top news

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Kennedy Center board on Thursday voted to put U.S. President Donald Trump‘s name on the building and to close the complex’s main building for renovations.

According to media reports, the building’s name will be changed to “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.” Its physical location will be changed to “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.”

The plan, which was approved in a 20-3 vote, was greenlit two months after Trump’s name was removed from the facade after a federal judge ruled that the performing arts center name could not be changed because it was approved by Congress.

The three individuals who voted against the changes were the ex-officio members of congress, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI.

Beatty was a plaintiff in a lawsuit that challenged the renaming of the center.

“This morning’s decision to close the Center and the surprise agenda item to put Donald Trump’s name back on the building was more of the same,” Beatty said in a statement. “This latest development is a transparent effort to circumvent the Court’s ruling, and flies in the face of the statutes that Congress passed. I will continue to fight for this treasured national monument.”

In a statement, White House spokesperson Liz Huston said, “Under President Trump’s bold leadership, the Kennedy Center is on its way to becoming the finest cultural institution anywhere in the world

Another federal judge last month temporarily blocked efforts to close the facility and requested that the board provide a financial plan to justify the closure.

UK records its hottest day of the year as the temperature in west London reaches 38.1 degrees Celsius.

Millions of people across Europe, including in France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom are sweltering through another wave of extreme temperatures as the continent’s latest heatwave intensifies.

Weather agencies recorded temperatures of above 35C (95F) in several European countries on Thursday, where more than 135 million people had been forecast to endure more scorching weather.

The UK recorded its hottest day of the year as the temperature in west London soared to 38.1C (100.5F), surpassing the previous high of 38C (100.4F) in June.

Europe is the planet’s fastest-warming continent and in some places, is ill-equipped to deal with hot weather.

A series of heatwaves and drought have fuelled a summer of wildfires and been linked to thousands of deaths so far.

Scientists blame ever hotter and more frequent heatwaves on climate change caused by human activity.

Nurses, patients suffer in UK

In Britain, nurses have collapsed from heat exhaustion while working in hospitals that lack adequate cooling, the Royal College of Nursing said on Thursday.

“The heat has been unbearable here, honestly,” pharmacist Bailey Williamson told the AFP news agency. Patients in hospital were also hard-hit, said NHS worker Williamson.

“People in beds are really, really sick and they can’t even breathe because of the heat problem – so it’s really bad.”

Hospitals had recorded an increase in heatstroke cases and the NHS was struggling to keep up, he added.

“It’s scary, it’s scary,” Williamson said of the summer’s heatwaves. “I think it’s a real sign about how bad climate change has really got.”

Europe swelters

The France Meteo weather service recorded 38C (100.4F) in Paris and much of the country has been put on heatwave alert.

Similar temperatures were forecast to affect 29 million Italians, particularly along the west coast, in the Po Valley, the “heel” of the boot of Italy, as well as on the islands.

Large parts of the Iberian Peninsula were also likely to be affected, including some 25 million people in Spain.

Spain’s Aemet weather agency recorded temperatures as high as 37C (98.6F) in the centre of the country on Thursday.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — Gun control groups are concerned that the Trump administration has yet to appeal a federal court ruling last week that struck down parts of the National Firearms Act that limited deregulated short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and silencers

U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas ruled Aug. 5 that federal restrictions on gun control could not stand after last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated a $200 fee to transfer or produce certain firearms.

Hendrix gave a one-week deadline to request a stay of his ruling, which expired early Thursday.

“Today, our government is failing us,” Brady President Kris Brown said in a statement on Thursday. “At midnight, uniquely lethal weapons and devices — including silencers, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns — were deregulated for the first time in nearly a century. The Department of Justice had the opportunity to act to protect our safety, but it failed to do so.”

A Department of Justice official reportedly told news outlets the Justice Department “is currently assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.”

“The Department of Justice’s decision is a failure to defend public safety,” Emma Brown, executive director of gun-control group Giffords, said in a statement.

“For nearly 100 years, Congress has required background checks before someone could buy a silencer, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun,” she continued. “These commonsense safeguards keep these dangerous devices out of the wrong hands. Silencers make it harder for law enforcement to detect and locate active shooters. And short-barreled rifles and shotguns are easily concealable and extremely dangerous.

The lawsuit in Texas consolidated two separate cases. The first one was brought by B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, 15 Republican-controlled states and several individuals.

The second lawsuit was filed by the Texas State Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several others.

Hendrix’s ruling only applies to the parties in the two cases.

