seeking

Indian police have used batons, tear gas and water cannons against protesters in Jharkhand. They were marching to the state assembly to demand an overhaul of ‌the state’s examination system after alleged irregularities in government recruitment tests.

Trump’s latest effort to limit birthright citizenship comes after Supreme Court ruled against his initial push to reinterpret the constitutional right.

United States President Donald Trump has signed two executive orders seeking to limit birthright citizenship, weeks after the Supreme Court upheld the practice as protected under the Constitution.

The orders signed on Thursday were far more narrow than Trump’s previous attempt to restrict the practice, which confers citizenship to nearly all children born on US soil.

One of the orders seeks to expand a narrow exception to birthright citizenship, which bars US citizenship from being conferred to the babies of foreign diplomats or invading forces.

The second order calls on the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to halt so-called “birth tourism”, the practice of mothers travelling to the US for the sole purpose of giving birth.

Like Trump’s earlier attempt, the new executive orders are expected to face legal challenges.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump denounced the Supreme Court for making a “very unfortunate decision” in striking down his initial effort to limit birthright citizenship.

“They’ve taken birthright citizenship and they’ve made a joke out of it,” said Trump, adding that his administration is “making adjustments” to its approach.

On January 20, 2025 — the first day of his second term — Trump had signed an executive order seeking to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to tighten the category of people who qualified for birthright citizenship.

That order argued that the children born to immigrants on temporary visas or without documentation were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US — and therefore could not  be automatically granted citizenship.

But in June, the US Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s “attempts to narrow” birthright citizenship were unlawful, citing the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause.

“If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design,” the majority opinion said.

Trump has made a hardline approach to immigration a centre-piece of his political career. However, the Supreme Court ruling represented one of the largest legal setbacks of his second term.

Despite a conservative supermajority on the nine-judge panel, six justices voted against Trump’s effort to transform who is eligible for birthright citizenship.

The crux of the administration’s argument was that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to the children born to newly freed slaves and had been misinterpreted since its ratification in 1868.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, wrote that there was “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view”.

“The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,” he wrote. “We keep that promise today.”

The U.S. Navy has shared details about its vision for a new family of modular surface-to-air missiles that is expected to include a version that will arm future variants of the Virginia class submarine. This would be an all-new capability for the service, at least as far as we know. All of the members of the Naval Modular Missile (NMM) are set to be based around a common Terminal Stage Interceptor (TSI), creating a range of capabilities in very different form factors. This, in turn, opens a door to new options for larger and/or mixed loadouts in vertical launch systems on surface warships and submarines.

New information about the Navy’s NMM concept is contained in a draft request for solutions contracting notice recently posted online, which Aviation Week was first to report on. Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) hosted an NMM Industry Day event earlier this year to get feedback from prospective vendors. The NMM effort traces its roots back to at least 2021, but the Navy has only released limited details about its plans for these new missiles in the past.

“The United States Navy (USN) is seeking a new, modular interceptor to serve as the basis for the Naval Modular Missile (NMM) program, a next-generation initiative designed to revolutionize surface naval capabilities through multi-mission utility, enhanced capacity, and a modular open architecture,” according to the recent draft request for solutions notice. “The NMM TSI is a modular, highly capable multi-mission interceptor that leverages state-of-the-art technology to provide effectiveness across the entire mission space.”

“The TSI is ten inches in diameter and consists of five modules,” which are “the Seeker Assembly Module (SAM), Lethality Module (LM), Command Module (CM), Terminal-Stage Rocket Motor (TSRM), and Control Actuation Module (CAM),” the notice adds. “This TSI will be integrated with multiple booster stacks and canisters to achieve a robust family of multi-mission and multi-platform variants.”

To start with, the contracting document describes the desired TSI as “highly agile” and “multi-mission capable,” but does not lay out any hard performance or capability requirements.

When it comes to the TSI’s seeker, there are certainly multiple options for prosecuting an aerial intercept, including active radars, imaging infrared sensors, and passive radiofrequency (RF) capabilities. Though we do not know yet what the Navy’s requirements here might be, a multi-mode seeker system could also be extremely valuable as the countermeasure ecosystem continues to expand.

An interceptor with a high degree of agility would also be required for any NMM variants intended to address high-supersonic and/or hypersonic targets, especially ones with their own ability to maneuver significantly during mid-course and/or terminal phases of flight. The Navy has made clear in the past that addressing the threats posed by ever more advanced supersonic and hypersonic anti-ship missiles, including air-breathing types, as well as ballistic and hypersonic designs, is a top priority. This has only been underscored by lessons learned from recent conflicts in and around the Middle East, as well as observations from the war in Ukraine. Those threats are only expected to be magnified in any future high-end fight against an adversary like China or Russia. Both of those countries have been investing heavily in the development and fielding of new high-speed anti-ship missile capabilities.

All this being said, the TSI element is perhaps the least interesting part of the overall NMM concept the Navy has now outlined. The service envisions at least four distinct NMM “All-Up-Rounds,” or AURs, topped with the common interceptor. As described now, the missiles are very different in form and function.

There is a Long-Range (LR) version that “brings multi-mission, hypersonic capability to the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS),
leveraging existing USN investments in a 21” rocket motor and fully integrating with future Long-Range Fires kill chains,” according to the recent notice. A single LR NMM will be able to fit inside a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cell.

A 21-inch rocket motor is a key component of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA anti-ballistic missile interceptors in Navy inventory today. A similarly sized rocket motor is also a central feature of the still-in-development supersized Block IB version of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6). Existing variants of the SM-6 are multi-purpose missiles that can be employed as anti-interceptors, including against certain hypersonic threats, as well as surface targets. The rendering the Navy has shown now of the LR version of the NMM is very much in line with the overall designs of the SM-3 Block IIA and SM-6 Block IB.

In addition, the Navy wants slimmer extended and medium-range NMMs that can be dual- and quad-packed into a single Mk 41 VLS cell, respectively. These are called the DP-ER and QP-MR versions. It’s worth noting here that the service uses similar extended and medium-range terminology today to describe different variants of the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2). Those missiles are primarily employed as surface-to-air interceptors, but have a limited secondary surface-to-surface capability, as well. However, SM-2s can only be loaded singly in Mk 41 VLS cells. The Navy is now in the process of integrating the Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptor into the Mk 41, offering another alternative to SM-2, but those missiles will also be loaded one per cell, at least initially.

The last and most notable version of the NMM that the Navy has outlined now is an extended-range version intended to be launched from future subvariants of the Virginia class nuclear-powered attack submarine equipped with the Virginia Payload Module (VPM). The VPM consists of four large vertical launch tubes and is set to be integrated first on Block V Virginia class boats. The so-called ER-S member of the NMM family would be loaded into those tubes via a seven-cell Multiple All-Up-Round Canister (MAC) adapter, first used on Ohio class guided missile systems.

The Navy does not currently have an operational submarine-launched surface-to-air capability at all, at least that we know about. This is something that has been explored by navies globally to varying degrees for decades, as you can read about more in this past TWZ feature. We will come back to this later on.

The NMM concept presents clear potential benefits operationally. The Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request indicates the service is aiming to eventually supplant all of its existing Standard missiles with NMM types. The new modular missile family could conceivably replace other munitions. With a new common TSI interceptor, even shorter-range NMM versions could offer expanded capability against an array of aerial threats in different envelopes. The Navy’s description of the LR type, at least, as a multi-mission weapon, also points to new capability against surface targets.

It’s also important to point out that the Navy says the LR and ER-S versions will be capable themselves of traveling at hypersonic speeds, helping to close any kill chain faster, even at extended ranges. This would be especially important for engaging incoming hypersonic threats, something the Navy can only currently do with versions of SM-6, to at least some degree. Depending on the full scope of capabilities the Navy has planned for NMM, this could open the door to new options for strikes on time-sensitive or otherwise fleeting surface targets.

The DP-ER and QP-MR versions would bring valuable additional magazine depth. Currently, the lower-end Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is the only surface-to-air interceptor in Navy inventory that can be multi-packed into VLS cells on its surface ships. Greater magazine depth means more engagement opportunities before having to reload, a process that currently requires Navy warships to leave their stations and head to a friendly port. During those transits, they may also be more vulnerable due to limited remaining ordnance. Especially in the face of growing threats to established port facilities, the Navy is also pursuing new at-sea reloading capabilities to create additional operational flexibility and reduce vulnerability. These issues have also been highlighted by recent U.S. operations in and around the Middle East.

ESSM Blk 2 GTV 1 Firing

The NMM plan would present benefits logistically and when it comes to production, too. Multiple contractors could be brought on to produce TSIs and the different rocket motors, creating opportunities for competition and cost savings, as a result. It could also help with ramping up production at scale. The recent NMM contracting notice says the Navy could leverage multiple vendors just to produce the modular components of the TSIs, and that the service is aiming for a production rate of 1,000 interceptors per year within five years of a contract award.

These are all considerations that are top of mind for the U.S. military at present when it comes to anti-air interceptors, as well as other munitions. Higher-end surface-to-air missiles have historically been very long-lead-time items with the delivery timelines measured in months, if not years. This has already created serious issues for sustaining stockpiles that have been exacerbated by a succession of crises in the Middle East, as well as the need to support allies and partners, especially Ukraine.

