The Far Right

In designating Brazil’s two largest criminal organisations, Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho (CV), as “terrorist” groups, the United States has asserted its own definition of Brazil’s security threats, with consequences that reach far beyond law enforcement. The move is being presented by both the US and the Brazilian far right as a “necessary response” to the “growing transnational reach of organised crime”, but, in reality, it says far more about politics than security.

The designation reflects a dangerous convergence between Washington’s longstanding interventionist instincts in Latin America, echoing memories from the US-sponsored dictatorship that lasted from 1964 until 1985, and the interests of Brazil’s far right.

PCC and CV are indeed responsible for violence on a massive scale. They are among the most powerful criminal networks in Latin America and pose a genuine threat to public security in Brazil and beyond. But violence, however extreme, does not in itself make an organisation “terrorist”. Although the term is contested, terrorism is generally understood to involve violence pursued for political or ideological ends.

PCC and CV may corrupt institutions, influence politicians, control territory or confront the state when it serves their interests, but their primary purpose is criminal power and profit, not political transformation. Politics is a means of protecting and expanding their operations, not the reason those organisations exist.

The more broadly governments apply the terrorism label, the more it risks obscuring the nature of the security threat itself, while giving states greater scope to use such designations for political ends. That makes the question of why Washington chose to act now particularly important.

Neither PCC nor CV is a newly discovered threat. The PCC has existed since the early 1990s; the CV is even older, and both organisations and the harm they cause have been known to Brasilia and Washington alike for decades.

So why did the US decide in 2026 that these long-established organised crime networks should now be designated “terrorist” groups?

The answer appears to lie less in any new assessment of the threat than in Brazil’s domestic politics.

The timing of the designation is difficult to separate from the Bolsonaro family’s efforts to enlist Washington in its political fight with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s government. Former President Jair Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year-and-three-month sentence for his role in an attempted coup following his 2022 election defeat, while his sons have increasingly taken that fight to the US.

Flavio Bolsonaro, one of the former president’s sons, has spent months portraying Lula as soft on organised crime and pressing US officials to take a harder line against his government, including by directly pushing the Trump administration to designate PCC and CV as “terrorist” organisations. His brother Eduardo Bolsonaro, who now lives in the US, went further during the proceedings against their father, lobbying for sanctions against Brazilian Supreme Court justices and tariffs on Brazil. On June 16, Brazil’s Supreme Court sentenced Eduardo to four years and two months in prison for coercion over that campaign.

Flavio’s lobbying also has an immediate electoral significance. He has emerged as Lula’s main challenger in October’s election. An August 11 CNT/MDA poll put Lula on 42.4 percent in the first round and Flavio on 28.7 percent.

In that electoral context, the terrorism designation serves an important political function, reinforcing a narrative promoted by the Brazilian far right that Lula is aligned with criminal organisations or unwilling to confront them. The objective is not necessarily to prove such claims, but to create a climate of suspicion that can be weaponised domestically and used to justify greater US involvement in Brazil.

During far-right demonstrations, it is common to see supporters of the Bolsonaro family displaying US flags and openly asking for military and foreign intervention to “save” Brazil from the left. The US flags and calls for intervention are therefore not merely theatrical; they reflect a political movement that increasingly looks to Washington as an ally in its domestic struggle.

The strategy is familiar. Across the world, right-wing movements have increasingly blurred distinctions between crime, migration, political opposition and terrorism. Security rhetoric has become a tool for delegitimising opponents and justifying extraordinary measures.

Mexico offers a notable example. Calls from US politicians to classify Mexican cartels as terrorist organisations have often been accompanied by proposals for unilateral military action inside Mexican territory. And after Nicolas Maduro was kidnapped by US forces from his secure residence in Caracas, any Latin American leader has reason to take Trump’s threats of unilateral action seriously.

The issue, then, is not simply how Washington defines a security threat, but what powers and forms of intervention that definition can be used to justify. That question now extends directly to Brazil. Washington insists that the designation of groups such as the PCC and CV as terrorist organisations merely provides additional legal tools, but those tools carry consequences well beyond criminal prosecution. They give US authorities greater powers to freeze assets, impose sanctions and prosecute individuals accused of supporting these groups.

They also create new compliance obligations for companies operating in Brazil and expose financial networks to increased scrutiny. Banks may have no knowing connection with PCC or CV and still face pressure to show that their systems have not been used, directly or indirectly, to move funds linked to them. Tracing such links through clients, third parties, front companies and complex payment chains can be extraordinarily difficult.

The financial implications also intersect with a separate US dispute over PIX, Brazil’s central bank-run instant payment system, which has become a major alternative to card networks such as Visa and Mastercard. Washington has scrutinised PIX as part of a broader trade dispute, while Flavio Bolsonaro has proposed limiting its future links with non-Western payment systems.

The PCC and CV designation could add another layer of scrutiny if funds linked to either group are found to have moved through PIX.

Brazilian security officials have also warned that the designation could complicate long-established channels of police cooperation with the US. Joint investigations into PCC and CV rely heavily on routine intelligence-sharing and coordination between law enforcement agencies, but treating the groups as “terrorist” organisations could shift some investigations into more restricted intelligence and national-security channels, making that cooperation harder rather than strengthening it.

Beyond these immediate consequences, the designation creates a precedent for deeper US involvement in Brazilian security policy, and the whole of Latin America has seen this movie before.