“For nearly a century, Americans have been forced to beg the federal government for permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Erich Practt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, said in a statement. “That changes tonight.”

Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop announced two of its members “lawfully acquired suppressors without complying with the currently enjoined registration requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934.”

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Israeli military ordered Palestinians to evacuate 15 homes in the West Bank village of Qusra in a move to clear Israeli illegal outposts in the area.

The military rescinded the order to evacuate after it became public in the media. The settlers have been in the Palestinian homes since Sunday. It was not immediately made clear why the military needed to remove the Palestinians to get the settlers out of the area.

Some Palestinians were able to return to their homes, but one of the two families told The Times of Israel that they still can’t get to their house.

U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee called the Israeli settlers “terrorists” and said the military went to the area because of his request.

“Actions by those who carried out this horrific act of terror meant to intimidate and harass this family are disgusting. No excuse for such thuggish behavior,” Huckabee posted on X.

The military said troops were in Qusra since Thursday morning and are there “to protect the residents and maintain security in the area.”

A similar operation on Wednesday failed.

Residents said the military destroyed all the structures erected by settlers. But Palestinian residents said they’re still too afraid to leave their homes.

Qusay Abu Ridi, a trapped Palestinian, told the BBC that his house had been attacked again overnight and that a few settlers were still hiding from the military.

His brother, who owns the property, is a Palestinian-American businessman who complained to the U.S. embassy.

The siege in Qusra started Sunday when settlers blocked the road to the Palestinian families’ gates and cut off their electricity and water, the BBC reported. The first Israeli soldiers to arrive prayed with the settlers’ families. The Israeli military said they would face discipline for that later.

The Abu Ridi and Hassan families made appeals for help on social media.

The attacks happened in multiple Palestinian towns and villages, including Qusra, where a mosque was burned in late July. Footage from the scene showed graffiti left on the Al-Rahma Mosque in Hebrew reading “Benayahu’s revenge” and other messages.

The settlers have said their goal is to remove Palestinians from the area.

According to the United Nations, 76 Palestinians, including 18 children, have been killed in the West Bank this year by Israeli forces or settlers. Three Israelis have been killed.

Since January 2023, 127 Palestinian communities in the West Bank have been fully or partially displaced, affecting more than 6,390 Palestinians, the U.N. said.

The initial step taken on August 14, 2001 cannot be viewed merely as the submission of a political party’s founding petition within the annals of international political history; rather, it is the reincarnation of a millennium-old, deep-rooted civilisational vision on the modern world stage. Today, having left a quarter of a century behind, the AK Party is not merely a tale of national development within its borders, but an unparalleled 25-year epic of democracy on a global scale. Coming to power with immense public favour just 16 months after its founding, and steering the country with uninterrupted stability for a quarter of a century, this political movement has secured a highly exceptional place in world political history.

The greatest power behind this stability lies in the fact that this movement is not a rootless structure blown about by the wind. It carries on its shoulders, as a historical trust, the democratic struggle of the late Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and his companions, who sacrificed their lives for the nation’s beliefs during the arduous days of the single-party era. The mighty plane tree founded by our President and Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdogan – under whose shade our nation and oppressed geographies have drawn a breath of relief for 25 years – is the very embodiment of this tremendous historical legacy.

While the lifespans of political parties are generally measured by election results or their terms in government, the AK Party’s ability to overcome successive global and national crises with the continuous support of vastly diverse social segments over 25 years can be explained by a much more structural concept: Its “capacity for political translation”.

This capacity is the process of accurately hearing the expectations, needs, and objections within society, transforming them into viable party programmes, budgets, and public policies, and submitting the resulting outcomes back for societal evaluation. Social needs do not always arrive in politics as ready-made texts; it is here that the AK Party has established a colossal “translation” mechanism that turns seemingly disparate experiences into common problems and solutions. Indeed, for someone of a generation like mine – who grew up in a Turkiye shaped by the AK Party, took on responsibilities in its youth branches since childhood, and today serves as a member of parliament and the party’s secretary-general – this political ground is the very essence of that transformation.

To grasp the magnitude of this transformation, one must look back at the Turkiye of the 1990s. It is essential to read those years not just as an “era of a unipolar world and severe economic crises”, but as a colossal “age of political collapse and instability” that paralysed the state and deepened societal fault lines.