Overall, NMM “will provide the US Navy, Joint Force, Allies and Partners with advanced defensive and offensive capability to out-pace the threat. As the effective range, capability and capacity of adversary anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems have increased, the US Navy and Joint and Allied forces are at increased risk,” the Navy’s budget documents explain. “Additionally, adversary capacity and expected large raid engagement tactics will demand US and Allied forces increase their platforms’ defensive capacity (depth of magazine) or be forced to resupply frequently in the midst of combat operations. The adversary’s increased capacity comes with increased capability in the form of highly-maneuverable, complex threats that will stress the current U.S. weapon systems capabilities.”

Then there is the additional matter of the submarine-launched capability. As stressed from the start, the explicit inclusion of the ER-S version in the NMM plan is especially significant since this is not something the Navy is known to have access to at all right now. TWZ has previously explored in detail the potential benefits, as well as drawbacks, of arming submarines with anti-air interceptors.

Historically, the most immediate use case for a submarine-launched anti-air missile capability has been localized defense against anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters, as seen in the video below. The threat of a submarine shooting back could have a deterrent effect, too. Still, a submarine could have to get close to the surface and otherwise expose its position to prosecute such an engagement. A submarine launching anti-air interceptors is not automatically guaranteed to achieve a kill, either. This all raises a question of the value proposition compared to simply trying to evade detection and escape pursuers. There are rules of engagement and other questions to be answered, as well, as you can read more about here.

DCNS A3SM submarine launched MICA surface to air missile

However, the extended-range nature of the ER-S NMM variant raises the possibility of a different concept of operations involving a deep integrated and fully networked kill web, which is an area the Navy has already been investing in heavily. In this context, submarines might offer broader additional anti-air engagement capacity as part of a larger defensive posture around carrier strike groups, other surface action groups, and even potentially friendly assets on island outposts or along other coastlines, although this is unlikely to be the primary use of this capability set.

Submarines offer inherent survivability benefits and can operate discreetly across broad areas for extended periods of time. This, in turn, could create additional challenges for opponents who would have to account for the potential of additional surface-to-air capabilities to be hiding underneath the waves. Similarly, ER-S-armed submarines could be used proactively to take out enemy aircraft in areas far forward of any other friendly forces, and without opponents knowing they are there to begin with. This could be an especially valuable tool for targeting airborne early warning and control planes and other prized strategic force multiplying platforms. Targeting data could come from many sources, including future air moving target indicator space sensing layers, but also from warships equipped with the Aegis combat system or aircraft, including future sixth-generation F/A-XX fighters operating beyond the reach of their weapons capabilities. Acting as forward remote ‘shooter’ nodes, submarines would be very unpredictable and dangerous counter-air assets. Ukraine, for instance, has leveraged remote forward ‘shooter’ concepts in a similar manner, albeit on land, to great success.

Tied in with offboard sensor networks, submarines loaded with ER-S missiles might be able to conduct more general anti-missile defense missions, as well. For instance, a submarine would offer a new and different way to position such a capability closer to enemy territory, and potentially without their knowledge, from where boost-phase intercepts might be attempted. Missiles, especially larger ballistic types, are particularly vulnerable in the boost phase after launch. However, taking advantage of that has historically been complicated by the fact that the launch points are generally expected to be in more heavily defended areas.

If ER-S can also be employed as a hypersonic surface-to-air missile, it would give submarines armed with them additional operational flexibility. A VPM-equipped Virginia class submarine could also carry ER-Ss as just one part of a mixed ordnance load. VPM tubes are designed to accommodate a variety of munitions, including Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles.

In the missile defense context, the submarine with mid-course ballistic missile and/or hypersonic missile interceptors onboard could provide a more forward launch point for midcourse interception of these weapons. This would provide another layer of defense, especially in anti-access combat scenarios, allowing for the traditional missile defense layer, farther to the rear, to deal with whatever breaks through.

This all sounds great, but there is one problem with actually using this kind of capability in a sustained operational context. Firing off a larger interceptor from a submarine gives off a huge signature — infrared, radar, and acoustic. This is exactly what submarines operating forward try to avoid at nearly all costs. So how exactly this would be mitigated is unclear at this time. Clearly, there is a risk-reward calculus to all operations, but having a hugely valuable asset loaded with sensitive technologies and lives give away its position deep in enemy territory to shoot down a plane or missile would be a choice that would have to be made very carefully. The submarine could have a long way to run to safer territory if its presence were detected.

If nothing else, ER-S would create a submarine-based anti-air capability, and its very presence would impact adversary anti-submarine warfare playbooks. When it comes to chasing down U.S. submarines from the air, the hunted could now shoot back.

The Navy does still appear to be relatively early on in the process of outlining the NMM concept, let alone moving down a path that could lead to an operational capability. The requirements for NMM, including the submarine-launched capability, could well evolve further down the line, or even be truncated to focus first on a lower-risk spiral. As it stands now, the Navy is asking for $311 million to support NMM development in Fiscal Year 2027, which it says is a “new start” effort.

“The Department [of the Navy] is implementing diverse procurement strategies to enable rapid acquisition,” the service’s budget documents also note. “These will include the use of Other Transaction Authorities, ‘Marketplace’ acquisition platforms, and alternative concepts to increase supply and suppliers in addition to traditional FAR-based procurement strategies.”

Still, the NMM plan that the Navy has outlined now shows that it is pursuing a significant leap in anti-air capability that will be employed across its fleets, including on certain Virginia class submarines.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Malaysian police have detained more than 100 Rohingya refugees and asylum seekers who were seeking help from the UN after they were evicted from their homes. A rise in online hate speech and misinformation has led to more harassment of the group in Malaysia.

The island has weathered a US oil embargo since January and is enduring one of its worst economic crises ever.

Cuba’s president has accused the United States of carrying out “genocide” against his people and seeking to seize the Caribbean island nation.

President Miguel Diaz-Canel lashed out during a rally on Sunday commemorating the start of the Cuban Revolution in 1953. His anger was a reaction to Washington’s continued pressure, which has included a crippling oil embargo that has produced regular blackouts and economic hardship.

“I denounce that Cuba is the victim of a cold-bloodedly calculated genocide,” Diaz-Canel said in Pinar del Rio at the event marking the 73rd anniversary of the uprising against former dictator Fulgencio Batista.

US relations with the communist-led island have long been tense, but have deteriorated further under US President Donald Trump.

Washington imposed an oil embargo on Cuba on January 29, causing daily blackouts of more than 20 hours.

The US, Diaz-Canel said on Sunday, was engaged in “economic strangulation” through its actions.

Employers have been forced to reduce workdays, industrial production has stopped, and water and medicine shortages are hitting a country already suffering from previous US sanctions and financial reforms that caused inflation.

Payment companies Visa and Mastercard, Spain’s Melia hotel chain, and Air Canada and Air France have all exited the country amid the crisis.

“Cuba is today waging a historic battle … against the walls of a genocidal policy whose objective is to suffocate an entire people in order to appropriate the country,” Diaz-Canel said.

Trump said he would “take over” Cuba, following the US abduction of former Venezuelan president and Cuban ally Nicolas Maduro in January.

Last week, a US State Department report accused Cuba’s government of running an espionage and influence network against Washington and Latin American neighbours.

In May, the US indicted former president and revolution leader Raul Castro – brother of Fidel – of murder and other crimes for his alleged part in the downing of two civilian airplanes operated by Miami-based exiles off the Cuban coast in 1996.

Cuba’s government has rejected the accusations and denounced Trump’s rhetoric. Talks between the two countries have largely stalled, Cuban officials said in June.

The Cuban Revolution, led by brothers and later leaders Fidel and Raul Castro, culminated in the Batista government’s fall in 1959. Former President Raul, 95, was unusually absent at Sunday’s rally.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Ahmed al-Sharaa discusses regional security, Lebanon’s crisis and domestic challenges.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has revealed that Damascus is actively working to reach a security agreement with Israel with the participation of several countries.

Speaking in an exclusive interview on Al Jazeera’s Al Muqabala programme, the full interview, to be broadcast at 19:00 GMT, al-Sharaa said he hopes the deal with Israel could serve as a gateway to a comprehensive peace.

He also assured that such an agreement would not compromise Syria’s right to the occupied Golan Heights, which Israel has illegally occupied since 1973.

He said Syria is avoiding any clashes with Israel, and that a security arrangement could pave the way for a broader and more comprehensive resolution to the crisis.

It comes after repeated Israeli incursions and strikes in southern Syria, since al-Sharaa came to power in December 2024 following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Lebanon’s crisis and regional fears

Al-Sharaa also confirmed that Syria has no intention of launching any military intervention into neighbouring Lebanon, despite repeated rumours on the issue.

Instead, his government is currently discussing ways for Lebanese authorities to help the country overcome its current crisis and steer it towards safety.

Southern Lebanon is currently being occupied by Israel, amid months of fighting between Hezbollah and Israeli forces. The Lebanese state is seeking to reclaim these occupied territories and have a monopoly on all weapons in the country.

Furthermore, he declared Damascus’s firm support for restricting weapons and containing decisions of war and peace exclusively to the Lebanese state.

Al-Sharaa stressed that addressing the Lebanese crisis requires more than just a security approach but a comprehensive solution tackling a range of issues.

