s producer price index rose 7.2% in July.

These figures raise concerns that the energy shock could spread beyond fuel markets.

Higher transportation costs increase the cost of moving goods, while expensive diesel raises costs for agriculture, manufacturing and logistics.

If those increases persist, businesses may eventually pass them on to consumers.

Why Could the Energy Crisis Last for Years?

The central problem is that refining capacity cannot be restored as quickly as crude production.

Oil wells can continue producing once transportation routes reopen.

Refineries, however, require complex infrastructure, specialised machinery, skilled workers and maintenance.

If damaged facilities need major reconstruction, restoring capacity could take years.

At the same time, depleted fuel inventories will eventually need to be rebuilt.

That means refiners could face sustained pressure to process more crude even after the immediate crisis ends.

The result could be a prolonged period of elevated refining margins and fuel prices.

What Does This Mean for Europe and Asia?

Europe and Asia could face particularly severe pressure.

Both regions rely heavily on imported energy and have already experienced increases in refined fuel and liquefied natural gas prices.

For European economies, expensive diesel could increase transportation and industrial costs.

For Asian economies, disruptions to Gulf crude supplies and reduced Chinese fuel exports could create additional pressure.

The combination of higher fuel and LNG prices could therefore create a broader energy inflation shock rather than an isolated oil-market disruption.

Could Consumers Eventually Reduce Demand?

Demand destruction remains one of the few mechanisms capable of restoring balance.

If fuel prices remain extremely high, consumers may drive less and businesses may reduce transportation and energy consumption.

Companies may also delay investment and cut production.

That could eventually reduce demand enough to ease pressure on the refining system.

But demand destruction carries an economic cost.

A reduction in fuel consumption caused by efficiency improvements is very different from a decline caused by households and businesses being unable to afford energy.

The latter can slow economic growth while inflation remains elevated.

Analysis: Why the Refining Crisis May Matter More Than the Oil Shock

The most important lesson from the Iran war energy crisis is that the global energy system is not simply dependent on how much oil exists, but on whether the world can refine and transport that oil into usable fuel.

The crude market has shown considerable resilience.

Refined fuel markets have not.

That distinction could determine how long the current energy shock lasts.

Even if diplomacy reopens the Strait of Hormuz and crude prices fall, damaged refineries, depleted inventories and reduced Russian exports will continue to constrain fuel supplies.

This creates a particularly difficult situation for central banks.

If energy prices rise temporarily, policymakers can theoretically look through the shock. But if fuel shortages persist for months or years, higher transportation and production costs can become embedded across the economy.

That would make the assumption of a short-lived inflation shock increasingly difficult to defend.

The depletion of global inventories is perhaps the biggest warning sign.

Stockpiles normally provide a cushion against geopolitical disruptions. That cushion has now been significantly weakened.

As a result, another major refinery outage, shipping disruption or escalation in the Middle East could produce a much larger price response than it would have before the war.

The world therefore faces a dangerous mismatch: crude supplies may recover faster than the infrastructure needed to turn them into fuel.

That is why the energy crisis could outlast the war itself.

The Iran conflict may have started as a crude oil shock, but its most consequential economic legacy could be a prolonged global shortage of refined fuels, keeping inflation and energy costs elevated long after the fighting ends.

With information from Reuters.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Sen. Darline Graham stumbled in a Tuesday night debate over an elementary question about foreign policy, a signature issue of her late brother. It was a high-profile misstep a week before she faces a runoff election in her bid to hold onto the South Carolina seat to which she was appointed last month.

Graham, a political novice, was asked whether the U.S. has a national security interest in Taiwan and the South China Sea — a longstanding contention of both Democratic and Republican administrations. She struggled to answer before admitting “national security is not my thing.”

“I’m not that informed on national security,” she added.

Her rival in next week’s runoff for the GOP nomination, Rep. Ralph Norman, suggested the answer showed Graham was unqualified for the role.