Throughout the Cold War, Washington routinely justified interventions by framing domestic political conflicts as components of a larger ideological struggle against communism. Governments, social movements and political actors were classified according to their usefulness within broader US strategic objectives.

Today, anticommunism has largely been replaced by counterterrorism as a justification for intervention, even though Trump and the far right have also revived the fear of communism, applying it to almost anything to their left. The vocabulary has changed, but the logic remains strikingly similar.

By defining threats unilaterally and exporting those definitions abroad, Washington creates new avenues for political influence within sovereign countries that have experienced US intervention before.

Brazil has a serious organised crime problem that requires robust law enforcement, international cooperation and institutional reform. But combating criminal organisations effectively requires understanding what they are, not what political actors would like them to be.

PCC and CV are dangerous precisely because they are sophisticated criminal enterprises. Recasting them as “terrorist” organisations may generate political advantages, but it risks obscuring the nature of the threat itself.

Washington is turning a complex domestic security problem into a geopolitical and ideological battleground.

And in Latin America, history suggests that when Washington starts redefining domestic problems through the lens of its own political interests, sovereignty is often the first casualty.

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

Heidi Beirich, an expert on far-right groups, has been charged over the alleged misuse of donor funds to pay informants.

A leading expert on far-right groups in the United States has been charged by the administration of President Donald Trump for her alleged role in the use of donor money to secretly pay confidential informants.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department served an arrest warrant to Heidi Beirich, 59, the former director of intelligence for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights nonprofit based in Montgomery, Alabama.

It also issued a superseding indictment to include Beirich in its ongoing prosecution of the SPLC, which the Trump administration has accused of deceiving donors. An initial indictment was made against the group in April.

Beirich has been charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to submit false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, FBI Director Kash Patel said.

“Heidi Beirich was at the center of our ongoing investigation into SPLC and their previously alleged criminal activity,” Patel wrote on the social media platform X.

“SPLC knowingly misled donors, who believed their money was being used to dismantle violent extremist organizations – when in fact, part of those donations were instead being used to pay senior leadership within those extremist groups.”

But critics have questioned the Trump administration’s motivations for pursuing criminal charges against the SPLC, which has historically worked with the FBI to track alleged far-right hate groups.

The SPLC has been a frequent target of conservative critics who claim the nonprofit is politically biased.

The group’s stated mission is to fight white supremacy and create a multiracial democracy, and it has issued publications critical of conservative groups like Turning Point USA, which it characterised as a “case study of the hard right”.

Beirich’s lawyer, Michael Proctor, said his client is innocent of the charges and described the case as politically motivated. He accused prosecutors of trying to punish his client for her “decades-long record of success dismantling hate groups”.

“A free and fair society does not use the justice system to silence its political opponent,” he said.

The superseding indictment accuses the SPLC and Beirich of directing more than $4m in donations to “individuals associated with various violent extremist groups” between 2007 and 2023.

The practice, according to the Justice Department, amounted to fraud.

Beirich was part of the SPLC’s effort “to open bank accounts in completely fictitious companies’ names and make payments to individuals for reasons that were not accurate”, according to Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The SPLC has acknowledged that it used confidential informants in the past to gather intelligence on hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Party of America, but the group said it no longer does so.

The SPLC has also said that it shared information obtained from informants with local and federal law enforcement.

“Violent extremists have not stopped or intimidated Dr Beirich from her vital work during her time at the SPLC,” Proctor said. “Dr Beirich won’t be silenced or intimidated by the government’s false and politicized allegations now.”

New president, who replaces leftist Gustavo Petro, continues rightward political shift in Latin America.

Right-wing lawyer Abelardo de la Espriella has been sworn in as Colombia‘s president after winning a run-off election on promises to crack down on the armed groups, cut government spending by as much as 40 percent, and revive the South American country’s oil and gas industry.

De la Espriella, 48, took the oath of office on Friday, breaking with tradition by holding the ceremony not in the capital, Bogota, but in Cali, a city in Colombia’s volatile southwest that has long borne the brunt of the government’s conflict with armed groups.

The choice signaled a decisive break from the strategy of negotiated peace with those groups pursued by outgoing leftist leader Gustavo Petro, whom de la Espriella defeated in June’s runoff. De La Espriella has dismissed Petro’s policy as a failure.

“There will be no room for maneuvers that undermine the stability of the nation,” de la Espriella said on Friday, as he pledged to “relentlessly defeat narco-terrorism”.

He added that “the option of dialogue is completely exhausted”.

A political newcomer known to supporters as “El Tigre”, The Tiger, de la Espriella built his fortune and public profile as a lawyer and businessman rather than through elected office, largely self-financing his campaign as an outsider candidate.

His arrival in power marks a sharp ideological reversal for a country that, for the past four years, was led by a former rebel fighter who was frequently critical of the drug and immigration policies of United States President Donald Trump.

De la Espriella has, in contrast, hewed closed to Trump and his militaristic approach to drug crime in Latin America.

Security dominated Friday’s ceremony, which was held at a university auditorium before Congress. Soldiers and armoured vehicles lined roads near the venue, and police manned checkpoints screening vehicles for explosives in the preceding days.

After the ceremony, de la Espriella travelled to a nearby military battalion to address troops directly, framing the visit as both a morale boost for the armed forces and a signal to the country’s armed groups of the approach he plans to take.

