top news

On Tuesday, voters in Pennsylvania’s third congressional district — which encompasses much of Philadelphia’s urban core — will decide what kind of progressive champion they want representing them in the United States House of Representatives.

Four candidates are vying for the Democratic nomination in Tuesday’s primary. They include state Representative Chris Rabb, state Senator Sharif Street, pediatric surgeon Ala Stanford and lawyer Shaun Griffith.

On the whole, all four campaigns are markedly progressive, focusing on issues such as expanding healthcare, affordability and housing.

But supporters say the race exposes the fault lines within the Democratic Party as it seeks to rally opposition to Republican President Donald Trump in the 2026 midterm cycle.

Marc Stier, who served as the director of the Pennsylvania Policy Center, a progressive think tank, until earlier this year, noted that there are few differences in the candidates’ platforms.

“They’re all opposed to Donald Trump. They’re all talking about civil rights, healthcare and voting rights,” said Stier, who backs Rabb. “So the differences aren’t that great.”

But the race has drawn nationwide attention, including endorsements from top Democrats.

For Stier and other local experts and leaders, the divisions come down to a duel between ideals and pragmatism — and how the candidates wish to be perceived along that spectrum.

A Democratic stronghold

The primary is highly symbolic for the Democratic Party. Pennsylvania’s third congressional district is considered one of the most left-leaning areas in the US.

According to The Cook Political Report, the district was 40 percentage points more Democratic than the national average in the most recent presidential election.

That makes it a key party stronghold in a pivotal swing state: Pennsylvania has alternated between voting Democratic and Republican in the last four presidential races, most recently siding with Trump.

Since 2016, Democrat Dwight Evans has represented the area. But in June, he announced he would not seek reelection after holding congressional office for a decade.

That opened a gateway to a heated primary, with no incumbent to lead the pack.

Street, Rabb and Stanford are considered the frontrunners. No independent polling has been conducted in the race, but surveys gathered by the candidates or their supporters show a volatile three-way contest.

An April poll sponsored by 314 Action, a group supporting Stanford, found the surgeon leading with 28 percent of voter support, followed by Rabb at 23 percent and Street at 16 percent.

Meanwhile, a November survey sponsored by Street found the state senator ahead with 22 percent support, ahead of Rabb at 17 percent and Stanford at 11.

A three-way race

Each of the three candidates has positioned themselves as the Democrat who will shake up the status quo and deliver results.

“The same old politics and the same old politicians are not going to cut it,” Stanford declared at a forum hosted by WHYY public radio in February.

“We need people who step up in a storm, who lead when others wilt away, and that’s what I’ve done and will do for this city.”

There are differences, however, in how the candidates are presenting themselves.

Stanford is campaigning as the political outsider whose public health advocacy offered critical leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is her first political run.

Street, on the other hand, is seen as the political veteran backed by party leadership. He first entered the state Senate in 2017, becoming the first Muslim elected to the chamber, and his father was a former Philadelphia mayor.

Then there’s Rabb, a democratic socialist who has positioned himself as the firebrand progressive in the mould of New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He, too, has served in government since 2017, representing northwest Philadelphia in the state House of Representatives.

All three have embraced progressive rallying cries, such as increasing affordable housing, widening access to healthcare, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency accused of racial profiling and violent tactics.

But Street has set himself apart by wedding his reputation to the Democratic establishment. From 2022 to 2025, he served as chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

“Street has very strong relationships with the political machine here: the party establishment, the ward leaders and committee people, and other legislators,” Stier said.

Supporters weigh in

But amid the frustration with the Democratic Party, particularly after its defeat in the 2024 presidential race, Street’s opponents have sought to distance themselves from the left-wing establishment.

“Rabb clearly says his goal is to push the envelope on issues and build public support for bolder ideas than Street is likely to push forward,” said Stier.

But Stier acknowledges that some voters see progressives like Rabb as all talk and no action.

“As my ward leader says, Rabb is one of those people that makes a lot of speeches but doesn’t get much done,” Stier said.

He dismisses such remarks as hackneyed. “It’s the kind of standard attack that is made by the establishment against people who are very outspoken and don’t always get along with the party establishment in Harrisburg.”

But it is the kind of argument Lou Agre, a ward leader and retired lawyer, sympathises with.

Formerly the president of the Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, Agre is backing Street in the upcoming election. He is not convinced that Rabb’s progressive positions can lead to tangible results.

“Street has always stood behind organised labour,” Agre said.

To Agre, Street represents experience, while Rabb is heavy on rhetoric. “This is a race between a guy with a record and another guy who has a platform that he’s using to get a point across,” he explained.

Duelling endorsements

In many ways, local leaders say that the difference between Tuesday’s primary candidates comes back to familiar arguments that often divide centrist and progressive Democrats.

Those labels have, in part, translated into endorsements — and behind-the-scenes party battles.

The news outlet Axios reported this month that Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro privately warned local building trade unions that attacking Stanford could inadvertently help Rabb, who has been critical of the governor.

Rabb, meanwhile, has earned the endorsements of some of the country’s most prominent progressives, including Ocasio-Cortez, Representative Ilhan Omar and Senator Chris Van Hollen.

Street, by contrast, has become the candidate of choice for some of Philadelphia’s biggest power brokers, including local labour unions, city council members and Mayor Cherelle Parker.

For her part, Stanford has scored the endorsement of the outgoing congressman, Evans, whom all three hope to succeed.

Tuesday’s primary will be key. The winner will almost certainly prevail in the general election in November. No Republicans have come forward with a bid.

But with the race split narrowly between the three candidates, the outcome may ultimately boil down to turnout, and which candidate can rally the most supporters.

“If people come out to vote, if turnout is high in North and West Philadelphia, parts of the southwest and those neighbourhoods, then Sharif will win,” Agre said of his preferred candidate. “If not, who knows what will happen?”

He described Stanford, whom some have depicted as a middle ground between Street and Rabb, as a complicating factor in the race.

“Ala Stanford’s the wild card. Is she fading, or does she still have her slice of the electorate? I don’t know,” Agre said.

Stier, meanwhile, acknowledged that each of the three candidates has a path to victory.

“There are pockets of support for all these candidates,” Stier noted. But he thinks the more moderate approach of Street and Stanford may open a path for victory for Rabb.

“The winner of this race is not going to have a majority. Someone’s going to win this race with 35 to 40 percent of the vote,” he explained.

“And I think Rabb’s campaign is expecting that Stanford and Street will split the more centrist vote, and he will get all the progressive votes, and he’ll run to victory that way.”

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi arrived Tuesday at an airport in the South Korean city of Daegu for a two-day trip that will include a summit with President Lee Jae Myung in his hometown of Andong.

Lee and Takaichi are scheduled to hold talks in Andong, about 190 kilometers southeast of Seoul, later in the day, which are expected to cover a wide range of bilateral and regional issues, including North Korea and the prolonged U.S.-Iran war in the Middle East.

Takaichi’s trip reciprocates Lee’s visit to her hometown of Nara Prefecture in January when the two last met in person as part of the neighboring countries’ ongoing “shuttle diplomacy.”

As military guards of honor welcomed her, Second Vice Foreign Minister Kim Jina received her before an escorted vehicle took her toward a hotel in Andong, where she is scheduled hold talks with Lee.

Around 170 police officers and 40 patrol cars and motorcycles were deployed at and around the airport to ensure safety during Takaichi’s arrival.

Shortly after her arrival in Andong, Lee welcomed Takaichi with a hug at the entrance of a hotel, wearing a light sky-blue tie matching the color of the Japanese leader’s suit.

“You have gone to great trouble to come all the way to this small city,” Lee told Takaichi before ushering her into the hotel, according to a pool report.