Any descent into chaos in Lebanon would have direct and immediate repercussions on Syria, and the potential expansion of the US-Israel war on Iran in the region would lead to a severe regional fall-out, he warned.

Sanctions, the SDF and missing persons

On domestic and economic fronts, al-Sharaa argued that merely lifting the economic sanctions imposed on his country by the US and other countries would not be effective unless Syria was also removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Addressing the internal agreement with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of Kurdish and Arab armed groups that controls parts of northern and eastern Syria, the president acknowledged a delay in its implementation.

However, he affirmed that the government remains fully committed to the agreement and continues to bet on its ultimate success.

Al-Sharaa also announced that Syrian authorities have established a special committee to manage the issue of people missing during Syria’s war, between 2011 and 2024.

The UN estimates that around 100,000 people were forcibly disappeared during the war, while Syria’s National Commission on Missing Persons believes as many as 300,000 Syrians could be missing.

Al-Sharaa said the committee will operate strictly according to international standards, working in close cooperation with countries that possess specialised expertise in this field.

From the ongoing conflict with Iran, to the Ukraine war and hotspots around the world, aerial drones have proven to be extremely dangerous and effective weapons and a mad rush is on to counter them. It is a technology race that makes headlines on a near daily basis. However, a similar but far quieter and less visible threat is emerging below the waves and now the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is looking to do more about it.

Faced with a growing threat from uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs), the USCG is seeking technology not just to detect these weapons, but to defeat them. Ports and other maritime facilities are vulnerable to this kind of attack vector, and our adversaries surely know it. The effort is being led by the Coast Guard Futures Development and Integration (FD&I) Directorate, which oversees research, modeling and simulation, technology forecasting, and field experimentation. It is part of the service’s role to protect U.S. maritime assets and comes as adversary militaries and non-state actors alike, are developing a wide array of UUVs for surveillance, strike and sabotage.

“UUVs are increasingly used in both public and military maritime operations due to their versatility, stealth, and ability to operate in challenging environments,” the Coast Guard noted in its request for solutions (RFS) posted Friday on the government’s online contracting portal. “However, the proliferation of UUV technology has introduced new threats to maritime security. Malicious actors can employ UUVs for a range of activities, including intelligence gathering, surveillance, smuggling, sabotage of critical infrastructure, and kinetic strikes. The covert nature and advanced navigation capabilities of modern UUVs make them difficult to detect, track, and mitigate using traditional maritime interdiction tactics.”

The most vivid example of this threat took place in December, when Ukraine claimed it used a UUV to strike an Improved Kilo class diesel-electric submarine, in the Black Sea naval stronghold of Novorossiysk. Ukraine’s state security service (SBU) told us at the time they used its Sub Sea Baby UUV to navigate through the harbor and hit the submarine.

It remains unclear how much damage the submarine sustained. However, the incident showed Ukraine was able to slip a UUV into a heavily defended harbor, in daylight, and detonate its warhead next to a prized Russian submarine worth, hundreds of millions of dollars.

The following satellite image showed a view of the submarine after the UUV hit.

Here is a video of the attack:

In an earlier example of these vehicles being used as a weapon, the U.S. Navy found itself having to fire on a threatening Houthi UUV in February 2024, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

“Between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Sanaa time), Feb. 17, CENTCOM successfully conducted five self-defense strikes against three mobile anti-ship cruise missiles, one unmanned underwater vessel (UUV), and one unmanned surface vessel (USV) in Iranian-backed Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen,” the command stated on X at the time. “This is the first observed Houthi employment of a UUV since attacks began on Oct. 23, [2023].”

Feb. 17 Summary of Red Sea activities

TAMPA, Fla. – Between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Sanaa time), Feb. 17, CENTCOM successfully conducted five self-defense strikes against three mobile anti-ship cruise missiles, one unmanned underwater vessel (UUV), and one unmanned… https://t.co/TwR9RUmMMu

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) February 18, 2024

Hamas used UUVs even before that in an attempt to attack Israeli naval assets in 2021, according to the Times of Israel.

“While the small autonomous underwater drone was still close to the shore, an Israeli Navy vessel destroyed the device, and an IDF aircraft attacked the operatives that launched it in order to thwart the threat,” the military said, according to the outlet.

“Hamas has for years been believed to be developing autonomous submarines,” Times of Israel added. “The Israeli Navy believes that the models in the terror group’s arsenals are guided by GPS and capable of carrying some 30 kilograms (66 pounds) of explosives. Such weapons could be directed against targets both out at sea and along Israel’s coastline.”

The threat from these systems has come a long way. America’s near-peer adversaries are far more advanced in this regard and weapons that can travel great distances undersea, operating on their own, offer a distinct asymmetric advantage. As with Pearl Harbor, it is far more convenient to strike ships in port than to hunt them at sea. China, notably, has invested heavily in uncrewed underwater vehicles for years.

“There are effective technologies with the capability to detect and track UUVs, but few tested and fielded defeat/mitigation systems,” the Coast Guard said in the RFS. 

There are really two areas where these technologies land, in general. Providing early warning and tracking of UUVs over larger areas and coastal and harbor defense, the inner layer where UUVs are arguably most dangerous.

For the U.S., persistent and broad area undersea surveillance coverage has historically been provided by large networks of static hydrophones that are extremely costly to establish, operate, and maintain. They were also designed to detect large submarines, not far smaller UUVs. The U.S. Navy’s Cold War Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) network is perhaps the best-known example of such a system. Portions of SOSUS do remain in service, but are now used more for scientific research than watching for foreign submarines. SOSUS has been largely supplanted operationally by a mix of fixed sensor arrays, surface ships towing sonar, and processing stations ashore known collectively as the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS).

Last year, TWZ highlighted one of many alternatives being developed by industry, Anduril’s readily deployable undersea surveillance system called Seabed Sentry. It uses networks of small and relatively low-cost modular sensor nodes to detect and track undersea threats. You can read more about that system and how it operates in our story here.

Anduril, working with Ultra Maritime’s Sea Spear deployable sonar system, demonstrated the latest iteration of this system during the Navy’s recent Lanternfish exercise, which “brought together the U.S. Navy, United Kingdom Ministry of Defense explosive ordnance disposal units, Royal Australian Navy UUV Operators and defense industry professionals to build seamless interoperability,” according to the U.S. Navy.

The inner layer of defense benefits from ongoing development and evolution, from sensors for detecting divers and objects to marine mammals that can do the same. Still, UUVs offer unique new challenge to contend with.

Last month, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Panama City and Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Group (UUVGRU) One “executed a multi-national harbor protection demonstration to show how the advancement of technology plays a crucial role in protecting the Navy’s assets during exercise Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) 2026,” NSWC said.

The demonstration “showcased three emerging technologies including an expeditionary air curtain, an artificial kelp UUV net, and sea water neutralization charges which are designed to counter UUV threats,” the release added.

“The expeditionary air curtain is a rapidly deployable underwater system that is used to protect mission-critical assets below the waterline. The air curtain defends against UUV threats and can be used at Naval bases and military installations as well as ports and harbors by aerating the water to affect the UUV’s depth sensors, acoustic sensors, buoyancy and propulsion.”

“We are testing the air curtain to see how it disrupts and hinders UUV sensors. It is a quick, expeditionary solution because it can be deployed easily,” said Javi Handal, a Senior Electrical Engineer with NSWC Panama City.

He did not provide further details about these systems.

Regardless, the Coast Guard is looking to industry for other options.

“Defeat technologies are an essential piece in the kill chain, as detection is only the first step to stopping the threat,” its RFS explains. “The development and deployment of effective C-UUV defeat solutions will enhance maritime domain dominance (MDD), port security, and critical infrastructure protection, enabling reliable response actions to neutralize UUV-based threats.”

The Coast Guard said it is specifically interested in “solutions that have been tested and demonstrated to be effective in operational settings, with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5 or higher.”

The Pentagon describes TRL 5 as systems where the “basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so it can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include ‘high fidelity’ laboratory integration of components.”

The requested technologies should be capable of supporting Ports, Waterways & Coastal Security operations, “addressing the unique challenges posed by UUVs in these environments,” the Coast Guard added.

“We are looking for systems that can provide reliable performance in real-world conditions, including but not limited to sensor platforms, kinetic solutions, and integrated response solutions,” the RFS notes. “Respondents are encouraged to submit information on products or systems that are currently available for procurement, have undergone field testing, and are suitable for deployment in port, harbor, and waterway security scenarios. Defeat solutions should be scalable and adaptable for compatibility with existing detection systems and/or various configurations for different ports.”

The Coast Guard is limiting its search to “only systems with an effector or with direct mitigating capabilities, or with detection, tracking, identifying, and mitigating capabilities. Submissions that do not include defeat capabilities will not be considered at this time.”

Interested parties have two weeks to submit their proposals. We reached out to the Coast Guard to find out more details about timelines and budgets and will update this story with any pertinent information provided.

As Ukraine proved last year, the threat from UUVs is real and growing, giving adversaries hard-to-detect and difficult-to-defeat autonomous weapons that can be launched from great distances and potentially operated in concert. The Coast Guard request is the latest example of the U.S. government’s increasing effort to get after this emerging threat.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is travelling to the United States for talks with President Donald Trump, in what will be his first foreign trip since taking office in May.