“By her choice, she’s running for the United States Senate. It’s a six-year term,” Norman said. “You need to get fully versed in what issues you’re going to be dealing with. This isn’t a ‘get training on the job.’ You can’t do that.”

It was a moment that drew a stark contrast to Graham’s brother, Lindsey, who died unexpectedly July 11. It also gave Norman, an established conservative politician, a fresh avenue of attack as he tries to overcome President Trump’s endorsement of Graham in her first campaign. The Republican president is set to visit South Carolina on Friday to campaign for her.

During his decades in the Senate, Lindsey Graham was known for his foreign policy involvement, making countless foreign trips, sometimes as part of a group of U.S. lawmakers meeting with international leaders and observing contentious areas firsthand.

There were multiple trips to Taiwan, including in 2022, when he led a delegation for a two-day visit that included meetings with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and the island’s defense minister.

Darline Graham had been asked, “Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States and if so, why or how?”

Graham avoided a direct response, and instead mentioned her brother’s wealth of experience and her desire to lead differently.

“My brother was in the Air Force for 33 years, so I will do everything I can to support the military,” said Graham, who often read during the debate from a legal pad on which she had notes, its pages draped over the front of her lectern. “My dad was in the Army. I’m not a polished politician up here; national security is not my thing, not my area of expertise, but I do support the military.”

As interim senator, Graham is surrounded by many of her brother’s Capitol Hill staff, many of whom worked with him for years on issues foreign and domestic. She’s repeatedly thanked them for getting her up to speed on legislative issues and has pointed to her several weeks on the job as a productive time in which she’s gotten legislation passed, including a Russia sanctions bill named for her brother.

In the wake of her brother’s death, Graham has been asked multiple times about how she would either further or shift away from his intense focus on national security, an attitude that was at the essence of his Senate portfolio.

Asked after the debate by reporters if she wanted another crack at her answer to the moderators’ question, she doubled down, saying she was more focused on South Carolinians’ everyday concerns.

“They’re worried about their pocketbooks more than they’re worried about the South China Sea, quite honestly,” Graham said. “So that’s going to be my biggest focus.”

Graham added that she had spoken multiple times during the debate about the overall national security threat posed by China.

“I realize national security is very important,” Graham said. “I probably said 10 times up there tonight how bad China is, how they’re a national threat to us.”

Taiwan has often been a flash point for aggression from China and international efforts to support its right to self-rule. The U.S. maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity over whether it would defend Taiwan militarily if the mainland invaded, but has committed to bolstering the island’s defense for generations.

Claimed by China as part of its territory, Taiwan sits along a South China Sea global trade route, virtually all of which China claims despite a 2016 arbitration ruling based on the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea that invalidated Beijing’s expansive claims.

During a visit to Manila this week, Adm. Frank Bradley, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, said that American special operations forces are ready to step up warfighting-readiness exercises with counterparts in the Philippines and other countries in Asia to further strengthen a security alliance and help deter a major conflict in the region.

Kinnard and Junkroski write for the Associated Press.

Japan has issued an unusually direct criticism of its U.S. ally after Washington imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye.

Japan’s foreign ministry described the sanctions as “very unfortunate” and reaffirmed Tokyo’s support for the ICC and its role in prosecuting serious international crimes. The statement marks a rare public disagreement between Tokyo and Washington over an issue of international law.

The dispute comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump intensifies its campaign against the Hague based court. Washington has increasingly challenged the ICC over its investigations and arrest warrants involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as its earlier investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.

For Japan, however, the issue is particularly sensitive. Tokyo depends heavily on the United States for its national defence, yet it has consistently supported the ICC and the broader international legal framework surrounding it.

Why Did the U.S. Sanction ICC Officials?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the sanctions targeted individuals involved in ICC efforts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials from governments that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.

Among those sanctioned was Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge who serves as ICC president. Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer, was also targeted. Seye was part of the prosecution team that sought an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and has been nominated for election as an ICC judge.