Following her summit with Lee later in the day, the two leaders will make a joint press announcement on the results of their meeting, followed by a banquet dinner and a performance.

The Japanese prime minister is scheduled to return home Wednesday morning via the Daegu airport.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Video shows helicopters dumping water on a fast-moving wildfire in southern California’s Simi Valley. The Sandy Fire has scorched more than 526 hectares (1,300 acres) and damaged at least one home. Thousands are under evacuation orders and warnings.

The World Health Organization is getting health experts and supplies to DR Congo to battle the Ebola outbreak. WHO representative Anne Ancia says the situation in Bunia, the epicentre of the outbreak, is complex and difficult.

May 18 (UPI) — Alex Saab, a billionaire Colombian businessman and longtime ally of ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, appeared in a Miami federal courtroom on Monday, days after he was extradited to the United States.

Saab, 54, made his initial court appearance in the Southern District of Florida, where a federal indictment was unsealed, charging him with conspiracy to launder money through U.S. banks.

U.S. authorities have long accused Saab of corruption, specifically of using his connections to the Maduro regime to skim money from government programs intended to benefit Venezuela’s poor and of helping Maduro evade sanctions.

The case is centered on the Venezuelan government program Local Committees for Supply and Production, known as CLAP, an acronym of its Spanish name. Created in 2016 in response to the collapse of Venezuela’s economy, CLAP was intended to provide subsidized food to the country’s poor.

Federal prosecutors allege that Saab and his unnamed co-conspirators paid bribes to Venezuelan government officials to be awarded the CLAP contracts to import food, but instead enriched themselves by siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from the program.

The charging document further accuses Saab and others of expanding the scheme to include the illegal sale of Venezuelan oil, starting in at least 2019 and continuing until the return of the indictment, which is dated Jan. 14.

The U.S. charges stem from the accusation that at least some of the allegedly ill-gotten money was transferred through U.S.-based bank accounts. If convicted, Saab faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

“When illicit proceeds are moved through the United States financial system, our courts have jurisdiction and our prosecutors will act,” U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quinones of the Southern District of Florida said in a statement.

The indictment announced Monday is the second a Trump administration has brought against Saab, and his extradition on Saturday is the second time he has been sent to the United States to face criminal charges.

Maduro’s government has been a target of President Donald Trump since his first administration, which sought to oust the authoritarian leader through a so-called maximum pressure campaign of sanctions, including designating Saab in 2019 over the alleged CLAP scheme.

Saab was then arrested in June 2020 in Cape Verde at the request of the United States and was extradited.

But he was returned to Venezuela by the Biden administration in 2023 in exchange for 10 detained Americans. As part of the prisoner exchange, Saab was issued a full pardon for charges included in the first indictment.

After his re-election in 2025, Trump ousted Maduro and brought him to the United States to face narco-terrorism charges in a clandestine early January military operation.

Then in February, under the government of Maduro’s former vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, who was elevated to president following her predecessor’s U.S. arrest, Venezuelan authorities detained Saab at the request of the United States.

Saab’s return to U.S. custody now raises speculation that he could be used in the federal prosecution’s case against Maduro, given his former proximity to Maduro and members of Maduro’s family.

“Saab would be a powerful witness in the prosecution of Maduro — and could offer insights into Delcy’s role in building South America’s prototypical kleptocracy,” Benjamin Gedan, a foreign policy scholar and director of the Stimson Center’s Latin America Program, said in a social media statement.

Two gunmen have killed three people at the Islamic Center of San Diego in what police are treating as a hate crime. Police say the attackers, aged 17 and 19, died from self-inflicted gunshots. A security guard was among those killed.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran says Iranian leaders are ‘projecting defiance’ and rejecting ‘public pressure’ from the US.

The Trump administration has frequently accused US allies of failing to live up to mutual defence obligations.

The United States has said it will not take part in a joint board for continental defence with Canada, depicting the country as failing to live up to its defence obligations.

On Monday, US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby wrote on social media that his department would halt its involvement in the Permanent Joint Board on Defense to “reassess” the forum’s benefits.

The board dates back to World War II and has served as a forum for regional security. But relations with Canada have grown strained since US President Donald Trump returned to office for a second term in 2025.

“A strong Canada that prioritizes hard power over rhetoric benefits us all. Unfortunately, Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments,” Colby wrote on X.

“We can no longer avoid the gaps between rhetoric and reality. Real powers must sustain our rhetoric with shared defense and security responsibilities.”

The announcement is the latest instance of the Trump administration chiding Western allies for what the president believes is an overreliance on US military power.

Allied countries have largely refuted his claims, arguing that they are ramping up military spending and taking steps to take greater control over regional security.

Just last year, at a NATO summit in The Hague, nearly every member state agreed to increase defence spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP). Spain petitioned to be excluded from the agreement, though.

Canada, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, was among the countries committing to the increased spending.

Of the 5 percent earmarked for defence, 3.5 percent would go to bolstering Canada’s “core military capabilities”, Carney’s government said. The rest would go to security-related expenses, including port improvements, emergency preparedness and other resources.

Since taking office as prime minister in March 2025, Carney has been an outspoken supporter of lessening Canada’s dependence on the US’s military and economy.

In a speech this year, he outlined a vision in which “middle powers” like Canada banded together to sidestep the current “era of great power rivalry”, a veiled reference to countries like the US, Russia and China.

While the US and Canada are neighbours, Trump’s second presidency has resulted in fraying bonds between the two countries, even beyond matters of security.

Trump has accused Canada of pursuing unfair trade policies and failing to crack down on the illicit traffic of people and drugs across the border, though critics have questioned the legitimacy of these claims.

To force Canada to comply with his policies, the US president has pursued an aggressive tariff regimen to tax cross-border imports.

Trump has suggested in the past that Canada could avoid such penalties by ceding its sovereignty and becoming the US’s 51st state.

“Cooler and wiser brains are needed to preserve a close alliance w/ our neighbor,” US Republican Representative Don Bacon said in a social media post on Monday, criticising the decision to pull out of the defence forum with Canada.

“This all started w/ taunts of ‘Canada will be the 51st state’ and ‘their Prime Minister will be the 51st governor’. The insults gained us nothing but animosity that cost us economically and now militarily.”

The US, Canada and Mexico are set to negotiate an updated version of a regional free trade agreement, known as the USMCA, later this year.

May 18 (UPI) — A shipment of humanitarian aid sent by Mexico and Uruguay arrived in Cuba on Monday as the island faces a severe energy and economic crisis amid the tightening of the U.S. economic, trade and financial embargo.

The merchant vessel Asian Katra docked at the Port of Havana carrying powdered milk, rice, beans and other basic necessities.

The Panama-flagged ship delivered more than 1,600 tons of humanitarian assistance. Mexico’s contribution included food and hygiene products, while Uruguay’s shipment consisted exclusively of staple food items, according to Uruguayan digital outlet La Prensa.

Speaking to reporters, Cuban Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Trade Minister Óscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga said the aid would be distributed directly to those most in need, particularly children, older adults and vulnerable populations, according to Cuba’s state-run newspaper Granma.

Mexico’s ambassador to Cuba, Miguel Díaz Reynoso, said the shipment marked the eighth humanitarian vessel sent by the Mexican government in support of the Cuban people. He added that Mexican donations have now surpassed 6,000 tons of aid.

Díaz Reynoso also highlighted the participation of Mexican civil society groups, which have organized donation drives through various organizations and community initiatives.

On May 11, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced another humanitarian aid shipment would be sent to help “ease the suffering” of the Cuban people.

“We will continue sending humanitarian aid to people that need it,” Sheinbaum said.

Asked whether Mexico could send oil to the island, Sheinbaum said Cuba was already receiving petroleum supplies from Russia and that her government was instead focused on “other humanitarian support.”