During this week’s meetings, al-Zaidi is expected to sign agreements in energy and trade while also boosting investment with US companies.

Iraqi government spokesman Haider al-Aboudi told reporters on Sunday the visit to Washington, DC, will mark a shift in the countries’ relations “from a framework of crisis management to a strategic economic partnership”.

The focus, he said, would not be about striking a “temporary” agreement but about establishing “a durable, long-term partnership that serves the shared interests of both countries”.

Al-Aboudi said oil would be “a top priority” during the visit as the Iraqi government seeks to increase production and find alternative export hubs to lessen the consequences of any future closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iraq was one of the countries badly hit by the shutting down of the critical waterway in recent months due to the US-Israel war on Iran, as about 90 percent of its 3.4 million barrels per day (bpd) of exports passes through it.

Al-Aboudi said Iraq’s proposal to establish an energy and development fund with the US would be on the table to finance any projects that would be agreed upon, especially in the energy sector.

Al-Zaidi had previously said the fund would initially be structured in oil exports of 500,000 bpd with the goal of increasing to as much as two million bpd.

The prime minister has also said Iraq seeks to increase oil production to seven million bpd over the next three years, up from its current output of about 4.5 million bpd.

“Iraq is in need of such kind of cooperation, especially with a partner like the United States to enhance and strengthen its capacity, particularly in the energy, oil, gas, electricity, and petrochemicals sectors,” said Abdulrahman Almashhadani, an Iraqi economic expert and professor.

“However, the critical question remains whether Iraq can provide a safe and stable environment that would encourage US companies to come to Iraq,” he said. “This issue is sensitive and unresolved; it largely depends on the government’s ability to deliver on its commitments to restrict weapons to state control.”

Large delegation

Sources told Al Jazeera the Iraqi delegation to the US comprises more than 70 people, including key ministers, the head of the central bank, the national security adviser, lawmakers and businessmen.

A well-informed source said meetings with US administration officials and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have also been planned. According to the source, who asked not to be named, Iraq is seeking to secure an IMF loan of up to $8bn.

A separate well-informed source told Al Jazeera that the disarming of pro-Iran Iraqi armed factions and restricting weapons under state authority, as well as Baghdad’s relationship with Tehran, are expected to be among the issues the US side will raise during the visit.

In his first speech in parliament as prime minister, al-Zaidi had promised that the state would have control over weapons in a country where paramilitary groups, including many supported by Iran, have been powerful since the 2003 US-led war on Iraq.

Some armed factions said they would abide by the prime minister’s declaration, but others – particularly the powerful ones that launched missiles and drones at US facilities during the war on Iran – rejected it.

In a statement released hours before al-Zaidi’s trip to Washington, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed armed groups in the region, including Iraq, rejected the prime minister’s visit and its outcomes.

“We will not give a blank cheque for all government policies. We warn against replacing military occupation with an economic occupation that is even more dangerous,” the statement said.

“The option of defending Iraq and its legitimate interests will remain on the table,” it added.

Al-Zaidi has said his government is eager to implement a 2024 deal made with the US-led coalition’s military mission in Iraq to end its presence as combat forces by the end of September.

Some of the factions that rejected the prime minister’s disarmament statement said they would wait to see what happens on September 30 and then act accordingly.

Ehsan al-Shammary, a professor of international studies at Baghdad University, said the economic initiatives and the backing that al-Zaidi is seeking from Trump during Monday’s talks would inevitably be overshadowed by the issue of Iran’s influence in Iraq.

Ultimately, he added, it is the issue that will determine the success or failure of a “very important” visit that could “redefine” bilateral relations and “give it a push”.

“Al-Zaidi has little room for manoeuvre. He should choose either to align with the United States or move closer to Iran,” said al-Shammary. “I do not believe Washington is willing to accept a divided sphere of influence in Iraq alongside Tehran. That is why the prime minister’s task appears to be almost impossible.”

BOSTON — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.

Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, noting in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order seeking to establish a federal voter list, argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.

The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.

In a separate lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, who have appealed.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

June 21 (UPI) — U.S. Vice President JD Vance said the United States is looking “to transform our relationship” with Iran but warned Sunday’s renewed talks in Switzerland wouldn’t bring about an immediate resolution to the war.

Vance was joined by President Donald Trump‘s go-to negotiators in the peace talks — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — in the gathering at the Bürgenstock lakeside resort, CNN reported. Pakistani and Qatari mediators were also in attendance, The New York Times reported.

“Never before has the Iranian and American leadership met at such a high level,” Vance told reporters ahead of the talks.

“What the president has asked us to do is turn over a new leaf to transform our relationship with the people of Iran, and to extend an outstretched hand that says to the people of Iran that if your leadership is willing to give up being a driver of regional instability, if they are willing to give up nuclear weapons ambitions for the long term, then the United States is willing to fundamentally transform our relationship with that country,” he said.

“We’ve already made great progress over just the last few hours, and I expect that we will make additional progress in the hours to come.”

Sunday’s gathering in Switzerland is the latest in a series of negotiations between the two countries — and mediators — to attempt to bring an end to a war that began with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran on Feb. 28.

Trump signed a peace agreement with Iran on Wednesday while he was in France for the G7 Summit. The 14-point pact included the immediate cessation of fighting by all sides — including in Lebanon — plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and an easing of financial restrictions on Iran.

Iran, however, said it closed the strait again Saturday, accusing Israel of launching a fresh round of strikes on Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group in Lebanon. The strikes killed at least 22 people.

Though the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has been central to a peace agreement between the United States and Iran, neither of the parties were involved in Sunday’s talks in Switzerland.

More than three decades after decommissioning the USS Long Beach, the Navy is finally preparing to dispose of what’s left of the world’s first nuclear-powered surface combatant. The cruiser – which already had its distinctive boxy superstructure as well as its bow and stern sections removed – has been moored at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility since being decommissioned in 1995.

After a long process to determine what to do with Long Beach, the Navy on Wednesday put out a call for companies willing and able to perform the extremely complex and lengthy operation to transport, dismantle, de-militarize, and dispose of what was once a 721-foot-long ship that displaced 15,540 tons, including its two defueled reactor plants. Long Beach was launched in 1959 and commissioned two years later.

You can read more about the ship, its unique character, armaments and exploits in our two-part interview with a master chief who served on Long Beach here and here.

This marks just the second time the Navy has opted to select a commercial yard to dismantle a nuclear-powered warship. The first was the ex-USS Enterprise, the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from the same era as Long Beach. It is vastly more complex and expensive to dispose of nuclear-powered vessels than conventionally powered ones because of all the radiological concerns, even long after the reactors have been defueled.

We’ll get into more details about how difficult, time-consuming and costly a process this could be later in this story when we examine the pitfalls of the Enterprise situation, admittedly a much more complex undertaking for various reasons we will explain. However, first we need to understand how Long Beach got to this point.

The decision to go forward with the Long Beach dismantling process came after a Naval Vessel Historical Evaluation (NVHE) in April determined that the ship was ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) despite its history as the first surface combatant ever to have nuclear propulsion and combat service that ranged from the Vietnam War to Operation Desert Storm.

USS Long Beach (CGN-9)

“The ship was deactivated in 1994 and towed to Newport News Shipbuilding where the entire superstructure was removed and the reactors were defueled,” according to the NVHE. “After this work was completed in the winter of 1995, the hull was towed through the Panama Canal to Puget Sound where it has been waiting to be recycled.”

In 2012, the ship was sold for scrap.

“Long Beach had 10,000 tons of steel, 300 miles of electrical cable and 450 tons of aluminum, earning it the voice radio call sign ‘Alcoa’ after the aluminum maker of the same name,” Reuters reported at the time.

“More than a dozen scrap dealers have expressed interest in taking part in sealed online bidding for the hull, with more than 7.35 million pounds (3.33 million kg) of steel, aluminum and copper wiring, galley equipment, tables, chairs, lockers and bunks,” Government Liquidation president Tom Burton told the news outlet.

“It’s a two-year process but it could take 18 to 26 months,” Burton said. “What’s left is an inert hull.”

USS Long Beach CGN-9

It remains unclear what happened to that scrap sale. We reached out to the Navy for answers.

The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard subsequently completed a limited-scope hull preservation availability in 2015 that resulted in the removal of the bow and stern, according to the NVHE records. It was ultimately decided not to save the ship by placing it on the NRHP because “major alterations have been made in design that do not maintain the historic design of the vessel (loss of the superstructure and major hull elements),” the review found. “Character defining features of USN warship have been lost, such as main armament, superstructure, bow, and stern. Does not evoke the aesthetic of a 20th Century USN warship.”

Moreover, a 60-day period for stakeholders to comment expired earlier this month with no responses.

With all the hurdles to ultimate destruction now out of the way, the Navy will host an Industry Day meeting on June 24 and 25 in Washington, D.C. for companies interested in learning more about what is involved in the final dismantling of the USS Long Beach.

Whoever gets the job will first have to transport it from Puget Sound to the shipbreaking yard by “dry transport via semi-submersible barge, deck barge, or semi-submersible heavy lift vessel” because the ship’s “current structural condition precludes an open ocean tow,” according to the RFI.