Colombia’s southwest remains contested territory for dissident factions of the demobilised FARC rebel movement who rejected the peace deal signed a decade ago. The Clan del Golfo drug cartel, and the National Liberation Army, or ELN guerrilla group are also active in the area.

The new president has also pledged to join the so-called “Shield of the Americas”, a US-backed regional coalition against drug trafficking that grew out of a summit hosted by the Trump administration in March. He has vowed to restored diplomatic relations with Israel and sever ties with Cuba and Nicaragua, branding them “tyrannies”.

Petro had initially refused to accept the election result, alleging that vote tallies had been manipulated. The claim was dismissed by international observers and Colombia’s own electoral authorities. Petro ultimately conceded he would respect the outcome.

Still protests broke out in Cali, Bogota and Barranquilla on inauguration day.

In Cali’s Puerto Resistencia neighbourhood, once the epicentre of mass anti-government demonstrations in 2021, 25-year-old protester Sebastian Ocampo said residents were “defending dignity” against a president he said had not won their support.

De la Espriella’s win extends a run of electoral victories by conservatives across Latin America, with seven elected since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025. That includes Peru’s Keiko Fujimori, Jose Antonio Kast in Chile, and Argentina’s Javier Milei.

Trump personally endorsed de la Espriella’s campaign.

Leaders in attendance at Friday’s event included Spain’s King Felipe VI, acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche, FIFA president Gianni Infantino, and several of Latin America’s other conservative leaders, including Milei and Kast.

Al Jazeera’s Nils Adler @nilsadler1 reports on how far-right ‘Active Clubs’ use fitness and camaraderie to recruit young white men while masking extremist ideology. Experts warn the decentralized groups are preparing members for real-world violence.

Austrian politicians hope the change will prevent neo-Nazis from visiting the building as a place of pilgrimage.

The building in which Adolf Hitler was born near the Austrian border with Germany has been converted into a police station.

The Austrian government opened the new police station in the town of Braunau am Inn on Wednesday in the hope that the change will prevent neo-Nazis from visiting the building as a place of pilgrimage.

The government bought the terraced house in 2017, and the plans to remodel it were announced in 2019. The renovation cost about 20 million euros ($22.8m).

Officers from the district and local police will be based in the building.

In a ceremony to mark the opening, Johannes Waidbacher, mayor of the town, said he hoped the transformation would show that the local community is “confronting its history, that it is assuming responsibility”.

“I believe that the opening of the police station today brings clarity to the discussion, perhaps also a bit of calm for the people of Braunau,” Waidbacher said in a ceremony also attended by Interior Minister Gerhard Karner.

About 100 people watched an orchestra play in the house’s courtyard, including some 30 officers in uniform, though few locals made the trip, the AFP news agency reported.

The head of the Austrian Ministry of the Interior’s ‌history department, Stephan Mlczoch, told reporters on a tour of the building: “The aim was to prevent any association with Adolf Hitler, so as to strip it of that mystique.”

That mystique was encouraged by the Nazis’ cult of personality around Hitler, under whose rule the “Fuehrer birth house” was an art museum.

Hitler was born there on April 20, 1889; his family moved out a few weeks later. Passers-by often stop to take pictures, but their views on Hitler are usually not known. Local officials said there are now only “isolated incidents” involving visitors, fewer than before.

However, critics have said changing the building’s function will not erase its history and association with the Nazi leader.

“The world won’t forget where the worst mass murderer in history was born. Wikipedia won’t change its entries,” said Robert Eiter of the Mauthausen Committee and the Network Against Racism and Right-Wing Extremism. He added that there will be no reduction in the number of neo-Nazis making “the pilgrimage to Braunau”.

When asked about the public response to the project, Mayor Waidbacher told the Reuters news agency, “I think on the whole ⁠the people of Braunau have accepted it and can live with it.”

Meanwhile, some residents are unhappy about the building’s new purpose. “I would have preferred ‌if ‌they had done something else, but it is what it is,” said Irene, 74, adding that she would have wanted the charity to stay there.

Waidbacher was on a commission ⁠that recommended the building be used for either a charitable or official administrative purpose. In the end, having a charity based there would have made it too accessible to the public, he said. Waidbacher had said an argument against the charity was that it would have been too accessible to the public.

There is a rock on the building’s pavement from the Mauthausen concentration camp with the inscription “Never again fascism”. The rock remains in place, and a sign that reads “Police” has recently been added.

Police say a possible political motive is under investigation in the killing of the ex-minister.

Prosecutors in the United Kingdom have charged a 28-year-old man with the murder of Ann Widdecombe, a former government minister and member of the far-right Reform UK party.

Joshua Kerry was charged on Monday and is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on Tuesday, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

Widdecombe, 78, was found dead at her home near Dartmoor National Park in southwest England on July 9, a day after she missed a television interview. Police said she had been deliberately targeted but did not disclose how she died, citing only “serious injuries”.

Kerry, who is from Rotherham in northern England, was arrested on July 11. He was initially held on suspicion of murder until evidence uncovered while he was in custody led to his additional arrest on “terror” charges.

National Counterterrorism Policing head Laurence Taylor said that the exact motive was still being established.

“Given [Widdecombe’s] profile and the targeted nature of the attack, determining the motivation, including any possible political motivation, remains an active avenue of investigation,” Taylor said.

Widdecombe served as a Conservative member of parliament from 1987 until 2010 and was known for her right-wing political stances.

She later joined the Brexit Party, winning a seat in the European Parliament, and moved to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party after the UK left the European Union.