However, the last successful Russian oil delivery to Cuba occurred March 31, when the Russian-flagged tanker Anatoly Kolodkin arrived at the port of Matanzas.

The vessel carried what Cuban authorities described as a humanitarian shipment of 100,000 tons of crude oil, ending a three-month interruption in energy imports following tighter U.S. naval enforcement measures earlier this year.

Although the shipment temporarily eased pressure on Cuba’s electrical grid, the reserves were depleted within about two weeks.

A second Russian tanker carrying diesel fuel, the Universal, has reportedly remained adrift in the Atlantic Ocean for nearly a month because of difficulties bypassing financial sanctions imposed by the Trump administration..

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola is understood to be stepping down at end of season after 17 years at EPL club.

Pep Guardiola will leave ⁠Manchester City ⁠after a decade in charge, according to widespread reports, bringing to ⁠a close one of the most successful spells in Premier League history.

Former Chelsea boss Enzo Maresca, who lead the Blues to the FIFA Club World Cup last summer, is expected to replace him.

The 55-year-old Guardiola will reportedly announce his departure shortly after City’s final ‌game of the season against Aston Villa at the Etihad Stadium, capping a campaign that included winning both the League Cup and the FA Cup trophies.

Saturday’s FA Cup victory over ⁠Chelsea secured Guardiola his ⁠20th trophy with the club.

Maresca, who left Chelsea four months ago, has been rumoured for months to ⁠be the top contender for the Spaniard’s job. ⁠Guardiola’s contract at City ⁠is set to expire in June 2027.

Guardiola shrugged off questions about his future after the FA Cup ‌final. When asked about the rumours by TNT Sports, Guardiola replied “What rumours?” ‌and ‌then ended the interview, saying “Have a lovely evening.”

City have made no comment on the speculation.

However, the club have arranged a parade through Manchester on Monday to celebrate their League Cup and FA Cup triumphs this season, which could act as a farewell to Guardiola.

City must win their final two games of the season, starting at Bournemouth on Tuesday, and hope Arsenal drop points at Crystal Palace on Sunday if they are to win the Premier League this season.

The race pitting a candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump against Congressman Thomas Massie, a rare Republican critic of Israel, has become the most expensive House of Representatives primary contest in the history of the United States.

The avalanche of spending, totalling more than $34m by Monday, according to official records, highlights the significance of the elections that could oust one of the few Republican opponents to the war with Iran.

In the final stretch of the campaign ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Massie has sought to highlight the oversized role of pro-Israel groups – including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – in the race.

He said the election will be a “referendum on foreign policy” and whether pro-Israel lobby groups will be able to “bully” members of Congress.

“You can tell that I’m ahead in the polls, and they’re desperate,” Massie told ABC News on Sunday.

“That’s why they’re sending the secretary of war to my district tomorrow. That’s why the president’s losing sleep and tweeting about this. That’s why AIPAC has dumped another $3m into my race this weekend.”

Trump has been incessantly bashing Massie on social media, and in an unusual move, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has travelled to Kentucky to campaign for Ed Gallrein, the Navy SEAL veteran challenging the congressman.

Massie has been critical of the unconditional US military aid to Israel and of the country’s abuses in Gaza and Lebanon. He has also helped spearhead the push for the release of government files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The money

Despite the intensity of the race, the candidates have not raised record amounts of money themselves.

The bulk of the spending, more than $25.8m, has come from outside groups, known as super political action committees (super PACs).

Super PACs are usually used by special interest groups to spend heavily to oppose or support a candidate without the constraints of legal limits on direct campaign contributions.

Pro-Israel groups and donors have played a central role in the flood of funds and ads directed against Massie, with three groups linked to them spending more than $15.5m in the race, Federal Election Commission (FEC) data shows.

United Democracy Project (UDP), AIPAC’s election arm, has spent more than $4.1m.

The RJC Victory Fund, which is affiliated with the Republican Jewish Coalition, came in with around $3.9m.

MAGA KY has been the largest spender, at $7.5m.

The PAC’s finances have not been made fully public. But available records show that one of the group’s top funders is Paul Singer, a pro-Israel billionaire investor who has also made the largest individual donation to UDP over the past year – $2.5m.

MAGA KY also received funds from Preserve America PAC, a group linked to Israeli-American megadonor Miriam Adelson.

Details of the finances of Preserve America PAC remain unclear for this election cycle. But Adelson donated $106m to the PAC in 2024 to help elect Trump as president.

Trump has openly admitted that Adelson and her late husband Sheldon Adelson have influenced his Middle East policies.

Before the race in Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional District, the most expensive House primary was the 2024 election that ousted then-Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman, in which pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC, were also the largest spenders.

The third most expensive primary also involved AIPAC and its pro-Israel allies, who succeeded in helping defeat progressive Congresswoman Cori Bush in 2024.

The Trump factor

Beyond the millions of dollars in pro-Israel spending, Massie needs to survive another potent force in Republican politics – Trump’s wrath.

The US president has all but purged the party of lawmakers who have disagreed with him on major issues.

Most recently, Senator Bill Cassidy – who voted to convict Trump after the January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot – lost his primary to a challenger backed by the US president.

Trump is actively campaigning against Massie. In less than 24 hours between Sunday and Monday, the US president fired off three social media posts berating the congressman, calling him “weak”, “pathetic” and a “bum”.

“The worst Congressman in the long and storied history of the Republican Party is Thomas Massie,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Monday. “He is an obstructionist and a fool. Vote him out of office tomorrow, Tuesday. It will be a great day for America!”

However, Massie appears to have a few advantages that other Republican dissidents lacked.

Over the years, the congressman has built a reputation as a combative, principled libertarian and has gained popularity among right-wing commentators.

His campaign directly raised $5.5m, significantly more than Gallrein’s $3.1m, while also receiving outside support from pro-gun rights and libertarian PACs.

Massie has also been endorsed by some of his Republican colleagues, including Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, an outspoken right-wing lawmaker.

And due to the involvement of pro-Israel groups, Massie’s supporters are arguing that the race is not all about Trump, who remains popular amongst Republican voters.

“Why does Trump hate Massie? Is the congressman a secret liberal? Not at all,” right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson said in his newsletter on Monday.

“Unlike nearly everyone else in the Republican Party, Massie has refused to go along with the White House’s abandonment of the America First principles that got the president elected. He is one of the few honest people in politics. Everyone who cares about our country should root for him.”

The Palestinian group Fatah concluded its eighth General Conference late Saturday but the results of the elections of the group’s leadership bodies, the Central Committee and Revolutionary Council, were not announced until Monday afternoon. The delay compelled Wael Lafi, the head of the elections committee in the General Conference, who is also the legal advisor of the Palestinian President, to defend the process and delay.

Even before convening, questions about membership, funding, and the general political direction of the group – which dominates the Palestinian Authority – overshadowed preparations for the General Conference.

Sixty candidates competed for 18 seats in the Central Committee, Fatah’s highest leadership body.

Mahmoud Abbas, the 91-year-old Palestinian President, was unanimously voted as chair ahead of the vote, foreshadowing the results of the elections and Abbas’s tightening grip on power.

Dr Nasser al-Qudwa, who was the only member of the Central Committee to boycott the General Conference, told Al Jazeera, “Mahmoud Abbas engineered this meeting to produce the outcome he wants and he succeeded”. Many Fatah members agree with that assessment.

The election results of Fatah’s top body saw the replacement of half of the incumbent old guard. Those included all but one of Gaza’s representatives in the Central Committee, with Ahmed Hilles, a close ally of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the only one remaining.

Abbas’s close ally and intelligence chief, Majed Faraj, also won a seat on the Central Committee. Faraj is seen by many in Fatah as a competitor to Hussein al-Sheikh, who Abbas appointed as vice president a year ago.