Washington argues that the ICC has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction.

The United States is not a member of the ICC and has repeatedly objected to the court’s actions involving American personnel and Israeli officials.

The latest sanctions therefore represent another escalation in Washington’s confrontation with the institution.

Why Is Japan Supporting the ICC?

Japan joined the ICC in 2007 and has consistently supported its role in prosecuting war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Tokyo’s foreign ministry said Japan remains committed to strengthening the rule of law internationally while maintaining communication with countries involved in the dispute.

Japan’s position reflects its broader commitment to international institutions and rules based governance.

For Tokyo, the ICC is not simply a legal institution. It is part of a wider international order in which disputes and allegations of serious crimes are addressed through established legal mechanisms.

That creates an obvious tension with Washington’s increasingly confrontational approach.

Why Is This Significant for U.S. Japan Relations?

Japan rarely criticises the United States publicly, particularly on issues involving national security.

The two countries maintain a close military alliance, with U.S. forces playing a central role in Japan’s defence and regional deterrence.

Japan’s decision to openly describe the sanctions as “very unfortunate” therefore carries diplomatic significance.

It does not indicate that Tokyo is abandoning Washington or challenging the broader alliance. Instead, it demonstrates that the two countries can maintain close security cooperation while disagreeing sharply over international law.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as U.S. foreign policy under Trump diverges from the positions of several traditional allies.

The ICC Dispute Is Also Creating Friction in Europe

Japan is not the only U.S. ally to object to the latest sanctions.

The Netherlands, which hosts the ICC, has also criticised Washington’s action. Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen said the Netherlands opposed the sanctions and invited Akane to discuss continued support for the court.

The development places Washington increasingly at odds with European partners as well as Japan.

The disagreement therefore extends beyond the U.S. relationship with a single international institution. It raises broader questions about how far America’s allies are willing to follow Washington when its policies conflict with international institutions they continue to support.

What Do the Sanctions Actually Do?

The sanctions have significant practical consequences.

They freeze any U.S. assets held by the targeted individuals and largely cut them off from the American financial system. Because most internationally active banks maintain close connections with the U.S. financial system, the effects can extend beyond American jurisdiction.

The U.S. Treasury Department has also authorized a temporary wind down of transactions involving Akane and Seye through September 17.

The measures therefore do more than express political disagreement. They can directly affect the ability of sanctioned individuals to conduct international financial activities.

Washington’s Wider Campaign Against the ICC

The sanctions against Akane and Seye are part of a broader U.S. campaign against the court.

Washington previously imposed sanctions on several ICC prosecutors and judges after the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant and pursued an earlier investigation involving U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Rubio has also indicated that the administration intends to intensify efforts against the ICC through diplomatic pressure on other countries.

According to Reuters, Washington has sought to encourage countries to leave the institution, with at least five countries already responding to the call.

The strategy therefore goes beyond individual sanctions. It represents an attempt to challenge the ICC’s legitimacy and reduce its international reach.

Why Does Japan’s Position Matter?

Japan’s response is significant because Tokyo has generally been closely aligned with Washington on major strategic questions.

Japan faces a challenging regional security environment involving China, North Korea and wider tensions in the Indo Pacific. Maintaining a strong U.S. alliance remains central to Japanese security policy.

Yet Tokyo has also invested heavily in supporting international institutions and the rule of law.

The ICC dispute highlights the possibility that these two pillars of Japanese foreign policy can sometimes pull in different directions.

Japan may need American military power for its security while simultaneously disagreeing with Washington on how international law should operate.

That is not necessarily a crisis in the alliance, but it illustrates its increasingly complicated political foundations.

Could the Dispute Deepen Divisions Among U.S. Allies?

The ICC controversy could contribute to a wider pattern of disagreement between Washington and its traditional partners.

The United States is increasingly willing to use economic and diplomatic pressure against international institutions it considers hostile to American interests. Several European governments, by contrast, continue to view those institutions as essential components of the rules based international order.