The incident adds to mounting concerns over political violence in the UK. The past decade has seen the murders of two sitting members of parliament. Labour’s Jo Cox, shot and stabbed in 2016 by a far-right nationalist, and Conservative David Amess, stabbed to death in 2021 by a man inspired by ISIL (ISIS).

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio is hosting more than 65 countries for a conference focused on political violence from the far left, a designation that a number of critics say is being used to target legitimate opposition.

The “Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism”, taking place on Thursday, brings together government representatives from around the world to coordinate on what the US Department of State calls a “renewed threat”  that has “remained a blind spot in the international community’s counterterrorism focus”.

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Reuters news agency that “the far-left terrorism designations could be used to target lawful protest activity and political opponents rather than genuine security threats.”

Here’s what’s driving the summit and who’s attending:

What is this summit about?

The Trump administration’s 2026 counterterrorism strategy identifies three primary threats: “Islamist terrorism”, “narco-terrorism”, and “violent left-wing extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascists”.

The strategy states that the third category of left-wing “extremists” has been traditionally ignored, and notes that Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September 2025 was executed “by a radical who espoused extreme transgender ideologies”.

The counterterrorism strategy omits right-wing extremism and white supremacist groups, despite growing instances of violence that some of these outfits have been accused of – including several of those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2020, in an attempt to overturn the US presidential election that Donald Trump lost.

Thomas Renard, director of The Hague-based International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, said the summit reflects a fundamental shift in how the US sees the threat.

“What we are seeing now in the United States is that counterterrorism has been completely politicised, instrumentalised,” he told Al Jazeera. “For instance, the threat from far-right terrorism, which was for decades considered as the primary domestic threat, has now completely disappeared from the US counterterrorism strategy.”

Who has been invited?

Invites went to more than 70 countries as the State Department wrote on social media that countries had shown “overwhelming interest”. It is reported that Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar will be present alongside representatives from multiple countries. The stated aim is to “expand coordination, enhance information sharing, and strengthen international law enforcement mechanisms”.

The summit follows a series of smaller meetings held earlier this year, including one in The Hague with law enforcement officials.

Renard says many European nations are expressing their unease with this ministerial meeting by sending relatively junior ministers.

“They are not particularly convinced that this is a topic that justifies this type of gathering, but at the same time, they don’t want to antagonise the United States either. And therefore, this is the compromise they found,” he said.

In November, 2025, the US designated four European groups as terrorist organisations: The German Antifa Ost, the Italian Informal Anarchist Federation/International Revolutionary Front (FAI/FRI), the Greek Armed Proletarian Justice and the Greek Revolutionary Class Self-Defense.

What is “far-left terrorism”?

The term is usually used by governments to describe movements accused of violence and driven by left-wing ideologies, including Marxism, socialism, or anarchism. Such movements usually describe themselves as anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.

Latin America saw several left-wing armed movements during the Cold War, a number of which carried out sustained campaigns of political violence, such as Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMNL) in El Salvador and the Tupamaros in Uruguay. Throughout the 20th century, Washington repeatedly backed hardline right-wing regimes that opposed left-wing movements across Latin America.

India has been dealing with the Naxalite rebellion, a far-left Maoist movement that started in the 1960s and claims to fight for the rural population. The group is seen as one of India’s most serious internal security threats. At its peak, about the year 2000, thousands of people were killed due to the conflict with the Naxalite rebellion.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Marxist groups like the Red Army Faction in West Germany were behind several assassinations, abductions and bombings that they argued were aimed at weakening the capitalist state.

By contrast, the Antifa movement, which the Trump administration has consistently tried to portray as a major violent threat, is a loose, decentralised collection of socialist-leaning individuals opposed to far-right extremism, white supremacy and authoritarianism. Several individuals described by prosecutors as Antifa members have been indicted on accusations of violence in US courts, especially in states like Texas that are ruled by Trump’s Republican Party, since he returned to power. In June, eight such individuals were sentenced to several years in prison: Benjamin Hanil Song, convicted of the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, was sentenced to 100 years in prison.

Far-right political violence and terrorism in the US

But the same Trump administration has pardoned all those charged with violence during the January 6, 2023 insurrection, including individuals accused of beating police officers.

This week’s summit also specifically focuses on far-left political violence but does not include the threat from far-right ideology and terrorism, similar to the counterterrorism strategy.

This, even though the Oklahoma bombing, which killed 168 people and wounded nearly 700 in the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the US, was carried out by the right-wing hardliner Timothy McVeigh.

The Cato Institute, a US think tank in Washington, DC, stated in February that of politically motivated terrorism on US soil between 1975 and 2025, excluding the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11, “right-wing terrorists account for 45 percent of people murdered, Islamists are responsible for 32 percent, left-wing terrorists are responsible for 16 percent.”

Renard says the summit creates the very problem it claims to solve: “The United States, with this summit and with its strategy, is creating, actually, a blind spot about far-right terrorist threats, as that threat is strongly anchored and rooted in the United States.”

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Appeals court rules the far-right leader ineligible to hold public office for 45 months.

A French appeals court has opened the door for far right leader Marine Le Pen to potentially run in the 2027 presidential election but said she must wear an electronic tag.

A Paris appeals court on Tuesday ruled Le Pen guilty of misusing public funds but reduced the ban on her holding elected office to 45 months, with 30 suspended.