Another signal of Abbas’s grip on the Congress was the nomination and victory of his son, Yasser, to the Central Committee. That was despite the fact that Yasser Abbas has never held a leadership position at any level in Fatah, and the development has overshadowed Fatah’s argument that the Congress was a sign of democratic vitality and inclusion.

Palestinian detainees secured three seats in Fatah’s top leadership body, with Marwan Barghouti – imprisoned by Israel for more than 20 years – earning the highest number of votes among all competitors.

Another winner is Zakariya al-Zubaidi, a prominent Fatah figure who has been imprisoned repeatedly by Israel over the years. Al-Zubaidi notoriously escaped with five other Palestinian prisoners from Gilboa prison in 2021 only to be recaptured and then freed again in one of the prisoner exchange deals struck between Israel and Hamas during the Gaza genocide.

Fatah and Hamas make up the two main Palestinian political factions, with Hamas dominant in Gaza, and Fatah in the occupied West Bank.

Victory for Abbas?

There were 450 members competing for the 80 seats of the Revolutionary Council, which serves as Fatah’s legislator and in theory has strong sway over Fatah policy choices.

However, the winners appear to be dominated by the party’s insiders.

Absent from the Central Committee for the first time is a representative of Fatah outside Palestine, which is seen by many as a worrying precedent for a movement that has followers across the widespread Palestinian diaspora.

But the new Central Committee has an abundance of technocrats and senior officials working in the Palestinian Authority (PA), like the popular Ramallah Governor Laila Ghannam or the head of the PA’s General Personnel Council Musa Abu Zaid.

“These are not leaders. They are employees. They will do as ordered,” one Fatah official, who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, said.

Dr al-Qudwa views the results as a victory for the Palestinian president, not Fatah.

“President Abbas is the biggest winner,” al-Qudwa said. “He succeeded in completely subduing Fatah to his will.”

A significant proportion of the winners are also current or former PA employees, especially in the security sector.

Most of the old guard were replaced by younger members, but many of that new cohort themselves rose through the ranks of Fatah’s youth movement. Several sons and daughters of former Fatah leaders were also elected despite having no history of involvement or membership in the group, like the daughter of the late chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, Dalal.

Facing crises

Kifah Harb, a prominent Fatah figure who ran unsuccessfully for the Central Committee, confirmed to Al Jazeera that many members had concerns and misgivings about the organisational committee of the Congress.

But she struck a conciliatory tone about the process as a whole.

“As members of the Congress, we are leading members of Fatah and regardless the outcome of the elections, we must stand by it and help Fatah march forward in leading the Palestinian national movement,” Harb said. “There are no alternatives.”

Fatah’s Congress was closely followed by world governments and the Palestinian public, who saw the competition within the group play out in advertisements and posts on social media platforms.

Governments around the world see Fatah leaders as their Palestinian counterparts when it comes to bilateral relations, but Western governments are also demanding reforms in return for increased support to the Palestinian Authority.

Fatah leaders say the Congress is proof of their commitment to reform, pointing to the change of some names and a younger demographic emerging, even if the balance of power ultimately remained firmly in Abbas’s hands.

Whether that placates the international community is one matter, but Fatah will have a tough time getting the Palestinian public on side.

Fatah’s new leaders are faced with the task of resolving several chronic crises, including the PA’s inability to pay civil servants and Israel’s hostile policies – including the unlawful withholding of Palestinian tax revenues, unprecedented land grabs, settler attacks, and the Israeli-made humanitarian disaster becoming entrenched in Gaza.

On Monday, after the announcement of the election results, Fatah offered general policy lines in a statement, but provided no answers on the way forward.

And now it has to content with that future, and a public demand for presidential and legislative elections that will likely become more pressing – one of the many tests that awaits Fatah’s reformulated leadership.

May 18 (UPI) — The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday restricted non-U.S. passport holders from entering the United States if they have been in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or South Sudan in the past 21 days.

The agency made the announcement as there have at least 346 cases and 88 deaths in the DRC, on top of several cases that have been confirmed in nearby nations in people who been there, the CDC said over the weekend.

The CDC said that is coordinating with various agencies and companies to manage travelers who have been exposed to Ebola as it also deploys employees to support containment of the outbreak in the three nations.

“CDC assess the immediate risk to the general U.S. public as low, but we will continue to evaluate the evolving situation and may adjust public health measures as additional information becomes available,” the agency said in a situation summary.

In the last five days, the World Health Organization confirmed that the Ebola virus circulating in the three countries right now is the Bundibuyo virus, one of four known strains that have affected humans since Ebola was discovered in mid-1970s.

Although there is an approved, licensed vaccine against Ebola which has successfully been used to quell outbreaks, the vaccine — called Ervebo — only protects against acquisition of the Zaire species of Ebola virus, making it useless in the current outbreak, according to the CDC.

WHO on Saturday declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern.

In its update, WHO said that there are “significant uncertainties to the true number of infected persons and geographic spread associated with this event at the present time. In addition, there is limited understanding of the epidemiologic links with known or suspected cases.”

Ebola spreads from wild animals to humans and from human to human through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids from infected individuals, and carries a case fatality rate of roughly 50%.

A number of affected Americans have reportedly been exposed to the virus during the outbreak.

The CDC has recommended that people who have traveled through the two countries in the last 21 days should immediately seek medical attention if they develop Ebola symptoms, which can include fever, weakness, vomiting, diarrhea or unexplained bleeding.

In addition to roughly 30 CDC employees dispatched to the region, and will join officials from several other global and regional health agencies, the WHO is expected to convene an emergency committee to advise the agency’s director-general on its response the outbreak.

United States President Donald Trump has withdrawn his $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stemming from a leak of his tax returns and said his administration will create a $1.77bn anti-weaponisation fund that would compensate some of Trump’s political allies.

The court filing, released on Monday in Florida, did not disclose the terms of the deal, including whether either party settled.

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday announced the establishment of a $1.77bn fund called the Anti-Weaponisation Fund that would “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponisation and lawfare”.

The DOJ said in its press release that it was part of the settlement agreement.

ABC News first reported last week that the president was prepared to drop the lawsuit as part of a deal that would create the fund to pay Trump allies who were perceived as wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

Trump, his adult sons Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS in January, arguing the agency should have done more to prevent a former contractor from disclosing their tax returns to media outlets during the president’s first term.

The case arose from former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn’s leak of Trump’s tax returns to media outlets, including the New York Times and ProPublica, in 2019 and 2020.

Those returns showed that Trump paid little or no income taxes in many years, the Times reported in 2020.

Prosecutors charged Littlejohn in 2023 with leaking tax records of Trump and thousands of other wealthy Americans to the media, saying he was motivated by a political agenda. Littlejohn later pleaded guilty to improper disclosures, and a judge sentenced him to five years in prison.

Trump filed the lawsuit personally, not in his official capacity as president.

Political pushback

While the court filing did not mention the terms of any potential deal, news that the president would create a fund to protect his political allies sparked backlash.

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, called the idea “unconstitutional”.

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Sunday with the ABC News programme This Week.

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and prove things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence. Go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he said.

California Governor Gavin Newsom also criticised the president amid reports of the deal.

“Donald Trump wants to settle his joke lawsuit against his own IRS department to hand out $1.7 BILLION of OUR TAX DOLLARS to Jan. 6th insurrectionists and his cronies,” Newsom said in a post on X.

“It is an outrage that the American taxpayers are having to pay for this and that we have a president who is exercising such open corruption in front of everyone and expecting us to go along with it,” Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state, told the progressive MeidasTouch network.

Despite the criticisms, it is not clear who would specifically benefit from the funds.