The 90s were a lost decade in which fragile coalitions lasting only months, political bargaining and recurring crises shook state authority. While unsolved murders and an escalating spiral of terror threatened citizens’ lives on the one hand, the heavy fist of tutelage brought down upon civilian politics via the February 28 post-modern coup explicitly usurped the nation’s will on the other. Even though voter turnout reached 87 percent in parliamentary elections during that era, this high public interest in politics could not translate into a stable and effective governing capacity, with no single party able to form a majority government.

The closure of the Refah Party in 1998 and the Fazilet Party in 2001 through judicial tutelage created a profound crisis regarding the continuity of legitimate channels of representation for the masses. Therefore, the year 2001 was a historical threshold – not merely a year of economic bankruptcy marked by cash registers being thrown in protest, but the absolute peak of political fragmentation, tutelary regimes, governance vulnerabilities, and constitutional rights remaining strictly on paper. Inheriting this multidimensional political and economic wreckage, the AK Party built the world’s most experienced cadres in every field, from security to economics, from foreign policy to social policies, establishing a “game-changing” political style.

At the core of this game-changing politics lies the dismantling of the “state commands its citizens” mentality, replacing it with the principle that “the state is the servant of the nation”. Believing that true change lies in execution rather than packaging, the AK Party tore down the cold walls built between the state and the nation, making the nation’s red lines the same as the state’s.

The silent majority, who for decades had been left disheartened like “tenants” in their own homeland, rose with self-confidence to become the true “landlords” of their country. Today, as the world’s largest and most dynamic school of politics with more than 12 million members, the AK Party conducts politics not by pontificating from television screens, but by directly sharing the burdens of the people and keeping a finger on the pulse of the streets. The secret behind these victories is hidden in these devoted organisations that hold the nation’s consent above all else, and in the vision of the leader of this great march, our President and Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The party’s quarter-century has gone down in history not through noisy destructions and polarising conflicts, but through institutional “silent revolutions” woven stitch by stitch. The Health Transformation Program and national fighter jets and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) produced in the defence industry are the building blocks of this revolution.

Moreover, Turkiye does not view technological transformation merely as instrumental progress; it presents a brand new vision. By openly opposing the algorithmic exploitation of global digital giants, it advocates for a value-oriented and ethical technological order that places human dignity, privacy, and the family at its centre. TEKNOFEST is not just a technology fair; it is a ceremony of institutional self-confidence where a generation – once intended to be manipulated in the streets during past coup eras – becomes the builder of this very moral and fully independent technological future.

The greatest outcome of this will for full independence is the historic struggle waged against the scourge of terrorism – which has made the nation weep blood – under the ideal of a “Terror-Free Turkiye”. Recipes dictated from the outside have been crumpled up and thrown away; terrorism has been dried up at its source, and the dirty corridors intended to be established at our borders have been shattered by the “Turkiye Model”. A Turkiye completely cleansed of terrorism has thwarted Israel’s expansionist ambitions built on dividing, weakening, and destabilising the region; it has become the greatest hope for the Palestinian cause, for Jerusalem, and for the oppressed in Gaza.

Viewing democracy not as a tool but as an unshakable value, this political mindset forever closed the dark parenthesis of tutelage opened on May 27, 1960, on the night of July 15, when the nation lay down in front of tanks and braved gun barrels. This democratic resilience achieved at home has today made Turkiye the vanguard of a global conscience movement abroad.

The objection raised by our President and Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdogan that “The World is Bigger Than Five!” has transformed into an “Erdogan Doctrine” that maps the conscience of humanity against those who fancy themselves masters of the globe. This quest for justice – embodied in the human tragedy in Gaza, in baby Aylan whose washed-up body shook the world, and in a little boy who recited the Quran with his last breath under the rubble – is the clearest indicator of Turkiye’s determination to defend the rights of the innocent in international diplomacy.

Today, moving far beyond being a passive ally in global politics, Turkiye has risen to the position of a subject that rewrites the rules of the international system, produces solutions to geopolitical crises, and personally steers diplomatic change.

Having long transcended artificial agendas and polemics in domestic politics, the AK Party’s true power in this multipolar world lies not only in the country’s economic and strategic capacity. It lies in the unshakeable democratic legitimacy behind our President and Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdogan – one of the most senior and experienced heads of state in world politics – and in the profound trust that all oppressed peoples across the earth place in Turkiye.