She must now decide whether campaigning in 2027 with a monitoring bracelet as part of her sentence to be served at home is possible.

A lower court last year sentenced Le Pen, 57, to a five-year ban from public office and two years in prison over a fake jobs scam at the European Parliament.

The three-time presidential candidate hopes to run in the race to replace outgoing centrist President Emmanuel Macron in 2027.

Le Pen has said that if the sentence prevented her from campaigning, she would hand the reins over to her 30-year-old lieutenant, Jordan Bardella, leader of their National Rally (RN) party.

More to come…

EXPLAINER

The far-right leader could be prevented from running for president in 2027 if embezzlement charges are upheld.

France’s appeal court is set to deliver a key verdict on whether Marine Le Pen and other members of her National Rally party misused European Parliament funds in the hiring of aides between 2004 and 2016.

If, on Tuesday, the court upholds her 2025 conviction, which saw her barred from office for five years and sentenced to house arrest, Le Pen – one of the most prominent figures of the European far right and a frontrunner in polls for France’s 2027 contest – is likely to be unable to stand in presidential elections next year.

On Wednesday last week, Le Pen said that even if the court only upholds the order for her to wear an electronic bracelet, she will not stand. “If I can be a candidate, I will be a candidate, provided that I am able to campaign,” the 57-year-old political firebrand told LCI channel.

“Because if I’m allowed to be a candidate but am effectively prevented from campaigning freely, then you understand that wouldn’t be possible.”

What was Le Pen convicted of?

In March 2025, a Paris criminal court ruled that Le Pen was at the heart of “a fraudulent system” that her party used to siphon off EU Parliament funds worth 2.9 million euros ($3.32m).

The court also fined the National Rally party 2 million euros ($2.29m), half of which was suspended.

She had been accused of using money intended to finance the costs of parliamentary ⁠assistants to pay employees working for her political party. EU politicians ⁠are allocated funds to cover expenses, including salaries for parliamentary assistants, but are not allowed to use them for party activities.

Le Pen was ordered to stand trial in 2023, after a seven-year investigation, alongside more than two dozen other defendants. She and her party have denied the accusations, arguing the ⁠money had been used legitimately and that prosecutors had applied an overly narrow definition of what a parliamentary assistant does.

What were the political implications of the verdict?

As part of the initial verdict last year, Le Pen was given a five-year ban from holding elected office and sentenced to two years’ house arrest with an electronic bracelet. Since France will hold the first round of its next presidential election on April 18, 2027, with a run-off set for May 2, Le Pen will not be able to run if she loses the appeal.

The far-right leader has pledged to put up a fight if she’s barred from running. “If I cannot be a candidate, I will make use of every available avenue of appeal,” Le Pen said.

She could go, therefore, to France’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, which does not judge the facts but checks whether the courts and court of appeal have applied the law correctly. The court could take about six months to hear the case and issue a verdict.

If allowed to run, Le Pen is widely seen as a top contender to succeed centrist President Emmanuel Macron in the 2027 election. If not, her 30-year-old protege Jordan Bardella would likely run instead.

What could the Court of Appeal decide?

The appeal court could overturn Le Pen’s conviction in its ruling on July 7, leaving her free to run for president next year. Legal experts say that outcome appears unlikely, however, given the court’s findings at first instance.

The court can instead uphold Le Pen’s conviction. If it confirms the five-year ban requested by prosecutors, it will rule her out of the presidential race, paving the ‌way for Bardella to take her place. Le Pen can then appeal to the Court of Cassation.

A third possibility is that the court upholds the conviction but softens the sentence. If the ban from public office were lifted or shortened to two years or less, the door to a presidential bid would be open.

Hundreds of masked white nationalists marched on Washington DC waving Confederate flags and chanting anti-immigrant slogans on the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States.

Protesters from unions, civil society and left-wing parties aim to disrupt AfD annual conference in Erfurt.

Thousands of opponents of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party have blocked roads leading to the party’s annual conference ahead of regional elections.

An estimated 20,000 people flocked to Erfurt, in Thuringia state, on Saturday, according to German police.

Protesters from unions, civil society groups and left-wing parties gathered in the centre of the city, some 250km (155 miles) southwest of the capital, Berlin. The police also reported several street blockades.

“We want to make it clear that we simply won’t tolerate this, that fascism is on the rise here in Germany,” Georg Becker, a spokesperson for Widersetzen (“Resist”), an anti-AfD umbrella group, told the Reuters news agency.

Large numbers of police, including reinforcements from across Germany, were deployed ahead of the AfD’s two-day conference. Police told the dpa news agency they counted more than 200 buses of protesters arriving in Erfurt.

Protesters blocked routes into the city, with some abseiling from a motorway bridge. Several groups staged sit-in blockades around the city centre, the AFP news agency said. The Associated Press reported that some protesters clashed with police in riot gear.

Still, most AfD delegates managed to reach the conference centre where party representatives said the congress began on time despite the protests.

‘Anti-democratic’ and ‘extremist’ views

AfD became the second largest party in elections last year, scoring the best result for a far-right party since World War II.

Opinion polls suggest that the party has opened a clear lead over German Chancellor Friedrich ‌Merz’s ⁠conservatives, partially driven by years of economic stagnation. AfD seems likely to take power at a state level for the first time in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt, paving the way for more success at a national level.

Although AfD has grown in popularity, it remains controversial. All mainstream parties have ruled out cooperating with AfD over “anti-democratic” and “extremist” views.