Trump has long claimed that the DOJ under his predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat, was weaponised against him, pointing to the criminal charges where he faced allegations that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost by more than seven million votes, and that he retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Merrick Garland, the attorney general during the Biden administration, denied allegations of politicisation. The Justice Department also investigated prominent Democrats, including Biden’s son Hunter Biden and former US Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey.

“The machinery of government should never be weaponised against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a release.

However, the Trump administration has actively pursued cases against perceived political enemies, including former FBI director James Comey and former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, Fed Governor Lisa Cook, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, and California Senator Adam Schiff. 

The DOJ said that there is legal precedent for the fund, pointing to a programme called “Keepseagle” under the administration of former US President Barack Obama, a Democrat. That created a fund to address allegations of racism against the federal government.

The White House referred Al Jazeera to the DOJ for a request for comment. The DOJ did not respond.

The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) announced on X that it would be investigating how the funds would be used.

“While Americans are struggling with an affordability crisis, President Trump plans to use nearly $1.8bn in taxpayer money to pay off his friends and allies—including potentially the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th,” CREW’s president, Donald K Sherman, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“By settling his absurd $10bn lawsuit against his own administration, Trump and the Justice Department just engaged in the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency, and did so quickly in order to avoid the scrutiny of the judicial process, while quite likely violating the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause in the process. This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.”

A long time coming

Lawyers for the president asked a federal judge in April to pause the case for 90 days while the two sides worked to reach a settlement or resolution.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing in April said. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

When asked in February how he would handle any potential damages from the case, Trump said, “I think what we’ll do is do something for charity.”

“We could make it a substantial amount,” he said at the time. “Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities.”

The litigation against the IRS raised novel legal questions, including conflicts of interest, about whether a president can sue his own government. It is not clear if the judge will accept Trump’s withdrawal of the case.

Under the US Constitution, federal courts may only hear genuine disputes between litigants with opposing stakes in the outcome.

US District Court Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami, who oversees Trump’s lawsuit, wrote last month that it was unclear whether the parties to the lawsuit were “truly antagonistic to each other”.

Williams had set a court hearing for May 27 to hear arguments on whether she should dismiss the case on those grounds.

In too many parts of the world, giving birth still comes with more fear than hope: a clinic without electricity, a nurse without supplies, a mother who knows that giving life may cost her own. These fears are not merely emotional, they are borne out by the facts. Every two minutes worldwide, a woman dies while giving life. Every year, nearly five million children do not live to see their fifth birthday. A toll that will rise if aid cuts continue. The Lancet medical journal estimates that by 2030, more than 14 million additional people could die, including 4.5 million children under five – the equivalent of erasing a city the size of Abuja, Brasilia or Rome.

The true measure of global progress is not found in financial markets or summit declarations. It is found in whether a woman survives pregnancy and childbirth, whether a child is vaccinated and nourished, and whether an adolescent can grow up healthy, safe and hopeful. When women, children and adolescents thrive, societies are stronger, economies are more resilient, and nations are better prepared for the future. When they are failed, the costs are measured not only in preventable deaths and suffering, but in lost human potential on a massive scale.

This is why investing in women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health is one of the most important investments any government can make. The evidence is overwhelming. Closing the gap in women’s health alone could add at least $1 trillion to the global economy every year by 2040. Every dollar invested in childhood vaccination or adolescent mental health returns about $20 over a lifetime – in healthcare savings, in productivity, in lives that go on to build something. Healthy women anchor families and economies. Healthy children grow into workers and citizens. Healthy children and adolescents are better equipped to participate in society, build livelihoods and shape more stable, prosperous futures.

Yet health systems around the world are being pushed to breaking point by aid cuts, debt, conflict and shrinking fiscal space. In 2025, official development assistance fell by 23 percent – the largest annual drop in history. In more than 50 countries, health workers are losing their jobs and training pipelines are breaking down. In some places, maternal care, vaccination and emergency response have been cut by 70 percent. At the same time, sexual and reproductive health rights are under intensifying political attack, putting hard-won progress at risk.

Women and girls bear the heaviest burden. In 2023, six in 10 maternal deaths worldwide were in countries in conflict or fragility. In fact, a woman living in a conflict-affected country is five times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than her counterpart in a stable country. Too many women still lack access to quality maternal healthcare, contraception and essential reproductive services. Too many girls face violence, discrimination and barriers to healthcare that limit not only their well-being, but their freedom and future. When budgets tighten, women and children are too often the first to feel the cuts and the last to be protected.

This is not inevitable. It is a matter of political choice.

In South Africa, we are working to strengthen primary healthcare, expanding equitable access to quality services, investing in the health workforce and building a more inclusive health system that reaches those most in need. We understand that progress in health is inseparable from progress in equality and development. A society cannot prosper if women are denied care, if children are left unprotected, or if adolescents are excluded from the services and opportunities they need to thrive.

In Spain, a public national health service has delivered universal coverage and one of the world’s lowest maternal and infant mortality rates. We believe – with vision, determination and solidarity – that what we have achieved at home can be achieved globally. This is why Spain’s Global Health Strategy 2025–2030 places equity, resilient health systems and sexual and reproductive health rights at the centre of our international action, and why we are working to raise the global ambition on sustainable development financing and to defend gender equality as a democratic and development imperative.

At the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Sevilla last year, through the Sevilla Commitment and the Sevilla Platform for Action, we helped focus international attention on debt distress, sustainable investment and reform of the global financing architecture.

These issues may appear technical, but their consequences are deeply human. They determine whether health systems can recruit and retain workers, whether medicines reach clinics, whether women can access care safely, and whether children and adolescents are given a fair chance at life.

We must also be unequivocal in defending sexual and reproductive health and rights. These rights are not secondary, and they are not negotiable. They are central to dignity, equality and public health. No woman or girl should be denied access to life-saving care because of politics, poverty or discrimination. No society can claim to value justice while tolerating persistent gender-based violence or the systematic erosion of women’s autonomy and rights.

The question before the international community is therefore not whether we can afford to invest in women, children and adolescents. It is whether we can afford not to. The answer is clear. The long-term costs of inaction – greater instability, deeper inequality, weaker economies and millions of preventable deaths – are far higher than the cost of acting now. Higher than the cost of keeping the lights on in that clinic.

This is the spirit in which Spain is joining the Global Leaders Network, which brings together 12 heads of state and government committed to advancing the health and rights of women, children and adolescents. But this effort must not stop with us. The challenges are too large, and the stakes are too high, for leadership to remain limited to a few countries.

We need more governments to step forward, to protect essential health services, invest in frontline health workers, defend sexual and reproductive health and rights, and ensure that financing reforms deliver for the people who need them most. We need more leaders to recognise that women, children and adolescents are not a peripheral concern of global policy. They are its clearest test.

This is a moment for political courage. A moment to choose investment over retreat, solidarity over indifference, and action over complacency. Above all, it is a moment to recognise a simple truth: if women, children and adolescents are not at the centre of our decisions, then the future will not be fair, stable or sustainable. But if they are, then a better future remains within reach.

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

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that an Ebola outbreak in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a “public health emergency of international concern”, setting off alarm bells around the world.

The WHO’s announcement on Sunday came as several countries are battling to contain a hantavirus outbreak linked to a cruise ship trip to South America.

While the cause and treatment for the two viruses differ, news of their outbreaks has caused world leaders and health agencies to question what this means for international travel and cross-border coordination in containing them. These questions are particularly pertinent following the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in global lockdowns due to the lack of preparedness for the spread of the coronavirus.

But as the WHO faces a funding crisis, is the world better prepared now if another pandemic occurs – or could it be even less so?

Here’s what we know:

Why is the WHO facing a funding crisis?