Our tremendous state experience over the past quarter-century is our most solid reference; yet, this political movement, with its face always turned towards the future, is determined to build the “Century of Turkiye” vision on the axis of justice, compassion, and sustainable global peace by blending it with the nation’s internal dynamics. In this new age marked by great trials that deeply affect humanity, under the leadership of our President and Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdogan – who shapes global politics with his unparalleled state experience and vision in the international arena – Turkiye marches forward with strong steps, shoulder to shoulder with our nation, as a playmaker towards new targets and a bright new quarter-century.

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

Aug. 12 (UPI) — MyPillow founder Mike Lindell is refusing to concede defeat in the Minnesota governor’s Republican primary election, saying there were irregularities in the vote tallies.

Lindell lost by 11 points to Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth.

A reporter on his own network, LindellTV, asked him if he would concede if The Associated Press called it for Demuth, he answered: “Why would I listen to the AP?”

“There’s 265,000 votes left to count. I’m down by 18,000 now,” he said. “I’m not going to give up this race until the votes are counted. That’s nonsense.”

His own site shows Demuth as the winner by 11% with 99% of the votes counted as of 2 p.m. Wednesday.

Lindell, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump in his run for governor and has previously supported Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Lindell was sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation against a former employee of the company, which makes voting machines. Lindell claimed that the employee, Eric Coomer, had helped rig the 2020 election. In 2025, Lindell was ordered to pay Coomer $2.3 million.

Lindell stepped down from MyPillow leadership on Aug. 5 to focus on his campaign for governor.

“Minnesota deserves my full attention, and that’s exactly what I’m giving it,” He said in a statement on X at the time. “I’m all in, and I can’t wait to earn your vote.”

Demuth said her win is a “major milestone,” but said there was still the November election to win.

“Tonight, Minnesotans made it clear they are ready for real change — at the top. It’s time to end the fraud, restore common sense to our state government and return Minnesota to a place that works for families, seniors, businesses and our next generation,” the post said.

“Let’s go win in November!”

Demuth will face Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., in November’s election.

The Ebola outbreak currently ravaging the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was caused by a new transmission from animals to humans rather than by variants linked to earlier outbreaks, according to a new study published in the medical journal Nature Medicine.

The virus in eastern DRC has killed more than 2,000 people of 4,449 recorded cases, making it the fastest-moving Ebola outbreak on record. It was formally declared on May 15 , though genetic sequencing later revealed the virus had actually begun circulating in February.

On Wednesday, the World Health Organization (WHO) said the current Bundibugyo strain of the Ebola virus is spreading faster than health authorities can contain it and is on track to become the deadliest outbreak on record.

So what have scientists discovered about how it was transmitted to humans? And can it be contained?

Here’s what we know:

What does the new study say about this Ebola outbreak?

In a report published this week in the medical journal Nature Medicine, researchers from the DRC, Uganda, Belgium and other countries analysed the genetic make-up of virus samples from 22 patients in the DRC and Uganda. They found that the outbreak strain was genetically distinct from previous Bundibugyo Ebola viruses seen in outbreaks in 2007 and 2012.

The report suggested that the virus began with a new animal-to-human transmission incident, which then spread to other people.

The animal source has not been specified but the researchers said the outbreak in Uganda was linked to the outbreak in the DRC.

Earlier, health officials in the region said the outbreak is being driven by the rare Bundibugyo strain of the virus, for which no vaccine has yet been developed.

Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious diseases doctor with experience in Ebola and outbreak response, explained that the study citing a “new animal transmission” as the reason for the outbreak, does not mean that a new form of Ebola has suddenly emerged or that animals are now transmitting the virus differently.

“What the genomic data suggest is that the current outbreak began with a new ‘zoonotic spillover’ event – meaning the virus likely crossed independently from an animal reservoir into a person – rather than resulting from continued circulation or re-emergence of virus from a previous human outbreak,” she said.

“After that initial spillover, the outbreak has been driven predominantly by human-to-human transmission,” she added.

How dangerous is this strain of Ebola?

On Wednesday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that at its current pace, the current Ebola outbreak is on track to eclipse the West African outbreak of 2014 to 2016. That crisis killed at least 11,300 people of a reported 28,600 cases and accelerated the push to develop a vaccine.

That was a different strain of the Ebola virus known as Zaire and the vaccine developed then does not work for the current strain, which is spreading.

Dr Abdirahman Mahamud, WHO’s director for health emergency alert and response operations, said the agency’s moderate projection has the outbreak peaking within six months. Under a more severe scenario, it could stretch on for nine to 12 months.

“Beyond the zoonotic spillover event from animals to humans, it is the human-to-human transmission dynamics of the Bundibugyo virus that make it dangerous,” Kaja Abbas, associate professor of infectious disease epidemiology and dynamics at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Nagasaki University, told Al Jazeera.