AfD has also been monitored by the domestic intelligence agency for several years on suspicion of anti-constitutional activities.

Protesters in Erfurt want the party banned.

Noa Sander, another spokesperson for the Resist protest alliance told AFP, “The AfD wants mass deportations and ethnic cleansing,” in reference to the party’s “remigration” demands.

“It should be banned. We intend to do this by blockading their party conference and standing in the way of the AfD, its policies and members wherever they appear, making sure they have no place in society.” Sander said.

The small constituency of Makerfield in northwest England has found itself in the eye of the storm of British politics with a by-election on Thursday that will not only produce a new member of parliament but could also pave the way for a new prime minister.

The by-election was triggered last month when the previous MP, Josh Simons, stood down to allow Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to contest the seat. If Burnham wins, he intends to challenge UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the leadership of the ruling Labour Party.

Starmer is facing mounting pressure to step aside following dismal council election results last month and this week’s resignation of Secretary of State for Defence John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns over the United Kingdom’s defence budget.

Seeking to derail Burham’s hopes for the Labour leadership, however, is far-right Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon, whose campaign has been dogged by controversy over alleged sexist and misogynistic social media posts but who remains within striking distance in the polls. Reform came second at the last election in Makerfield, however, and are seen as presenting a real challenge to Labour, which has held the seat since its creation in 1983.

Here’s a closer look at the race, why it matters and how its consequences could extend far beyond Makerfield.

Why is a by-election happening in Makerfield?

Despite winning the 2024 general election in a landslide, Labour’s popularity has tanked over the past two years as support for the far-right, anti-immigration Reform UK has soared. In council elections last month, Reform swept up hundreds of council seats at Labour’s expense. Overall, Labour lost nearly 1,500 local council seats while Reform surged from 100 to about 1,450 seats.

On the right, Labour’s rhetoric on immigration has failed to stem support for Reform UK, which continues to attract both former Conservative voters and sections of Labour’s traditional working-class base – particularly in the north of England. On the left of the party, many voters who feel aggrieved by Starmer’s stance on Israel and cuts to welfare have shifted towards the Green Party.

Now, according to polling group Ipsos, Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister since it began voter surveys in the late 1970s.

As Labour’s internal tensions have grown as a result, Burnham has consistently emerged as one of the party membership’s preferred alternatives to Starmer. Recent polling suggests Starmer would defeat most potential challengers in a leadership contest, with one notable exception: Burnham.

As Mayor of Manchester, Burnham is not an MP and cannot currently stand for leadership of the Labour Party. Earlier this year, he was blocked from standing for Parliament via another by-election in Gorton and Denton, a seat Labour ultimately lost to the Green Party.

As pressure on the prime minister has mounted, however, Labour’s National Executive Committee has been increasingly unwilling to block Burnham from standing as an MP again.

Announcing his resignation as Makerfield MP following the council elections, Simons said Labour was heading towards a divisive leadership contest with “no hope, no energy that anything would change”. He described Makerfield as “where Andy Burnham has lived for 25 years” and said the mayor was “coming home”.

“Labour needs to change and the whole government needs to change,” Simons added.

Who is standing and what are they campaigning on?

Labour: Andy Burnham

Burnham currently serves as the highly popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, having left Westminster after previously serving in several cabinet positions under former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

As mayor, Burnham has built a reputation as one of Labour’s most recognisable politicians, benefitting from his distance from Westminster while arguing that it could learn from what he calls “Manchesterism” – a blend of pro-business policies designed to attract investment while bringing essential services back under public control.

Known by some supporters as the “King of the North”, Burnham gained national prominence for challenging the Conservative government during the COVID-19 pandemic and for his long-running campaign for justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

His appeal to Labour’s working-class base in the north of England has led some party members to view him as Labour’s strongest candidate for winning back the so-called “Red Wall” – former industrial constituencies that have increasingly shifted towards Reform UK in the north of England.

Political commentator and journalist Aaron Bastani told Al Jazeera that Burnham’s personal reputation “makes a difference” and that he represents Labour’s best chance against Reform UK.

“A lot of Reform voters actually like him. Many people have a good word to say about him, and he’s been a politician in the area for 25 years.”

But he added that, among some voters, he is still tarred by his “association with Labour as the party of government”.

“Many Reform voters see Labour as the party that backed the Iraq war, and there’s a deep sense of disillusionment with the political establishment … What’s interesting is that some Reform voters were making left-wing criticisms of Burnham, such as the cuts to winter fuel payments and broader dissatisfaction with the government’s direction.”

Reform UK: Robert Kenyon

Hoping to spoil Burnham’s chances is Reform’s Kenyon, affectionately referred to by some members of the UK media as “the plucky plumber” in reference to his profession. He represents a party whose rapid rise and anti-immigrant message has transformed Britain’s political landscape.

Reform UK’s rise has largely been driven by Nigel Farage, the architect of Brexit, whose party has capitalised on the collapse of support for the former ruling Conservative Party. Many big names from the Conservatives have defected to Reform in recent months. That has enabled Reform to attract both traditional right-wing voters and some former Labour supporters, largely on a platform that directs local grievances towards migration.

“For many voters, the proliferation of vape shops and takeaways on high streets has become a shorthand for a sense of decline,” Bastani told Al Jazeera.

“It’s often one of the first things people talk about when discussing immigration and changes to their local area. The concern isn’t really about vape shops themselves – they’re seen as visible symbols of a declining economic model, the loss of local identity and a feeling that places are deteriorating.”