Every time a health emergency occurs anywhere in the world, the first response of the WHO is to determine the danger the disease poses and then implement a plan to respond to it.

But since 2025, the United Nations health agency has been struggling financially due to a lack of funding from donors.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned in May 2025 that global health would be at serious risk without enough donor support and that the agency was facing “the greatest disruption to global health financing in memory”.

The crisis deepened after the United States, which had previously covered nearly one-fifth of the WHO’s budget, officially withdrew from the organisation in January this year. US President Donald Trump announced the decision in January 2025, alleging the WHO had mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and other international health crises.

As a result, the programme budget for the agency’s 2026-27 projects has been set at more than $6.2bn, a 9 percent decrease from the previous year.

In response, the WHO revised its financial plans and scaled back spending by cutting back some of its critical programmes, which has significantly curtailed pandemic preparedness, health experts told Al Jazeera.

“Funding cuts to the WHO have directly weakened disease surveillance efforts, which in turn affect the readiness and preparedness to deliver an effective response to epidemics and pandemics,” Kaja Abbas, associate professor of infectious disease epidemiology and dynamics at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Nagasaki University, said.

Following the recent hantavirus outbreak, passengers and crew members from more than 20 countries on the affected cruise ship, MV Hondius, required coordinated monitoring, contact tracing, medical evacuation, and public health guidance across borders.

Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), the WHO helps to facilitate communication and response efforts among countries, deploys experts, supports laboratory testing and organises emergency responses in case of an outbreak.

Following the Ebola outbreak in the DRC and Uganda, the WHO has deployed experts, personal protective equipment (PPE), laboratory support and emergency funding while coordinating regional preparedness efforts.

But these sorts of efforts are at risk with the current funding crisis, Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious diseases physician in Dallas, in the US state of Texas, with expertise in emerging pathogens, global health and outbreak response, told Al Jazeera.

As infectious diseases do not respect borders, rapid international coordination is essential, she added.

“Weakening WHO through funding cuts risks delaying outbreak detection, slowing response times, and reducing the world’s ability to contain emerging threats before they spread globally.”

In a statement to Al Jazeera, the International Pandemic Preparedness Secretariat (IPPS), an independent entity which helps world leaders prepare and respond to pandemics, highlighted that preparedness relies on consistent funding.

“Sustained investment and strong multilateral coordination are essential to maintain the systems, partnerships, and scientific capabilities needed before the next pandemic threat emerges,” IPPS said.

What else is hampering a global response to another pandemic?

Besides funding issues, the WHO has been struggling to get world leaders to agree on a pandemic treaty for 2026 amid a pathogen-sharing dispute.

In May 2025, it adopted a Pandemic Agreement, which sets out what it describes as a “comprehensive approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response that improves both global health security and global health equity”.

But UN member nations have not been able to reach a consensus on the Pathogen Access and ⁠Benefit-Sharing (PABS) aspect of the agreement – or “annex” – due to differences over ensuring every country receives equitable access to vaccines and treatment after data on disease samples have been shared.

Talks on PABS mainly focus on setting up a system to ensure countries can quickly share pathogens that could cause pandemics while receiving fair access to vaccines, tests and treatments that result from their use.

Following talks on PABS in May this year, the WHO chief urged countries to keep working with urgency and said the next pandemic was “a matter ⁠of when, not if”.

“The PABS annex is the last piece of the puzzle not only for the Pandemic Agreement,” he added.

Kuppalli told Al Jazeera that getting agreement on this is crucial, as international cooperation is essential during emerging outbreaks.

“Countries must rapidly share pathogen samples, genomic sequencing data, and epidemiologic information so diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics can be developed quickly,” she said.

“Delays or political disputes over information sharing can cost valuable time in the early stages of an outbreak, when containment is most possible,” she warned.

Why is antivaccine sentiment growing?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the US and a handful of other countries began rolling out coronavirus vaccines, many people resisted the vaccines, fearing adverse reactions as social media was flooded with misinformation about their safety and purpose.

According to a July 2025 report in The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), antivaccine sentiment among the leadership of US health agencies has also been on the rise. Robert F Kennedy Jr, US health secretary, is among those leaders who often promotes unverified claims about the dangers of vaccines and also opposed the COVID vaccine.

In the report for the BMJ, authors Anna Kirkland and Scott Greer argued that if health agencies are led by such people, it will “likely mean that vaccination information campaigns are reduced, vaccine hesitancy increases, insurance coverage for vaccinations is limited, and public sector capacity to vaccinate is reduced”.

“Research money will be wasted on investigating already debunked links between autism and vaccination, while vaccination infrastructure, such as vaccination programmes run by local governments, will be eroded,” they added.

This is a major issue because public trust is critical during outbreaks, Kuppalli said.

“If large portions of the population reject vaccines or public health guidance, it becomes much harder to control transmission, protect healthcare systems, and reduce deaths,” she said.

“Equally concerning are funding cuts to vaccine research and development. Pandemic preparedness depends on investing in vaccines before a crisis occurs, not after,” she added.

Last August, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cancelled about $500 million in contracts and grants dedicated to mRNA vaccine development. These cuts affected 22 research initiatives and clinical trials focused on emerging pathogens, pandemic flu, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and COVID-19 boosters, according to Harvard University’s TH Chan School of Public Health.

Kuppalli said the development of mRNA vaccines targeting H5N1 avian influenza is an important effort in preparing for the possibility of a pandemic.

“Reductions in funding for these types of programmes risk slowing scientific progress, limiting manufacturing readiness, and leaving the world less prepared when the next outbreak emerges,” she said.

Is the world economically prepared for a pandemic?

Amid antivaccine movements and funding cuts, the current state of the world economy is also making it challenging for world leaders to prepare a pandemic response.

The US-Israel war on Iran has resulted in a sharp rise in oil and gas prices, which has in turn upended the world economy. High fuel costs have disrupted supply chains and international travel, resulting in a spike in the cost of medicines. In the United Kingdom, for example, pharmacies are charging 20 to 30 percent more for over-the-counter medicines. In India, chemists are reporting price rises of common painkillers of as much as 96 percent.

“Wars and economic pressures also strain supply chains, divert government resources, displace populations and weaken already fragile health systems. These all increase the risk of outbreaks spreading unchecked,” Kuppalli warned.

“Emerging infectious diseases are becoming more frequent and more complex, yet many countries are reducing investments in preparedness rather than strengthening them. The result is a growing mismatch between the scale of the threat and the resources available to respond,” she said.

IPPS told Al Jazeera that pandemics and disease outbreaks have devastating economic consequences. “In 2020 alone, the global economy contracted by around 3 percent of GDP, representing trillions of dollars in lost output, alongside widespread job losses and trade disruption.”

“Sustained investment in pandemic preparedness and response (PPR) can help prevent such losses by ensuring that vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics are ready to deploy rapidly when new threats emerge,” IPPS said.

Investing in research and development during peacetime ensures that when the next pandemic threat arises, the world has products and systems in place to respond quickly, protect lives, and avoid the economic losses experienced during COVID-19, it added.

“Sustained and diversified funding for pandemic preparedness is not just a health priority; it is also an economic safeguard.”

Has there been any progress at all since COVID-19?

“The pandemic taught all of us many lessons, especially that global threats demand a global response,” Ghebreyesus said in February, six years after the COVID-19 pandemic hit. “Solidarity is the best immunity,” he added.

Besides adopting a Pandemic Agreement last May, in 2022, the WHO launched a fund in collaboration with the World Bank. As of February this year, the fund has “provided grant funding” totalling more than $1.2bn, the WHO says. It has “helped catalyse an additional $11bn that has so far supported 67 projects in 98 countries across six regions, to expand surveillance, lab networks, workforce training and multi sectoral coordination”, it adds.