“Dismantling and disposing of ex-Long Beach is necessary in order to comply with Navy policy for inactive nuclear-powered ships stricken from the Naval Vessel Register, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) statutory responsibilities,” the RFI explains. “The requirement for disposal includes dismantling, demilitarizing, and recycling the remnant hull sections at an authorized commercial facility in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and removing and packaging the reactor plant components for transportation and disposal as low‑level radioactive waste (LLRW) at an authorized radioactive waste facility or facilities.”

There are no timelines or cost estimates associated with the RFI, nor is there any guarantee that a request for proposal will be issued. We’ve reached out to the Navy for more details.

Our past reporting offers some insights into the tremendous time and money it takes to dismantle a nuclear-powered warship, as evidenced by the saga of the aforementioned Enterprise. However, it should be noted that there are some big differences between that vessel and Long Beach. The carrier is far larger and more complex, had eight reactors compared to two, and had less prep work done in advance.

In 2019, the Government Accountability Office found that it could cost the Navy more than $1.5 billion to fully dispose of Enterprise.

The GAO report also stated that a complete process could take more than 15 years to finish.

From our previous story about the dismantling of the ship known as the Big E: 

“The Navy officially decommissioned Enterprise, also known by its hull number CVN-65, in February 2017, after more than five decades of service. The ship had already effectively been in mothballs since 2012 and Newport News Shipbuilding completed a lengthy ‘inactivation’ process, which included removing nuclear fuel, mission systems, and other items from the ship, in April 2018.

‘At approximately 76,000 tons, CVN-65 will require an unprecedented level of work to dismantle and dispose of as compared to previous ships,’ GAO’s review, which the congressional office published on Aug. 2, 2018, said. ‘Regardless of the approach the Navy chooses, CVN-65 will set precedents for the processes, costs, and oversight that may be used to dismantle and dispose of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the future, such as the Nimitz-class carriers which the Navy will begin to retire in the mid-2020s.’”

The first of those, the USS Nimitz, the Navy’s oldest operational carrier, is scheduled to be inactivated in 2027, the Navy told us.

On March 13, the Navy signed a $95.7 million contract with Huntington Ingalls Inc. “for advance planning and long-lead-time material procurement to prepare and make ready for the accomplishment of the inactivation and defueling of USS Nimitz (CVN 68). Work will be performed in Newport News, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by March 2027.”

Meanwhile, the Navy originally projected that it would cost somewhere between $500 and $750 million to scrap the Enterprise, but by 2013, this figure had grown to over $1 billion. The difficulties involved forced the service to push back the start of the process more than once.

The regulatory and logistical picture was equally tangled. The Navy and the NRC disagreed on what standards should apply if a private company did the work, and NRC only has direct authority in 13 states, potentially limiting where the job could even be done. Conducting the work at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard — the Navy’s proven approach — risked worsening an already serious maintenance backlog for active ships. The commercial route could be faster and cheaper, but no private yard had ever handled military nuclear reactors at this scale, and the highly classified nature of U.S. naval reactor design added another layer of complexity. 

You can read more about the challenges involved with breaking up a nuclear behemoth in our deep dive into the problems with the Enterprise effort here.

The Decommissioning Of The USS Enterprise

The challenges of disposing of Enterprise, however, continued even after a final decision was made about what to do with the vessel.

On May 30, 2025, the Navy awarded a $536.7 million contract to dismantle the ship to NorthStar Maritime Dismantlement Services, LLC, of Vernon, Vermont, according to Pentagon records. The work was initially expected to be completed in November 2029.

“It was the first time a U.S. nuclear-powered warship will be dismantled through a commercial effort, representing a significant milestone in responsibly and safely closing out the legacy of one of the most iconic nuclear-powered warships,” the Navy noted at the time, according to USNI.

However, the effort unraveled over a legal battle over how the Navy handled final bid submissions, ultimately resulting in the service being “ordered to pause the project and reassess bids, while the appeal now puts the future of the contract back in question,” according to NBC15 News. “The Navy is expected to re-award the contract by June 2026.”

We have reached out to the Navy to find out the status of that contract as well.

USS Enterprise to be dismantled in Alabama

Even as the Navy is working to dispose of its first nuclear-powered surface combatant, it is planning for the newest one. The Navy says its proposed Trump class battleships will be nuclear-powered as well.

It remains to be seen how the complications the Navy has faced trying to dismantle Enterprise will affect the disposal of Long Beach and what lessons will be applied, if any. The answers to some of those questions should come into sharper focus next week when interested parties get to ask the Navy for themselves at the Industry Day.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

As a pariah child in search of Islamic knowledge, Goni Abubakar has no clue what it means to hold a gun and pull the trigger. He is just an almajiri who runs errands for his cleric master in Bama, a town in Borno State, northeastern Nigeria. He learns to recite Quran verses by heart; he is one of the brightest pupils under the cleric’s tutelage. In the beginning, the messages are clear: have faith in Allah, the Prophet Muhammad, and the Day of Judgement. Every pupil carries these heavy words around and keenly believes in them. They say the Quranic verses that match those words by heart: “O you who have believed, fear Allah and believe in His Messenger; He will [then] give you a double portion of His mercy and make for you a light by which you will walk and forgive you; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

The preaching is pious until peril pierces the heart of the preacher. 

The teacher sells groceries, and Goni doubles as his shop assistant. Detached from his parents as a child, he was now a teen, tending only to the bidding of his mentor. Dozens of children are on this path to seek knowledge, but Goni is the teacher’s delight: fierce, smart, and completely loyal. Their earliest form of education is the Tsangaya, a traditional Quranic education in northern Nigeria, and most of them have not attended any formal secular school before they are thrown under the control of a man they all call “mallam”. The morning and evening classes are held in the shade of a tree and are led by the teacher, who preaches to them the ways of Islam.

Kids like Goni know what it means to grow up in a local community. A child can sing through the neighbourhood, begging anyone there for food and water. Local farmers prosper in peace after months of tilling and cultivating the land. People sleep at night without fear of being raided by assailants or militants. Fear and terror consumed the town when Boko Haram’s strange ideologies spread like wildfire into the communities. Goni’s teacher is among the first to embrace the ideologies propagated by Boko Haram’s founder, Mohammed Yusuf. As his preaching changed, his way of life changed too, beaming terror and extremism infused into the hearts of children under his mentorship.

In 2009, when Boko Haram went underground before re-emerging in 2010, Goni was already a 12-year-old. Too young and naive to ask questions, he and dozens of children followed their tutor to join the insurgent group that would later destabilise Nigeria. Now, in the northeastern region, the Boko Haram insurgency has uprooted over three million people and killed over 350,000, with government authorities failing to rein in the deadly scourge. Armed violence has spread beyond the region’s borders into parts of the northwestern and north-central regions.

Goni would become a grown man, swallowing the rulings of terrorists until he could no longer bear them. He now seeks redemption and reintegration through the state-backed deradicalisation programme. While it appears he has left a life of violence and attacks for good, it’s not that simple. For him and many other men in his shoes, post-Boko Haram life presents some puzzles that test the true efficacy of the deradicalisation scheme.

Are the terrorist deserters genuinely seeking redemption or only trying to survive? For months – between November 2025 and May 2026 – HumAngle probed the complexities of the former insurgents’ lives, documenting their journeys from the past to the present, their struggles to become civilians again, their secret frontline deals with the military, and the fragile peace their reintegration poses to the civilian population.

Snaring the cat

When Goni joined Boko Haram as a teen, his master’s preachings had switched from admonishing children under his watch to have strong faith in their religion to brainwashing them into a life of violence. They embraced it, truly believing that spilling the blood of people who don’t believe in their ideology was the clearest pathway to paradise. Elsewhere in Borno, in the Malam Fatori area, Ali Bukhar also listened to the sermons of Boko Haram’s jihadists. Those sermons summoned the beast in him and took away the best of his humanity. He joined them convinced that true salvation was immersed in the ideology of killing and maiming.

“In the preachings, they’d emphasise that if you died in the cause, you are a martyr. That you are going to paradise straight,” Ali recalls. He joined as an adult in 2014 during the peak of the Boko Haram emergence. About five months after joining the group, he was asked to attend training. His handlers took him to a riverine area and gave him a gun. “They have a specific instructor whose job is solely to train new intakes. You’d train for about four to five months. After the training, they’d return you to the Markaz [Arabic word for headquarters or centre]. And when it is time to go out for a fight, they’d give you guns.”

Suleiman Mohammad tells a slightly different story. He joined Boko Haram in 2013, during the first Baga attack. The militants and the military had been locked in a fierce battle that cost hundreds of civilians their lives and thousands their homes. A retaliatory raid after a military base was attacked in Baga took a bloody turn for mostly civilians, brewing a trust deficit in the operational methods of Nigerian forces in their fight against terrorism. The insurgent group took advantage of the situation to recruit young people into its unholy ways. Suleiman was among hundreds of people brought into the system after the Baga bloody saga and the uprising that followed. He was a herder in Malam Fatori and had grown up through the local Tsangaya education system.

“So after the Baga attack, I was contacted by the fighters who turned out to be from my village,” Suleiman reminisces. “We studied together when we attended Tsangaya and Islamiyya a long time ago. They told me how the other brothers were with them. They told me stories of how they recite the Quran collectively and also wage ‘holy war’ together. Then they invited me to join them. So, we made an appointment to meet at Mairari.”