Japan’s criticism adds an important Asian voice to that disagreement.

If more U.S. allies openly defend the ICC, Washington could face growing diplomatic isolation on the issue even while maintaining strong bilateral security relationships.

That could make the dispute increasingly difficult to contain as a narrow disagreement between the United States and an international court.

How Far Can Japan Disagree With Washington?

Japan’s criticism of the ICC sanctions should not be interpreted as a fundamental rupture in the U.S. Japan alliance.

Tokyo remains heavily dependent on Washington for defence and security, and there is little indication that the ICC dispute will fundamentally alter that relationship.

Its importance lies elsewhere.

Japan is signalling that alliance solidarity does not necessarily require complete alignment on international law.

For Tokyo, supporting the ICC is consistent with a broader foreign policy objective: maintaining an international system governed by rules and institutions rather than purely by the power of individual states.

Washington’s position is increasingly different. The Trump administration views the ICC as a potential threat to American sovereignty and to officials from the United States and allied governments who could face prosecution by the court.

This creates an unusual strategic contradiction.

The United States and Japan remain closely aligned against major security challenges in the Indo Pacific, yet they are increasingly capable of finding themselves on opposite sides of debates over the international legal order.

The consequences could extend beyond the ICC itself.

If Washington continues using sanctions and diplomatic pressure against international institutions while its allies continue defending them, the United States may find that its strategic partnerships remain strong militarily but become more divided politically.

For Japan, the challenge will be maintaining its essential alliance with Washington without abandoning its support for the international legal institutions it considers important.

The ICC dispute therefore reveals a broader tension within the U.S. alliance system: strategic partners may remain united on security while increasingly disagreeing over the rules and institutions that are supposed to govern international politics.

With information from Reuters.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — Two counties and two cities are suing the Trump administration over conditioning national security funding on local governments adopting sweeping election procedures, calling the requirement illegal federal overreach.

The Brennan Center for Justice filed the lawsuit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., Harris and El Paso counties, Texas, and Columbus, asking it to declare the decision to impose election administration conditions on grants unlawful and enjoin its enforcement.

“This is the kind of federal overreach we’ve come to expect from the Trump administration,” Harris County Attorney Abbie Kamin said in a statement emailed to UPI. “To threaten law enforcement and public safety funding our agencies rely on, to withhold dollars that protect our communities for a partisan power grab is not only improper, it’s dangerous.”

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has taken a series of actions he says are to improve election integrity and security but that Democrats and civil rights advocates have described as efforts to interfere with and undermine U.S. elections.

In June, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under the Department of Homeland Security, updated compliance requirements for Homeland Security Grant Program funds, which are to help local governments prevent terrorism. Conditions added include creating a plan for transitioning to hand-marked paper ballots, conducting a 5% post-election manual audit and citizenship verification for all poll workers and registered voters, among others.

FEMA said it will withhold 20% of the recipient’s total HSGP funding until receipt of proof of compliance with the new requirements.

The jurisdictions suing the administration described the withholding of funds as FEMA holding their money “hostage” and its new election-related conditions “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Never before has FEMA purported to regulate how states and counties run elections,” they said in the lawsuit, stating that such a change would require congressional authorization, which FEMA does not have.

“The power to administer elections belongs to the states, subject only to conditions imposed by Congress — not the president, not the secretary of Homeland Security and not FEMA.”

The plaintiffs state that FEMA has not provided a “reasoned explanation” for the change in funding administration while ignoring the legal, financial and logistical “chaos” the new conditions will cause with midterm elections less than two months away and the potential harm withholding anti-terrorism funds could cause.

“Holding cities hostage by threatening anti-terrorism funding if they don’t go along with the president’s absurd election manipulation is as dangerous as it is illegal,” Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said in a statement.

“We’re fighting back to protect public safety and election integrity. We will not be bullied by this president and his administration.”