In 2023, the WHO also set up the Global Health Emergency Corps “in response to the gaps and challenges identified during the COVID-19 response”. The Corps mainly supports countries experiencing public health emergencies “by assessing emergency workforce capacities, rapidly deploying surge support, and creating a network of emergency leaders from multiple countries to share best practices and coordinate responses”.

As a result of all this, Kuppalli said, there are reasons to be hopeful.

“One of the clearest lessons from recent outbreaks is that the global scientific and public health community can collaborate remarkably quickly when faced with an urgent threat,” she said.

She noted how during COVID-19, scientists around the world rapidly shared genomic sequences, clinical data and research findings in real time.

“The development of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines in less than a year was a historic scientific achievement and demonstrated what is possible when there is political will, funding, international cooperation, and regulatory flexibility,” she said.

“In addition, advances in vaccine platforms, particularly mRNA technology, mean we now have the capability to design and begin producing candidate vaccines much faster than in the past,” she explained.

“While many challenges remain, including funding, misinformation, and geopolitical tensions, the scientific progress made over the last several years has unquestionably improved our ability to detect emerging threats and develop medical countermeasures more rapidly than ever before,” she added.

May 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has renewed his threats of mass violence against Iran, warning Tehran that “the Clock is Ticking” as the stalemate in talks to end the war shows no signs of ending.

In a statement on his Truth Social platform on Sunday night, Trump wrote: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.”

“TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

The two-sentence statement echoed the scale of violence he threatened April 7, shortly before the cease-fire was announced, when he warned Iran to make an agreement to end the war or “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

Trump has been seeking an agreement with Iran to end the war since the conflict was halted April 8 with a cease-fire to permit negotiations.

Those negotiations have progressed little if at all since talks broke down in Islamabad in mid-April.

An Iranian proposal recently sent to the United States was rejected by Trump, who told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday en route to Washington from China that he looked at it and found the first sentence unacceptable.

“Well, I looked at it, and if I don’t like the first sentence, I just throw it away,” Trump said.

Asked what the first sentence was, Trump replied, “An unacceptable sentence.”

Trump said he is seeking a lengthy suspension of Iran’s nuclear program, stating that two decades may comply with his demands but “it’s got to be a real 20 years.”

According to Iranian state media Press TV, Iran’s proposal calls for a comprehensive end to the war, full compensation from the United States for damages, the removal of sanctions, the release of frozen Iranian assets and recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported the United States responded with five demands: no compensation, no unfreezing of assets, the handover of 881.8 pounds of uranium to the United States, only one nuclear facility remaining active and making a halt to the war on all fronts conditional on negotiations.

In response to Trump’s threat on Sunday, Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi, senior spokesman for Iran’s Armed Forces, called Trump “delusional,” the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

“Repeating any foolishness to compensate for America’s disgrace in the third imposed war against Iran will bring no consequence other than receiving more crushing and severe blows for that country,” Shekarchi said.

He warned Trump if the United States resumed its attacks, “the assets and decayed army of that country will face new, offensive, surprising and stormy scenarios.”

May 18 (UPI) — Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te said Taiwan would not do anything to trigger confrontation with China but vowed the island would never allow itself to be traded away or give up sovereignty.

In an online post Sunday, Lai said that “as a responsible party in the region and across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan will not provoke or escalate conflict,” but neither would it yield to pressure to relinquish its “national sovereignty and dignity, or its democratic and free way of life.”

Lai’s statement came after Beijing warned U.S. President Donald Trump to be “extra cautious” over Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a breakaway province, saying it could result in clashes and potential conflict that could place the entire Sino-U.S. relationship “in great jeopardy.”

Speaking aboard Air Force One on his way back to Washington from his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said he had “made no commitment” either way on the Taiwan question or an $11 billion deal to sell arms to the island that was sent to Congress for approval in December.

Trump said he and Xi had discussed the arms deal in depth and that he would make a determination on whether it would go through “over the next fairly short period of time.”

“I’m going to say I have to speak to the person that right now is, you know, you know who he is, that’s running Taiwan,” Lai’s name apparently having slipped his mind.

Trump also strictly adhered to Washington’s long-held position of strategic ambiguity by refusing to answer questions over whether the United States would come to Taiwan’s aid militarily, were it attacked.

Beijing wants reunification and has not ruled out retaking Taiwan by force, particularly if it declared independence.

Back in the United States, Trump appeared to urge caution over Taiwan independence, telling Fox News on Friday that while nothing in the United States’ policy on Taiwan had changed, he wasn’t “looking to have somebody go independent.”

“I’m not looking to have somebody go independent. And, you know, we’re supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war. I’m not looking for that. I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down,” he said.

Although the United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei in favor of Beijing in 1979 and acknowledged there is only one China of which Taiwan is a part– the so-called “One China” policy it follows to this day — the Taiwan Relations Act requires it to treat any effort to alter Taiwan’s future by force as a threat to peace in the region and U.S. interests.

The legislation requires the United States to provide the island with arms to defend itself and for the United States to maintain its own capacity “to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.”

However, there is no guarantee of committing U.S. troops to help defend the island.

In his post, Lai expressed gratitude for the United States’ “continued support” for peace in the Taiwan Strait, as well as ongoing military assistance.

“Given China’s unwavering commitment to the use of force to annex Taiwan and its continued military expansion in an attempt to alter the regional and cross-strait status quo, the United States’ continued arms sales to Taiwan and its deepening of U.S.-Taiwan security cooperation, even to the point of necessity, are crucial elements in maintaining regional peace and stability,” wrote Lai.

The Lee Jae Myung government has shifted its focus to a peaceful “two-state” coexistence with North Korea, rather than pressure and confrontation, the unification ministry’s white paper showed Monday, striking a markedly different tone from its predecessor.

The annual paper reflects the push by the Lee government, which took office in June last year, to repair the strained inter-Korean relationship based on building mutual trust.

The previous conservative Yoon Suk Yeol government sought to bring about change in North Korea through pressure and the influx of outside information.

The latest white paper laid out three key guiding principles: Seoul respects North Korea’s system, does not pursue unification by absorption and does not engage in hostile activities.

Built on these principles, the government has framed its overarching policy as one of “peaceful coexistence and mutual growth on the Korean Peninsula.”

In particular, regarding Pyongyang’s “two hostile states” policy, the document specified the ministry’s stance that highlights the need for a transition to a “peace-oriented two-state relationship” aimed at achieving unification.

At a year-end party meeting in December 2023, the North Korean leader declared inter-Korean relations as those between “two states hostile to each other” and has since pursued hostile policies toward Seoul.

“Considering the reality that the South and the North exist as two de facto states, we intend to develop inter-Korean relations into a relationship of peaceful coexistence while still aiming for unification,” the ministry said.

Critics said the ministry’s “peace-oriented two-state relationship” narrative runs counter to the long-held stance that inter-Korean ties are a “special relationship” tentatively formed in the process of seeking unification, not as state-to-state relations.

Among the measures cited is the Lee government’s decision to halt the sending of anti-Pyongyang leaflets to North Korea and stop loudspeaker broadcasts along the border as steps to ease military tension and rebuild trust.

The paper also outlines plans to revive the Sept. 19 inter-Korean military agreement, signed by former President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in 2018, and pursue a bilateral accord to establish a systematic foundation for peaceful coexistence.

The shift in policy priorities is visible in the paper’s language. References to “peace” and “peaceful coexistence” surged to 196 from 29 and mentions of “meeting” or “dialogue” rose to 58 from 16.

By contrast, the section on North Korean human rights has been significantly scaled back. The term “North Korea’s human rights” dropped to 26 from 156, and “freedom” fell to three from 43. Mentions of “North Korean defectors” plummeted to just 10 from 203.