Bastani, however, described Kenyon as “unimpressive”. His campaign has been overshadowed by allegations relating to historic social media activity.

Anti-extremism group HOPE not hate published posts attributed to Kenyon that included COVID-19 conspiracy theories, endorsements of sexualised comments about television presenter Carol Vorderman and remarks about female rugby players.

The group also highlighted comments on an online forum in which Kenyon allegedly described himself as sexist and suggested women make false rape allegations to obtain abortions.

Restore Britain: Rebecca Shepherd

Another factor is Restore Britain, a breakaway far-right party founded by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, who argues that Reform UK has become too mainstream and is no longer hard enough on combating undocumented immigration.

Lowe, a former Reform member, was suspended by Reform UK in March 2025 after publicly criticising party leader Nigel Farage and was later expelled following a series of workplace bullying allegations and complaints from female staff members, which he denies.

Since launching the new party less than four months ago, Restore Britain claims to have attracted more than 96,000 members and 13 councillors, many of them former Reform figures. Should a significant share of those voters ultimately switch from Reform UK, it could dent Reform’s share of the vote just enough to benefit Labour.

Conservative: Michael Winstanley

Winstanley is the former mayor of Wigan, standing as candidate for the former ruling Conservative Party. He was elected as a councillor for the local ward of Orrell and 2000, and served for 16 years.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called Winstanley “an excellent champion of the area having lived in, worked in and represented the local community for years”.

Observers do not expect any great show of Conservative voters at this election, however. In May’s local elections in Wigan, Labour won 42 seats, Reform 25, and the Conservatives got none. And, in the last general election in Makerfield, the Tories came in third – behind Labour and Reform – with just over 10 percent of the vote.

What do the polls say about the candidates?

Polling suggests the contest is effectively a two-horse race between Labour and Reform UK. The largest survey of the campaign, conducted by Opinium for Forward Democracy, indicates Burnham holds a narrow lead.

Based on a mixed-method survey of 543 local residents, Burnham leads Kenyon by five percentage points among voters most likely to cast a ballot. Among those rating themselves at least seven out of 10 likely to vote, Burnham stands on 46 percent compared with Kenyon’s 41 percent.

However, Kenyon’s share may have been damaged by the 7 percent that Shepherd is expected to win in Restore Britain’s first parliamentary outing. The Conservatives are polling at just 2 percent.

Furthermore, while Labour currently leads in the by-election campaign, the constituency’s longer-term political trajectory may ultimately favour Reform UK. When respondents were asked how they would vote in a future general election, Reform UK led with 42 percent compared with Labour’s 34 percent, suggesting that Burnham’s personal appeal may be helping Labour outperform its own national reputation.

In May, Labour lost all eight of its local council seats in Makerfield to Reform.

Tom de Grunwald, founder of Forward Democracy and StopReformUK.Vote, said tactical voting could prove decisive. “If you live in Makerfield and you would normally vote Green, Liberal Democrat, or anyone else, and you don’t want Reform UK to win this seat, the maths is clear: Andy Burnham is the only candidate who can stop them,” he said.

However, Bastani said he is sceptical that many Restore Britain supporters will ultimately return to Reform UK. “A lot of those voters now see Farage as part of the establishment,” he said, adding that Restore Britain could outperform expectations on polling day – which could split the far-right vote and benefit Burnham. While he expects Burnham to win, Bastani said the result should not obscure the rise of Reform.

“I’d be surprised if Burnham didn’t win. But if Reform were running a stronger candidate, this could look very different. If Farage somehow managed to win a seat like this against someone with Burnham’s profile, it would rank among the most significant political achievements of his career.”

Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic reports from Belfast, where protests over a recent stabbing have escalated into violent riots. Tensions flared after a Sudanese asylum seeker was charged with attempted murder. Riot police have deployed to the scene as buses and vehicles are set alight.

Irish Taoiseach Martin says the far-right ministers have shown ‘a desire to see the elimination of Palestinians from Palestine’.

Ireland has barred Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, from visiting the country, citing their conduct towards pro-Palestinian activists and support for policies that would displace Palestinians from their homeland.

Ireland’s Prime Minister Micheal Martin – known as the Taoiseach – confirmed the move on Friday, saying the two far-right ministers had advocated positions that amounted to “a desire to see the elimination of Palestinians from Palestine”.

Both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have repeatedly called for Israel to annex Palestinian territories and push Palestinians out of Gaza, provoking condemnation from rights groups and several foreign governments.

Martin also referenced the treatment of pro-Palestinian activists who were part of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last month.

Ben-Gvir provoked widespread condemnation when he shared video of himself mocking the detained activists as they knelt on the floor, blindfolded, with their hands bound.

In a statement, Ireland’s justice ministry said Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan had instructed immigration officers to refuse entry to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich should they seek to enter the state.

Ben-Gvir became a minister in 2022, after an alliance with Smotrich’s far-right Religious Zionist party came third in legislative elections.

Smotrich, who himself lives on an illegal Israeli settlement, has been a vocal advocate of Israel annexing the occupied West Bank, saying he hopes to “kill the idea” of a Palestinian state.

Together, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich form a cornerstone of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition.

‘Justifies EU sanctions’

Addressing Ireland’s travel ban at a summit in Montenegro, Martin said the two Israeli ministers should also be subject to EU sanctions.