Dr Kuppalli also emphasised that the way this strain of the virus was initially transmitted to humans does not make it intrinsically more dangerous.

How is it treated?

Kuppalli said the animal origin of the virus does not change required treatment.

“Once someone develops Ebola disease, management is based on the virus causing the illness and the patient’s clinical condition, not whether their infection ultimately originated from an animal or from another person. What matters here is that Bundibugyo virus (BDBV) currently does not have the same licensed, proven virus-specific therapeutics that we have for Zaire ebolavirus,” she said.

“Supportive care, which includes aggressive fluid and electrolyte management, treatment of shock and organ dysfunction, and management of co-infections, remains critical, while investigational therapeutics are being evaluated,” she added.

“Ebola outbreaks have historically begun through zoonotic spillover. The bigger concern is what it tells us about our preparedness: we still do not fully understand where and when these spillover events will occur, making prevention and early detection extremely difficult.”

“In this outbreak, there also appears to have been substantial transmission before the outbreak was recognised, which gave the virus an opportunity to establish multiple chains of transmission,” she added.

What can be done to contain this outbreak?

Researchers who worked on the new study said increasing “decentralised laboratory diagnostics capacity, including genomic sequencing capacity and timely detection ” could help pre-empt future outbreaks.

Clinicians are also working to develop treatments.

“While no licensed treatments or vaccines exist today, experimental therapeutics and vaccines are in the clinical development pipeline that are specifically targeted towards the strains of the Bundibugyo virus currently circulating in the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the DRC and Uganda during 2026,” Abbas said.

While a vaccine against the latest strain is being developed, a WHO official said in May that medical supplies, including personal protective equipment (PPE) ⁠⁠to prevent Ebola, were being sent to ⁠⁠the DRC.

“We have sent 12 tonnes of supply. An additional six are arriving. These include personal protective equipment for ⁠⁠front-line health workers [and] samples,” Anne Ancia, WHO representative in the DRC’s Ituri province, told media in May.

At the forefront of the fight to break the spread in the DRC are health workers who have been treating patients while also dealing with the risk of becoming infected themselves.

More than 100 health workers have been infected and about 35 have died.

The response to the outbreak has been further complicated by several factors, including strikes by unpaid health workers, misinformation and cultural traditions. These have included open-casket family burials of some of those killed by the virus, potentially increasing the risk of further transmission.

Kuppalli said better Ebola preparedness is required, not just focusing on stopping transmission once an outbreak has been recognised.

“We also need much stronger health surveillance at the human-animal interface, broader diagnostics capable of detecting different Ebola viruses and medical countermeasures that work across Ebola species,” she said.

“This outbreak is showing us the consequences when the virus gets a several-month head start.”

How have other countries responded?

Many countries have raised concerns about the latest Ebola virus outbreak and some, such as Bahrain, have suspended entry for 30 days for foreign travellers arriving from South Sudan, the DRC and Uganda.

Neighbouring countries, including Rwanda and Uganda, have introduced measures to prevent the virus from crossing their borders.

Rwanda imposed health restrictions, including barring entry to foreign travellers who had been in the DRC in the previous 30 days.

The US warned that travellers, including US citizens, who have been in the DRC within 21 days before departure will not be allowed to board commercial flights to US destinations.

Governments across Asia have also begun introducing border screening and bolstering quarantine preparedness.

Three nations to group ministers, hold ⁠joint exercises and deepen defence industry cooperation under the pact signed last week.

Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will group senior ministers, hold ⁠joint exercises and deepen defence industry cooperation under a military pact signed between the regional powers last week, Turkiye’s defence ministry says.

The three countries on August 7 signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement on August 7, which stipulates that an armed attack against any member would be regarded as ‌an attack on all, similar to NATO’s Article 5 collective defence clause.

At a weekly briefing in Ankara on Thursday, the Turkish defence ministry said the pact’s fundamental goal was to ensure defence and military ties were put on a “more institutional and sustainable” footing.

“Under the accord, strategic political and military mechanisms plan to be established involving the Defence Ministers, Foreign Ministers, and Chiefs of General ⁠Staff/Armed Forces Commanders, and that coordination among the three countries will ⁠be conducted at the highest level,” it said.

The ministry added that joint military exercises involving land, naval and air forces, as well as air defence and unmanned systems were planned, in ⁠addition to deeper defence industry cooperation.