In a foreword message for the paper, Unification Minister Chung Dong-young stated, “Peace on the Korean Peninsula is not a choice for us, but a lifeline.”

“As we practice peace through actions rather than words, I hope that the South and the North can sit down together once again as neighbors peacefully coexisting with each other,” he added.

Despite Seoul’s olive branch, inter-Korean relations remain virtually frozen. There has been no inter-Korean human exchange in five years and no economic exchange whatsoever, the paper showed.

Pyongyang, meanwhile, has doubled down on its two-state policy, revising its constitution to remove all references to unification and cutting off remaining ties with Seoul.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

MV Hondius was carrying 25 crew members and two medical personnel as it reached the Dutch port of Rotterdam.

A cruise ship hit by a deadly hantavirus outbreak has docked in the Netherlands for disinfection.

The MV Hondius was carrying 25 crew members and two medical personnel as it reached the Dutch port of Rotterdam on Monday, after all the passengers disembarked at other locations. According to the ship operator Oceanwide Expeditions, no one on board is experiencing any symptoms.

A short distance from where the ship docked, authorities had set up white containers along the water. The crew will enter immediate quarantine, with those who cannot be immediately repatriated spending their time in quarantine in these containers.

Three passengers of the ship died, including a Dutch couple who health officials believe were the first exposed to the virus while visiting South America.

The MV Hondius has spent the past six days sailing from the Canary Islands, where the remaining passengers were evacuated and boarded flights to more than 20 countries to enter quarantine.

There were at least 11 cases of infection on the ship, nine of which have been confirmed.

The Public Health Agency of Canada said one of the four Canadians in isolation after leaving the ship had tested positive on Sunday. It said it would share information on the case with the World Health Organization (WHO).

Late Sunday, the WHO said it was maintaining its assessment of the hantavirus outbreak as “low risk”.

“While additional cases may still occur among passengers and crew members exposed before containment measures were implemented, the risk of onward transmission is expected to be reduced following disembarkation and the implementation of control measures,” it said.

Crew members who are unable to return home will be quarantined in the Netherlands, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport said last week. Some two dozen passengers and crew members have already been in quarantine in the Netherlands after arriving in the country on different flights in the last two weeks.

After everyone on board has disembarked, the ship will be decontaminated based on Dutch public health guidelines.

“Personal protective measures are being taken to ensure that the cleaners do not need to quarantine after the cleaning,” the Health Ministry said in a letter to the Dutch parliament last week.

Public health officials will inspect the ship before it is allowed to sail again. The hantavirus outbreak on Hondius is the first known case on a cruise ship.

France’s Pasteur Institute said on Saturday it has fully sequenced the Andes virus detected in a French passenger from the Hondius and found that it matched viruses already known in South America, with no evidence so far of new characteristics that would make it more transmissible or more dangerous.

Israeli forces had been preparing the makeshift sites in western Iraq since late 2024, the US newspaper reported.

Israel built two covert military outposts in Iraq’s western desert in advance of the US-Israel war on Iran, The New York Times has reported.

The daily reported on Sunday that Iraqi officials had identified two covert Israeli-operated base in Iraq’s western desert, citing an Iraqi official and a lawmaker. It said Israeli forces had been preparing to build one of the makeshift sites since late 2024, citing a regional official.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that one base was established shortly before the war began and operated with the knowledge of the United States. It said the installation housed Israeli special forces and served as a logistical hub for their air operations. It also reportedly included search-and-rescue capabilities for downed pilots.

According to the newspaper, Israeli forces launched attacks from the base against Iraqi units that came close to discovering the site in early March. Open-source analysts cited by the report identified the suspected location using satellite imagery near Iraq’s border with Saudi Arabia.

The reports have added to months of conflicting accounts over alleged Israeli activity inside Iraq. On Thursday, Lieutenant-General Qais al-Muhammadawi, Iraq’s deputy commander of joint operations, said authorities had received reports of “individuals or movement” in the Najaf desert near Karbala, about 100km (62 miles) southwest of Baghdad, according to the state-run Iraqi News Agency.

The WSJ also referenced comments made in March by Israel’s former air force chief, Major-General Tomer Bar, who said Israeli special forces had carried out “extraordinary” operations during the conflict with Iran, though he did not specify where.

Iraqi officials have publicly denied authorising any foreign military presence in the area. “There is no agreement or consent for any force to be present in this location,” al-Muhammadawi said last week, before the details of the alleged Israeli outpost were reported.

However, the WSJ report said Baghdad privately lodged a protest with Washington in late March over suspected covert military activity, calling it a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

US officials quoted by the newspaper said Washington was not involved in the operation. On Sunday, a senior Iraqi security official again denied reports that Israel had established a military base in the desert, speaking to Turkiye’s Anadolu news agency.

On Tuesday, the commander of Iraq’s Karbala operations told Al Jazeera that an Israeli military group had been detected in the Najaf desert in March, although he said it had remained in the area for less than 48 hours.

The reports come as Iraq faces growing pressure amid escalating tensions between the US, Israel and Iran.

Washington has repeatedly urged Baghdad to curb the influence of Iran-backed armed groups operating in Iraq. In March, US forces carried out strikes against the Popular Mobilisation Forces after attacks on a US diplomatic and logistics facility near Baghdad airport.

Iran has also raised concerns over the allegations. Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that Tehran would raise the issue with Iraqi authorities. He accused Israel of seeking to destabilise the region.

“Israel’s behaviour in the region shows that they do not respect any limits or red lines,” Baghaei said.

SEOUL, May 18 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un convened a meeting with commanding officers from across the country’s armed forces and called for strengthening frontline defenses along the border with South Korea to create an “impregnable fortress,” state-run media reported Monday.

Kim held the meeting at the headquarters of the ruling Workers’ Party Central Committee on Sunday, the official Korean Central News Agency said. It was the first known gathering of all division and brigade commanders since Kim took power in 2011.

Kim called for the “rapid modernization of the military and technical equipment of our army” and stressed the need to adapt military training to the changing nature of modern warfare, KCNA said.

He emphasized the country’s “territorial defense” policy, including “strengthening the first-line units in the southern border and turning the border line into an impregnable fortress,” according to the report.

KCNA said Kim outlined plans to reorganize the military structure and bolster frontline and other major units with upgraded weapons and technology as part of efforts to strengthen deterrence.

Earlier this month, North Korea announced plans to deploy new 155 mm self-propelled howitzers to three battalions assigned to long-range artillery units along the southern border this year.

The meeting comes as Pyongyang hardens its military posture toward Seoul and formally abandons decades-old reunification language.

North Korea recently revised its constitution to remove all references to reunification with South Korea, cementing Kim’s push to redefine inter-Korean ties as relations between two separate states.

The two Koreas remain technically at war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

South Korea’s Unification Ministry assessed Monday that the meeting appeared aimed at encouraging the military while reinforcing ideological discipline and modernization efforts.

“North Korea has adopted a two-state stance, and there appear to be trends in that regard,” ministry spokesman Yoon Min-ho said at a regular press briefing. “We will continue to closely monitor related trends in the future.”

Asked whether the North’s latest moves could escalate the situation along the border, Yoon said Seoul would continue efforts to reduce military tensions and build trust on the Korean Peninsula.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has sought to reduce tensions since taking office in June, including by dismantling border propaganda loudspeakers and calling for renewed dialogue, but Pyongyang has largely ignored the overtures while continuing to expand its military capabilities.

On Monday, the Unification Ministry released its annual white paper, which defined Seoul’s new “Korean Peninsula peaceful coexistence policy.”

The policy is based on principles President Lee outlined in August, including respecting North Korea’s system, rejecting unification by absorption and avoiding hostile acts.