A week later, the terrorists came as agreed and met with Suleiman’s father in his home. 

“Your son is joining us in the cause of Allah. He’d work for Allah,” the terrorists say. 

“Allah’s cause?” the father wonders. “Jihad is mandatory for all muslims. And since he has agreed to go with you, I have no objections.” 

The terrorists had come with guns and machetes, Suleiman notes, suggesting that his father was made to agree under duress. “That was how I joined them. We had carried out several attacks ever since. From Mairari, Tungushe, and others. In fact, we held Mairari – under Magumeri – captive for quite some time before it was recaptured by the military.”

People joined the Boko Haram insurgency for different reasons. For Goni and his cohorts, it was a case of misguided faith rooted in brainwashing and psychological manipulation. The story is different for many others. The fire of the burning insurgency started from the charismatic oratory and radical sermons by the founder of Boko Haram, Mohammed Yusuf, between 2002 and 2009. Since at least 2021, HumAngle has interviewed dozens of defectors who revealed why they joined the deadly group before surrendering to a deradicalisation scheme organised by the government. Mohammed took advantage of the dysfunctions within the Nigerian state to campaign against a secular system of governance and, by extension, democracy.

Testimonies from defectors and custodians of Boko Haram’s history reveal that the post-2009 state repression, especially the actual brutality of the Nigerian military and police against civilians, and the uprising that trailed it, were among the factors that drove young people into insurgency. At the time, “Tura Takai Bango” was the mantra for the agitation, literally meaning “they had been pushed to the wall”. The era and the ugly events that unfolded encapsulate the desperation that leads civilians to affiliate with insurgents. When the state’s counter-insurgency tactics involve collective punishment, the civilian population often finds itself caught in a “double jeopardy” where both the state and the insurgents are viewed as existential threats. 

Isa Alamndiri, one of the victims of the state repression, told HumAngle how he witnessed the summary execution of young people in 2016, in the Marte Local Government Area (LGA), on the grounds that they were shielding terrorists. “They came and gathered all of us in the village. They then separated the elderly and killed all the youths. They shot over 30 youths that day. Their reason was that we were harbouring Boko Haram in our midst,” Isa says. 

Another witness of what many believe pushed youths in the state to the wall, Musa Kurama, recalls that the Nigerian military invaded his village in Meleri, also in Marte, to burn his house, among many others, to the ground, saying that the entire community was a hideout for terrorists. The cycle of violence forced young adults and naive teenagers to take the insurgents’ offer of “protection”, which was a predatory alternative to state-sponsored destruction.

Boko Haram also targeted schools for attacks, deliberately conducting mass kidnappings such as in Chibok and Dapchi to enforce their radical ideology by making secular educational institutions unsafe. This insurgent tactic strategically provides a supply of young captives who were groomed as fighters or forced into “marriages” that facilitate the group’s long-term sustainability. The state’s failure to secure these environments has led to the closure of over 600 schools in the region, creating a lost generation of children who are more susceptible to recruitment because of the absence of alternative futures.

Jihad: ‘Pathway to paradise’

Goni has grown up knowing nothing but violence and bloodshed, and now claims he’s out of the messy circle. He smiles as he speaks, but when he remembers how he joined other terrorists to pillage villages, uproot people from their homes, farmlands, and abduct scores, he furrows his brow. 

“Before we go out, we would prepare. They’d mobilise 100 to 200 fighters, give them arms, and say, ‘We are going out to wage a holy war’.  Then we would charge into military barracks,” he tells HumAngle curtly. “I believe we were deceived by our masters because they don’t practice what they preach and twist religious verses to suit their evil acts and intentions.”

Regardless of how and why they joined, newly recruited insurgents are made to believe that killing and spilling the blood of anyone not following their templates of violence has only one name: jihad. Most defectors we spoke to corroborated this during separate interviews in 2025 and later in 2026.

Experts and scholars in political science, human rights, and peace and conflict studies argue that Boko Haram weaponised the concept of jihad to manipulate its followers into believing keenly in killing and destroying those who disagree with their ideology. In the 2021 issue of the Al-Hikmah Journal on Social Sciences and Education, for example, Issa Muhammad-Jamiu, a researcher at Kogi State University in North Central Nigeria, notes that Boko Haram’s ideology contradicts Islamic injunctions. The most disturbing aspect, he states, is the condemnation of any scholarly verdict that falls short of their view. 

“How could they attribute Islam to the prohibition of Western education, which has become a necessity, if not compulsory, to Muslims in the contemporary world? Do they mean that they are more knowledgeable and more committed to Islam than those Companions and Tabi’un who studied foreign cultures and sciences for the interest of Muslim communities?” Issa ponders.

Two sides of the coin

As Goni speaks, his lips look pale and peeling. He’s been battling typhoid and malaria and is still receiving treatment. He carries a gentle demeanour that betrays the terror he had perpetrated, and wears a blank face wrinkled with emotionlessness. For him, peace is a no-brainer when violence is pervasive.

He quips, throwing on a long, tedious smile when asked what he thinks of the concept of peace. “Peace tastes good,” he says. “Living peacefully among loved ones is greater than any other thing. I was in Njimia before leaving. I had worked in several places, including Gazuwa, my birthplace. What made me leave was recent developments. The conflict between the factions and the injustice. So, I took my weapon and left. I arrived at Konduga, where I was received. They then brought us to Bama and then to Hajj Camp.”

Goni believes that embracing peace simply means walking away from a life of pain, violence, and gnashing of teeth. Dwelling in the forest with terrorists means dining with the devil, he says. His moral postulation and spiritual freedom were destroyed in the terrorist camp. He had access to the Quran and understood its teachings, but every verse he read had to be interpreted in accordance with the sect’s teachings. He had no freedom of thought or understanding of whatever he read from the scripture. He had no meaningful life in the forest, he says, apart from destroying people’s lives.

He and many of the terrorist deserters we spoke to said they experienced pain in its most extreme form. Whenever they sustained gunshot wounds during field battles with the military, they returned to the forest almost dead. They were being treated by their locally-trained doctors, whom many of the ex-combatants described as quacks. Most times, they gave them dangerous, addictive opioids such as Tramadol and Refinol. They became addicted to these drugs to escape their daily ordeals, even after healing from the wounds. 

“They punished us for taking hard drugs they introduced to us in the first place,” Goni complains. “Sometimes a fighter could be killed just because he takes hard drugs. When they knew it was bad, why did they use it to treat us?”

Many terrorists decided to surrender to the military for different reasons. One major cause of mass defections from the terrorist camps was the sudden demise of Abubakar Shekau, the Boko Haram gang leader who took over the mantle of terror from Mohammed Yusuf. There had been cracks within the insurgent group, leading to the rise of the Islamic State for West African Province (ISWAP), which was formed as a rebel group against Shekau’s camp. Another thing that followed the death of Shekau in 2021 was disease and hunger outbreaks. 

The Nigerian military took advantage of Shekau’s death to launch several offensive attacks on the terrorist dens in northeastern Nigeria, destroying their logistics bases. That year, the military said it recorded thousands of defections from terrorists who surrendered to embrace peace. Once they submit themselves to the military after years of committing criminal atrocities, they are subjected to deradicalisation through the Borno Model.

HumAngle interviewed several Boko Haram deserters to examine their understanding of peace after committing grave crimes against the human population in the region. Many of them curiously oversimplified the concept, reducing it to simply switching sides and moving from deadly armed violence to living an average civilian life.

“From my understanding, peace is us leaving the group,” Ali simply says and goes ahead to recount how he joined other fighters to enslave girls for sex after kidnapping them from their homes, schools, and farms. He had been through hell as a former Boko Haram member, and now seeks solace in embracing peace by surrendering to the military. He had been imprisoned by his superiors in the terror camp and asked to surrender his arms, but he refused. “I buried it where they could not see it. I was locked up for three months. When they released me, I went and dug up my gun and left them,” he recalls.

For him and several defectors, returning to the civilian community is an exciting prospect. Despite the horror they inflicted on civilian communities as terrorists, they consider living with ordinary locals again, especially close to their families, as a peaceful reconciliation of their horrible past. “We were ignorant when we did those things in the past. But now we know better,” one of them, Abubakar Saleh, says. He was a Boko Haram commander who led dozens of fighters to dislodge communities, rape women and girls and subjugate civilian communities under terrorist control.

He has now returned to Maiduguri with his family. His wife had just given birth when we spoke to him, and he has settled well into the civilian community. To him, peace is relief from the pain that comes with being a terrorist leader. Although he enjoyed authority as a commanding fighter, his life in the forest was miserable, as he was always on the move to evade military operations and surveillance.

“Life here is better,” he affirms. “It is more comfortable and peaceful. In the forest, there is no rest. You’d hunt daily like a lion. Always changing locations. But here, no attacks.”

For civilian casualties of the terror perpetrated by many of these terrorist deserters, however, peace doesn’t come easily. For years, victims of insurgency in the northeastern region have longed for peace and reparations. Thousands of displaced people not only lost their homes, but also lost hope in ever rebuilding their lives or returning to their settlements. In parts of Borno, especially at the Shuwari displacement site, displaced people feed on the leftovers from former terrorists undergoing the government’s deradicalisation programme, a situation that has created an atmosphere of distrust and inequalities. When the Borno State government began a resettlement scheme for displaced people, they were promised protection and stipends to rebuild their lives. Many of them ended up being re-displaced by terrorists and would not get the opportunity to rebuild their lives.