“The aim is to provide not only product and system supply, but also joint ⁠development and production, technology cooperation, and sustainable maintenance and ⁠logistics support,” it said, adding that unmanned and autonomous systems, electronic warfare and artificial intelligence capabilities would be prioritised.

Turkiye, which has NATO’s second-largest army, has said the pact with nuclear-armed Pakistan and top oil ‌exporter Saudi Arabia was open to expansion — with Egypt as a potential candidate — and did not seek to replace any existing alliances.

The ministry also said Turkiye ‌was ‌participating in meetings in Jeddah aimed at establishing an international coalition to protect Red Sea shipping.

On developments in the Middle East, ministry spokesperson Rear Admiral Zeki Akturk said lasting peace and stability in the region would be possible if Israel ends its occupation and attacks in Gaza and Lebanon.

He said Israel continues attacks that have deepened the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, as also reflected in United Nations reports.

“Israel’s rejection of the 15-point Gaza Plan has been another indication that it is pursuing a policy of regional expansionism. On the other hand, despite the framework agreement that was signed, Israel similarly continues its attacks and military activities in southern Lebanon,” Akturk said, referring to the plan proposed by the United States.

“We once again emphasise that it is essential for the international community to take a more determined and stronger stance against Israel’s actions by upholding international law and humanitarian values in order to establish peace and stability in the region,” he said.

Iran continues to deny claims by the United States that it controls the Strait of Hormuz as talks aimed at negotiating a peace deal between the two sides falter.

US President Donald Trump repeated his claim that the US is in “total control” of the critical waterway on Wednesday, but was met with angry denials from Iran, which has stated that it will not reopen the strait until demands regarding US aggression, reparations and sanctions are met.

“Claims and repeated posts by US officials that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer blocked do not change the reality,” Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) posted on X on Wednesday.

“The Strait of Hormuz remains blocked and will not be reopened until Iran’s conditions are accepted,” it added.

Here’s what we know about the latest developments in the strait, through which one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime, and the prospects for ongoing talks.

What’s the latest on the US-Iran standoff?

Iranian forces are currently preventing ships that do not have its express approval from navigating through the narrow strait, which passes through territorial waters of Iran and Oman.

Despite Trump’s claim that the US has control over the strait, shipping traffic through the key waterway has dropped to a one-week low as a result of Iran’s blockade.

Meanwhile, the US is operating a naval blockade on Iranian ports both in and around the strait. On Tuesday, US forces targeted a Panama-flagged vessel they said was headed for an Iranian port, in the Gulf of Oman, and which they alleged had failed to respond to warnings.

On Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US “has long miscalculated due to intelligence failures”, including when launching its war on Iran, which it did alongside Israel with strikes on Tehran on February 28.

In a post on X, Araghchi said Washington’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz were “an even bigger miscalculation”.

“Worse than fake news is fake intelligence,” he said.

Hojjatoleslam Hossein Taeb, the commander of the paramilitary Basij Organisation – an affiliate of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – reiterated that the strait is “under Iran’s control and management”.

“Today you see that the Strait of Hormuz is under the management and control of the Islamic Republic, and our country continues on its path in complete security,” Taeb said on Thursday, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency.

“The Americans saw the power of the Islamic revolution,” he added.

What do we know about Iran-Oman talks?

Iran says it is not talking directly to the US about the strait. Instead, it says it is holding talks with Oman, which it proposes to share in the future management of the strait.

Following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US on June 17, under which Iran undertook to keep the strait open for 60 days, there were soon disagreements about control of the waterway and the routes that ships should take. Iran fired on some ships it said had not followed its permitted route, leading to a renewal of hostilities with the US.

Iran also disagreed with the US over whether it could charge fees to ships passing through the strait. As a result, the strait – which was fully and freely open to all shipping before the US launched its war on Iran – has become the main obstacle to the progression of wider peace talks.

Now, talks between Iran and Oman are aimed at ironing out these issues.

On Tuesday, Qatar said negotiations between Iran and Oman over the strait had reached “an advanced stage”.

“As mediators, we want the Strait of Hormuz reopened as soon as possible,” Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari said during a news conference.

Negotiators are trying to reach a compromise that would allow commercial shipping to resume while addressing the security concerns of both Iran and Oman.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has said talks with Oman are focused on “establishing safe inbound and outbound shipping lanes” that “uphold sovereign rights while also addressing the national security considerations of both Iran and Oman”.