“In my view, their behaviour justifies sanctions at EU level as well, and that’s something that we will raise, whether we can get sufficient support across the European Union is a different matter,” Martin was quoted by Irish broadcaster RTE.

Since Israel’s genocidal attacks on Gaza, Ireland has been among the most outspoken critics of Israel.

In 2024, Ireland officially recognised the Palestinian state, after which Israel ordered the closure of its embassy in Dublin.

Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have faced bans from other European countries over their conduct, including Britain, Spain and Slovenia. Last month, France banned Ben-Gvir from entry.

Less than two hours after polling stations closed on Sunday, it was clear that Colombia’s presidential race would be settled in a run-off between two finalists: hard-right political outsider Abelardo de la Espriella and leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda.

Though the overall result surprised few, de la Espriella’s strong showing upended pollsters’ predictions.

Cepeda, President Gustavo Petro’s chosen successor, had been expected to win the most votes, based on public opinion surveys.

But instead, de la Espriella came in first place, winning 43.74 percent of the vote. Cepeda trailed with 40.90 percent.

Supporters of de la Espriella, a criminal defence lawyer, held rapturous celebrations in the coastal city of Barranquilla, where the candidate has an office.

“Colombia won, and with more than 10 million votes, democracy won,” said Elsa Suarez, a de la Espriella voter living in Bogota.

The far-right candidate has modelled himself after politicians like Donald Trump in the United States and Javier Milei in Argentina, flamboyant media personalities who won the presidency despite having little to no political experience.

Like them, de la Espriella has pledged a return to “law and order”, as well as a pared-back national government and policies to support traditional family values.

Notably, he promises to use an “iron fist” to stamp out crime and build megaprisons to jail criminals, mimicking the policies of Salvadoran strongman Nayib Bukele.

Analysts say de la Espriella’s populist messaging resonated with voters in Colombia’s interior, where urban crime is a growing concern.

Electoral maps show de la Espriella besting Cepeda in 16 of the country’s 32 departments, primarily in the heart of Colombia and along the border with Venezuela.

“In more central areas and closer to the capitals, people prioritise security,” explained Laura Bonilla, the deputy director at the Peace and Reconciliation Foundation (PARES), a Bogota-based research nonprofit.

By contrast, de la Espriella’s security messaging failed to sway voters along the coast and in border areas afflicted by rebel violence.

Bonilla argues that people in these regions instead place greater value on the socioeconomic issues that Cepeda represents, as the continuity candidate for Petro’s Historic Pact party.

“Over the past four years, they have received constant attention from the government,” said Bonilla, citing state development projects under the Petro administration.

A blow to the conservative establishment

De la Espriella’s success also highlights growing anti-establishment sentiment in Colombia, according to experts.

The lawyer, who has never run for public office before, comfortably beat his main rival on the right, Senator Paloma Valencia, who was backed by former President Alvaro Uribe, the figurehead of Colombian conservatism.

Initially, Sunday’s election was predicted to be a close race between Valencia and de la Espriella, both of whom lagged behind Cepeda in the polls.

But as Sunday’s ballots were tallied, Valencia flopped with less than 7 percent of the vote.

Miguel Silva, a Colombian political consultant, credited some of de la Espriella’s success to his campaign messaging.

De la Espriella, he explained, used his campaign to draw a distinction between the haves and the have-nots, those who have benefitted from the government and those who feel ignored.

“He [succeeded] by portraying himself and the people he represents as ‘Los Nunca’ and by portraying Paloma and her followers as ‘Los Siempre’,” Silva said, using the Spanish words for “The Nevers” and “The Always”.

Pollsters predicted the right would be divided in the first round, paving the way for Cepeda to win the most votes, but de la Espriella captured millions of votes from traditional conservatives, marking a shift in Colombia’s political landscape.

In Bogota, the only province in the country’s interior to vote for Cepeda, the left-wing candidate’s supporters were shocked by Sunday’s results.

“Everyone is a little surprised,” said Juan Camilo Rodriguez, who voted for Cepeda. “These results don’t match the polls.”

Petro himself had hammered his base to flood the polls, warning that the left’s chances of success could be hampered by electoral fraud.

The outgoing president rejected last night’s results, which were based on the “pre-conteo”, or preliminary count, a non-legally binding process.

Instead, Petro called on the public to wait for the official, scrutinised count, which will be released in the coming days.

Cepeda echoed the president’s scepticism in a speech on Sunday night. “Only once the vote-counting committees have fully, clearly, and thoroughly clarified this matter, will we comment on tonight’s results,” he told supporters.

But the candidate appeared to mellow his stance this morning, acknowledging that there was no evidence of irregularities in the vote. He trailed de la Espriella by more than 670,000 votes.

Experts warn that Cepeda is losing precious time by focusing on fraud allegations and should instead concentrate on swaying moderate voters.

“By crying fraud so early, it’s hard to bring more voters to the table,” said Silva.

A second round of voting, between Cepeda and de la Espriella, is scheduled for June 21.

Up for grabs are more than a million votes for centrist candidate Sergio Fajardo and 1.6 million for Paloma Valencia. While Valencia endorsed de la Espriella, her running mate, moderate politician Juan Daniel Oviedo, did not.

Miguel Jaramillo Lujan, a Colombian political strategist, said the final two candidates must tread carefully in the next three weeks to prevail.

“As the saying goes, whoever makes fewer mistakes will be the winner.”