Ensuring peace and justice in the North East is far more complicated than many terrorist deserters have assumed, says Ndubuisi Ani, a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Security Studies. The transitional justice expert told HumAngle that the defectors’ curious understanding of peace undermines the pains and level of destruction civilians have witnessed at the hands of terrorists. He argues that peace and justice cannot be achieved in tackling violent extremism unless there’s inclusivity, good governance, and stability.

“The state must understand that there are basic needs to be responded to (on the side of victims),” Ndubuisi explains. “A lot of communities need a lot of social contracts on the ground.”

The security expert further explains that any transitional justice scheme by the government must be victim-centred. He advised that the state must go back to its original duty of protecting citizens and ensuring peace and tranquillity in society.

“You’ve not psychologically prepared actors. How do you let the victims understand?” he asked, stating that the government can’t successfully reintegrate terrorist deserters back into society without proper public engagement. “The intent is good, but the approach is the problem.”

Seeking peace and redemption

Like many terrorist deserters, Goni accepts that he has lived a complicated life of violence and horror. This is not the time for regret, he says. It’s a moment to seek forgiveness, to retrace his steps, and perhaps to wash the blood from his own hands. When he arrived at the Hajj Camp in Maiduguri after surrendering to the military and going through the process of deradicalisation, he struggled with the guilt of the atrocities he had committed, and, to prove to the military that he had backed off from a life of bloodshed, he agreed to work in the field with soldiers fighting terrorists. He’s not alone in this. Several former combatants we spoke to said they decided to work as auxiliary operatives to fight alongside the military against Boko Haram, the same sect they once belonged to. Several other defectors noted that when they chose to work with the military – as a way to seek redemption – they were handed rifles, loaded onto the backs of patrol trucks, and sent directly into the marshes and forests they had recently fled.

Asked whether they were coerced into joining the military, Goni laughed before saying the escapade was never mandatory. 

“It is a choice,” he replies. “I may decide not to work with them again.”

It is a hard nut to crack, but the terrorist deserters say the military operatives have learned to work and walk with them.

“They arm us and take us with them. If, for instance, a Commanding Officer is going out for an operation, he’d request a certain amount of “repentants” from the Hajj Camp officials. And the officials would assign like 50 or 100 persons to him, depending on the scale of the operation,” Goni says.

By fighting the same people who recruited him into the monolithic Boko Haram camp as a teen, Goni says, he has freed himself from a lifetime of guilt. During his time with the killers, he recalls asking many of the fighters if they loved what they were doing. Those fighters feel trapped, he says; they’re homesick, but even their families have rejected them. Now that he has freed himself from the shackles of terrorism, he says he begs God for forgiveness. But while he seeks forgiveness for the atrocities he has committed, he would use every knowledge he has about the group to fight them back. That’s his way of seeking redemption.

“They give us food and allowances, and we give them intelligence. We show them the hideouts. Because we know the terrain better than they do. We know their fighting styles,” Goni brags, smiling and looking directly at the reporter. “We know their escape routes. Isn’t this helpful enough? Also, we lead the way. They’d follow behind. We charge in.”

Redemption through revenge

Ali’s life after Boko Haram is even more thrilling: he seeks redemption through revenge. He had fallen for peer pressure to join one of the most brutal terrorist organisations in existence, and his life had since remained terrifying. For years, he was a cog in the Boko Haram machine, serving with vim and vigour. He learned to repair military vehicles in the forest and became renowned as the sect’s mechanic. He would repair heavy military patrol vehicles seized by the insurgents or those stuck in the mud within the forest during ambushes.

Despite his servitude for Boko Haram’s cause, he says, his entire life with the terror group was a lie. He grew to realise that behind the Boko Haram ideology was a hail of deceit and human manipulation. Bamboozled with distorted interpretations of verses from the Quran, Ali recounts how he had joined hundreds of other fighters to trigger plague, tears, and horror in civilian communities in the name of holy war.

“The practice violates the preachings. My biggest reason was that the practice was not what the Prophet truly teaches,” he claims. “The commanders would usually stay behind, leaving a comfortable life, while the foot soldiers are left starving and fighting day and night.”

For Ali, the deal breaker with Boko Haram was during a chaotic raid in the Tungushe town of Borno. He had come under a heavy burst of military gunfire, which tore through his arm, shattering the bone. He had expected that the sect’s medical team would give him some extra care due to his critical condition, but they treated him like disposable property. 

“I was so humiliated by the sect’s medical team, as treatments were handled haphazardly,” he laments. “If it were the commanders, they would treat them swiftly with maximum care. But for fighters, there is usually no medical attention.”

For two straight years, he nursed the pain alone and grew bitter resentment for the sect and its ideologies. He realised he was nothing but a tool for achieving the commanders’ personal hunches and interests. One night, he slipped away, through the scrublands, trudging northward until he found himself around the military garrison in Monguno, where he fell flat on the ground and surrendered.

“After surrendering in Monguno, they took us to Hajj Camp in Maiduguri,” Ali tells HumAngle. “Days later, they brought forward an opportunity where you could help in the fight. You may decide to follow the military during attacks or provide them with intelligence. Whatever you think you can do. So, I said I want to fight. I have a friend who also fights alongside the soldiers. I chose to fight because I have realised that we were deceived by the group.”

Repentance or survival?

Unlike Ali and Goni, repentance has an entirely different meaning for Suleiman: it is an illusion or a political statement made by people in government. Calling him a “repentant Boko Haram” is an insult, he says. To him, that word is a subtle qualifier for a coward. With a cold voice and a sour look, he describes how he worked with ground troops to attack Timbuktu, Sambisa, and other terrorist hideouts.

His case is more of just switching sides than actual repentance. He dreads the term “repentant Boko Haram” and doesn’t hide it. As a terrorist, he lived for violence, pillaging villages and destroying people’s lives and properties. Following the rise of Abu Mushab al-Barnawi, a factional leader of the Boko Haram sect, Suleiman came under his command, joining over 100 fighters under his control. He had fought fiercely against the Nigerian military on many occasions, and he was feared for his precise brutality amid battles.

His cruelty had no bounds, as he had fought against top Nigerian military leaders, as he states, like Captain Bala, Manga, and Abu Ali, leaving scars on the town that are still visible today. He had also raided beyond Nigeria, maiming locals in the Niger Republic, especially in Diffa, Maine-Soroa, and Chabbal.

When factional infighting turned truly brutal, Suleiman chose to be on the safer side. Exhausted by the tireless internal slaughter, he left and surrendered to the military. Now, he does almost the same thing on the other side. The activity is the same, he notes, only the targets are different. 

“I am not comfortable with that name [repentant]. I don’t like it,” Suleiman says. He would frown and then laugh during the interview to convey the complexity of the terror drowning him. “In the forest, I followed someone’s commands. Here too, I am commanded and still branded repentant?”

He wears a worn Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) uniform during the interview with HumAngle, bragging about following soldiers to the battlefield against terrorists in Geidam, Marte, Kala-Bridge and Malam Fatori. Despite his defiance, however, he seems to have taken bullets for the military during counterterrorism raids in northeastern Nigeria. His four fingers are chopped off, and there are scars all over his body. It was during a joint offensive with Chadian forces in northern Monguno. An artillery explosion had torn through the military ranks and killed several soldiers and terrorist deserters fighting by their side. He would follow the forces into the fortified hideouts of Timbuktu and Sambisa, giving on-the-ground intel to navigate the terrain.

“I got this arm scar, and my fingers were chopped off while digging out a planted landmine about five months ago,” he says of another military raid he participated in. “The explosion killed two other ex-combatants and nine soldiers. When the engineer scouted and identified a planted bomb, he refused to dig it out. None of the soldiers did. So they asked me to do it. One of the wires sparked. Then it exploded. It also affected my leg.”

The deradicalisation scheme

The term “repentance”, which Suleiman and several other defectors loathe, is one of the modus operandi of the Operation Safe Corridor, a military-led deradicalisation and reintegration programme across northeastern states. Established in 2016, the programme has witnessed both criticism and appraisal from experts and affected citizens. The quest for transitional justice, following the mass atrocities committed by Boko Haram against the people and the government of Nigeria, pushed authorities to come up with peacebuilding efforts.

The federal government had introduced the judicial approach of mass trials of Boko Haram figures captured on the battlefield, but systemic failures of the legal system derailed the processes. With a conviction rate of less than 10 per cent after conducting mass trials of thousands of fighters between 2017 and 2020, public distrust in the judicial system grew rapidly. These efforts also faced hurdles due to limited resources and circumstantial evidence, as well as a massive backlog of approximately 10,000 suspected fighters awaiting trial. 

Following deficiencies in the judicial and military mechanisms, the government provided non-judicial options, such as the Operation Safe Corridor (OPSC) and, later, the Borno Model, a scheme designed to handle the mass defections of thousands of insurgents.