Last week, Iran said it had agreed on the coordinates for these shipping lanes with Oman.

What do we know about broader peace talks between Iran and the US?

Iran says it is not speaking directly to the US because it has violated the June 17 MoU by restarting strikes on Iran in July.

Now, Pakistan is making efforts to mediate peace talks. It said on Tuesday it was working to bring the US and Iran “to the negotiating table”, as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi held talks with senior Iranian officials in Tehran.

In April, the US and Iran held face-to-face negotiations, with US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf attending talks in Islamabad. On June 17, the two sides remotely signed the MoU, which was supposed to kick-start a 60-day negotiation process. However, various disagreements prevented that process from getting off the ground, and talks have stalled since then.

Alan Eyre, a distinguished diplomatic fellow with the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera earlier this month that the only important negotiations taking place right now are Iran-Oman talks over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran says it is not worth talking directly because it “can’t count on anything the US says”, Eyre said.

Commenting on the possibility of future talks between the longtime foes, Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the US-based Center for International Policy, said the key question is whether the escalatory rhetoric from both sides is “opening negotiating positions or actual red lines”.

“If both sides are prepared to compromise, there is still a path towards ending the conflict and reopening the strait,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

“If they are not, Hormuz could remain restricted, and the confrontation risks becoming another prolonged, open-ended conflict in the Middle East.”

What are the latest demands from Iran and the US?

At the end of last week, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council set out new conditions it says the US must meet before the Strait of Hormuz can fully reopen.

The six conditions include an end to US threats against Iran and insults to what Zolghadr described as the country’s national and religious values; a permanent end to attacks against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq; the lifting of the US naval blockade and withdrawal of naval and air forces from around Iran; compensation for damage from what he called two “imposed wars”; the lifting of sanctions; and the unconditional release of frozen Iranian assets.

Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that his administration was going to seek payment for “50 years” of damage caused by Iran, framing the move as a direct response to Tehran’s claims.

The payments, he said, would cover deaths among US forces in the region as well as civilian protesters in Iran, claiming that 52,000 people have been killed in Iran in the past four months. Tehran says some 3,117 people died in antigovernment protests that swept the country in January, prior to the launch of the US-Israel war. In February, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported about 7,000 deaths, including 6,500 protesters.

On Thursday, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assidi reported, citing observers, that Iran is focused on two primary issues.

“First was the security assurances Iran sought, ensuring that a reached deal could pave the way for a period of stability in the country,” Assidi said.

“Second were economic concerns, primarily articulated in demands for the US naval blockade to be removed and sanctions frozen, which represented the key demands coming from the Iranian side,” he added.

Despite the rhetoric from Trump, analysts have told Al Jazeera that the US may have to concede to some of Iran’s demands as it faces growing pressure domestically to avoid another escalation.

The US media have reported that concerns over dwindling defensive munitions have contributed to Trump’s decision not to carry out his threatened large-scale strikes against Iran.

JEJU ISLAND, South Korea, Aug. 12 (UPI) — The Korea Heritage Service announced Wednesday that Jeju Island’s Darangshi Cave was under final consideration for registration as a national cultural heritage site, highlighting its importance in exposing the government’s role in an early Cold War-era massacre and catalyzing a decades-long truth and reconciliation movement.

The cave was discovered on Dec. 22, 1991, in Jeju’s northeastern Sehwa village by researchers investigating the Jeju Massacre, the slaughter of some 30,000 islanders from 1947-54 mainly by government forces in an effort to snuff out a communist uprising. Inside were the remains of 11 people, including three women and a 9-year-old boy, local villagers who were hiding from the government’s scorched-earth operations of 1948.

The Korea Heritage Service described the site in a statement as being of “considerable academic value as a vivid historical location of the Jeju 4.3 Incident because it served as a catalyst for the movement to uncover the truth about the incident, became widely known to the general public through media coverage, and preserves much of the original form of the refuge.”

In the fall and winter of 1948-49, government forces under the government of newly inaugurated President Syngman Rhee conducted a scorched-earth campaign through Jeju’s mid-mountain region. Under an October order, all but a 5-kilometer band of the island’s coast was prohibited and anyone found within that quarantine zone would be considered a rebel and shot on sight.

On Dec. 18, 1948, residents of Hado and Jongdal villages were living inside Darangshi Cave when it was discovered by punitive forces. Fires were lit at the cave’s mouth and all inside asphyxiated.