HumAngle reviewed at least two research studies that confirm our on-the-ground reporting on the deficiencies and the public misgivings against the counterinsurgency initiative. The independent studies, one led by Idayat Hassan, then of the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), and the other by Hassan-Taiwo Adebayo of the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), noted a systemic imbalance that seemed to favour the rehabilitation of perpetrators over the survival and justice of their victims. The disparity in the attention given to terrorist deserters also fueled widespread community resentment and birthed a narrative that terrorists are being pampered at the expense of their targets. The security and transitional justice experts also assert that a flawed public appeal and information management have sparked outrage and a trust deficit on the government’s side.

One concern Taiwo’s research raised is the persistent challenges in providing sufficient economic support to Boko Haram deserters once they leave the camps. Several defectors HumAngle interviewed raised the same concern. Although they vowed to live civilian lives again, they claimed their lives in the forest were more prosperous, and they’re now facing economic hurdles after defecting. The former insurgents, now working as assets to the military, also complained of constant failed promises. When they’re called upon for operations against the terrorists, the military would pledge mouth-watering financial gains only to offer them an amount far less than what they had promised.

“Then they’d say they’ll pay us each ₦1 million or ₦1.5 million for every crucial piece of information and operation. But after a successful mission, they’d go back on their words and pay ₦100,000 or below. Whereas we have families to cater for. Wives, children, and parents,” Suleiman recounts, a claim substantiated by other former combatants we interviewed.

Wayward ways

As many defectors struggle to settle into communities, civilians also struggle to embrace them. The reason is not far-fetched: the villagers have grown resentful of former Boko Haram members who have raided their settlements, stripping them of their homes and stable lives, only to come and live next door. The moment they leave the rehabilitation camps, they escape the military’s watchful eyes. Many times, this escape means defectors choose what they do with their lives, including displaying violent tendencies against civilians. The villagers call them “repentants”, but insist their ways are wayward.

Locals, including displaced people, say so-called repentant terrorists re-terrorise them, making them relive the terror they had inflicted on them. During separate interviews, civilian villagers accused security agents of shielding defectors when they commit offences against the people. They say this has triggered a climate of silence within the Maiduguri metropolis, where everyone is scared of speaking ill of a former Boko Haram fighter, even when they’re guilty of wrongdoing. When HumAngle visited the Bama displacement camp in 2025, for instance, we saw dozens of defectors moving around aimlessly with guns and other weapons. Camp officials claimed the armed defectors were protecting displaced persons, but when we requested to speak with them, they denied us access. Displaced persons also refrained from discussing their situation, fearing persecution.

In Shuwari, a peri-urban area just outside Maiduguri town in Borno, a few locals agreed to talk to HumAngle on the condition that their identities would be concealed. Villagers say these defectors incite violence, rob civilians, and harass women. When they complain or try to fight back, they brag about having ruled the forest for years and having the power to do whatever they want within the civilian communities. Displaced people also live side by side at the Shuwari IDP camp with men they believe are responsible for their displacement. Living with them at the camp comes with fear and mistrust, IDPs say.

When Salihu Garba briefly returned to Bama, following the Borno state resettlement programme, threats from former Boko Haram fighters forced him back to the Shuwari IDP camp, he says. While some defectors seem to be living without fighting their neighbours, others, especially those working as assets for the military, move around brandishing rifles, spurring terror, and instilling fear among locals. Simple communal disputes often degenerate into violence. Salihu tells HumAngle that, two months ago, a quarrel spiralled into stabbing a villager. A former insurgent had stepped on bricks laid by a villager to build part of his compound, and that escalated into an exchange of blows and domestic weapons. Both the civilian and the defector were arrested, but the latter returned the next day to stab the former, who was later rushed to the hospital to fight for his life.

Rural criminality also adds to the tension that comes with forcibly reintegrating terrorists into civilian communities, locals say. One repentant terrorist was recently arrested for theft after breaking into shops and stealing six bags of beans. Before being sent to the police cell and later prison, he threatened the shop owner: “I will return and kill you after serving my term.”

For Isah Kamsulum, another resident of Shuwari, the fear is deeply personal. In 2015, he witnessed a man named Ba’ana slaughter fifteen people in Bama. Years later, Ba’ana resurfaced as a repentant, working with soldiers in the community. Isah’s nephew confronted him, enraged that someone who had killed his sibling now lived comfortably among them. Ba’ana killed the nephew. He was arrested, held briefly, then released. Today, he fights alongside the military in Gamboru. Residents say they were never consulted before repentants were resettled among them. “We just saw them,” he complains. “The government brought them out of the forest and kept us here, too. We are all under their control.”

Ibrahim Adam of the Zajeri community in the state says he had an even more concerning experience. Over a year ago, about ten former insurgents got an apartment for themselves within the community. They were at first unarmed, but some of their friends, who worked as auxiliary fighters with the military and were armed, would frequently come visiting them daily. Their presence, especially in large numbers, unsettled the villagers. The former insurgents started asking young women to marry them. One divorcee selling food by the roadside was told she must marry one of them. Scared to the bone, the woman abandoned her trade and fled the area.

Villagers say they have grown alarmed living with the repentants, with Ibrahim recounting that they have witnessed about 30 of them crammed in an apartment, talking recklessly and loudly about their past and bragging about their atrocities before surrendering to the army. The community demanded their eviction, but the landlord refused because he’s afraid. While older repentants in the community maintain some decorum, the younger ones, accompanied by armed companions, remain a source of fear.

For Goni, Ali, and several terrorist deserters HumAngle interviewed, relapsing into terror is not an option. They also said they’re not among the young repentants instilling fears into the civilian community. They say they’ve chosen the path of peace and would never return to a life of violence.

The first serious legal challenge to the House settlement will come courtesy of a USC freshman linebacker.

Talanoa Ili, a top-100 recruit in the Trojans’ vaunted 2026 class, joins Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer as one of two lead plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit that takes aim at the system implemented since the settlement ushered in a new era of direct payment from universities to athletes. The suit, which was filed Tuesday, accuses the NCAA, the Power Four conferences and the enforcement arm they created — the College Sports Commission — of participating in a “conspiracy” by creating a system of policies that have “direct anti-competitive effects, including the suppression of [name, image and likeness] compensation below competitive levels.”

Those policies, their attorneys argue, violate state laws in California that prohibit restrictions on NIL rights, as well as federal antitrust statutes. They’re seeking monetary damages, as well as an injunction that would upend the enforcement structure created to determine whether individual NIL deals over $2,500 meet criteria, including whether they have “a valid business purpose” or fall within a reasonable range of market value.

The clearinghouse, NIL Go, was created with the hope of eliminating an influx of booster-funded NIL deals that were basically direct payments from donors to the program. But since its inception, the system has been more restrictive and worked less efficiently than some schools and athletes might have hoped. As of last month, according to Yahoo Sports, more than $125 million worth of NIL compensation that had been promised to athletes had been rejected by the clearinghouse or was still under review.

In Ili’s case, the complaint states that he received a “substantial multi-year offer” from USC’s House of Victory collective in 2024 that led him to commit to the Trojans, only to have the offer disappear after approval of the House settlement.

“Absent the NIL Restrictions on Direct Pay NIL Compensation, Ili would have received more for his NIL rights than he now receives,” the complaint states. “The Agreement has thus injured Ili.”

Mirer, meanwhile, claims that he has received no NIL compensation from Stanford’s collective or revenue-sharing money from the university since 2024 as a result of the settlement.

Stanford quarterback Charlie Mirer during a game last season.

(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)

“The [CSC agreement] has suppressed, deterred, and effectively terminated the economic relationships that had produced his prior NIL compensation,” the lawsuit says.

Even the plaintiffs in the House settlement, which created the CSC, are in the process of challenging the current system. On Wednesday, plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Kessler will argue in a hearing that school-affiliated businesses such as multimedia rights holders or corporate sponsors, should not be subject to the CSC’s rigorous criteria for NIL deals. That decision could also open the floodgates, with schools using those entities to circumvent the cap.

Two U.S. senators are hoping to pass legislation they believe would bring more stability to college athletics and thwart legal challenges. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Texas) spoke with presidents and chancellors from the Big Ten Conference on Tuesday about a bipartisan bill, the Protect College Sports Act, which would codify some of the CSC’s policies into federal law.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday turned down an appeal from Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was canceled by the state’s Supreme Court.

The justices made no comment, and the legal outcome came as no surprise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or reverse rulings by state judges interpreting their state’s constitution — unless the decision turned on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

But the Virginia ruling came as a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters had cast ballots and narrowly approved a new election map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.

That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Even worse for Democrats, the court setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case had bolstered Republicans.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled states in the South to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor Black Democrats.

In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw which turned on the definition of an “election.”

To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice — once before a “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to the voters.

Last fall, Democrats proposed to amend the state Constitution to permit a mid-decade redistricting.

However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly flubbed the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.

By then, they said, about 40% of the voters had cast early ballots.

In defense of the Legislature, the state’s attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before election day, which complies with the state Constitution.

But the majority explained “the noun ‘election’ must be distinguished from the noun phrase ‘election day’.”

It reasoned that because early voters had already cast ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.

The dissenters said the election took place on “election day” and the proposal had been adopted prior to that time.

The state’s lawyers adopted that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on election day.
But the Supreme Court turned away the appeal with no comment.

The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.

The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.