Thousands of islanders fleeing government repression took to hiding in the mountains and were killed during the four-month scorched-earth operation. Hundreds of villages in the zone were razed, many never to be restored. For decades after, public discussion of the state’s responsibility was suppressed while families of victims and survivors were forced to live stigmatized as communists and communist sympathizers.

After the cave was publicized, the government sealed its entrance and forced the families of the victims to cremate the bodies of their loved ones who were found inside, and to scatter their ashes at sea.

The discovery of the cave is considered a watershed moment in literally unearthing the truth of the Jeju Massacre and galvanizing a truth movement that would culminate in President Roh Moo-hyun offering Jeju an official state apology on Oct. 31, 2003.

Ko Chang-hoon, a retired professor at Jeju National University, was the head of the Jeju 4.3 Research Institute at the time when it discovered the cave. He told UPI that he and his team publicized the cave’s discovery on April 2, 1992, so reports would be published in newspapers the following day, the 44th anniversary of the start of the massacre.

The discovery of Darangshi Cave was “the cornerstone” of the movement, he said.

Compared to other massacres and incidents of state violence, the Jeju Massacre had little evidence up until that point that the majority of the deaths were committed by the government, he said.

“It is a first as a whole document,” he said.

According to a statement from the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, artifacts illustrating the circumstances at the time and what life in hiding from government forces was like remain in the cave, while the area around it has been transformed in recent years into a site of education and remembrance.

The province last year applied to the Korea Heritage Service to register the cave as a National Registered Cultural Heritage propertty after it obtained approval from the provincial Cultural Heritage Committee.

“Darangshi Cave is a historic site that bears the pain of residents seeking refuge and being killed en masse during Jeju 4.3,” Kim In-young, director general of Jeju Province’s Special Self-Governing Administration Bureau, said in a statement.

“We will actively cooperate with the Korea Heritage Service so that, following the Suak Garrison Post, it can become the second Jeju 4.3 site to be formally registered as National Registered Cultural Heritage.”

The Suak Garrison Post used in operations against communist guerrillas was designated in 2018.

The Korea Heritage Service will seek to register Darangshi Cave as national cultural heritage after a 30-day notice period to collect public opinions on the registration.

For Ko, who was among those who helped find the cave and make it nationally known, this recognition is “very, very important,” he said.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — Japan issued a stern rebuke to Moscow on Thursday after Russian President Vladimir Putin visited a disputed chain of islands off Hokkaido that were occupied by Russia at the end of World War II.

Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi in a post on X strongly condemned Putin’s visit to Etorofu Island — Iturup to the Russians — the third of the four southernmost Kiril Islands about 80 miles northeast of the Japanese mainland, saying it was part of Japan.

“We have received reports today that Russian President Putin has visited Etorofu Island. The Northern Four Islands, including Etorofu Island, are an inherent part of Japan’s territory — both historically and under international law — and Japan strongly protests this visit,” said Motegi.

Russia’s state-run TASS news agency said Putin visited Iturup as part of a trip to Russia’s Sakhalin region.

On the island, he met with Sakhalin region Governor Valery Limarenko, toured a fish-packing factory, visited a secondary school and spoke with residents.

Prior to visiting Iturup, Putin attended the final stage of drills of Russia’s Pacific Fleet off Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

TASS said it was his first visit to the islands which Russia calls the Kurils, and claims as part of its far eastern Sakhalin province, and Japan calls its Northern Territories.

The last senior Russian government official to visit the area was in 2021 when Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin visited Iturup.

The dispute is over the four islands at the southern end of the volcanic archipelago with Russia claiming them under the post-World War II world map that came out of the 1945 Yalta Agreement, months before the war ended, first in Europe, and then in the Pacific.

Japan’s position is that Yalta only contained a non-binding recommendation that the islands should go to Russia, that it was not a party to the agreement and that Russia’s invasion of the Kirils in 1945 was in breach of a neutrality pact signed by the two countries in 1941.

The long-running dispute means that as far as Russia and Japan are concerned, World War II hostilities technically never ended as they never formally signed a peace treaty.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Trump administration’s decision to close the U.S. Consulate in Medan, Indonesia, may save relatively little money. But it risks weakening American influence in one of the Indo-Pacific’s most strategically important regions at a time when Washington says competition with China is its foremost foreign policy priority.

The Medan consulate is small compared with the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta or major diplomatic posts elsewhere in Asia. Yet, its strategic value has long exceeded its size.

Situated on the island of Sumatra, the consulate serves roughly 60 million Indonesians across 10 provinces, supports U.S. commercial interests, advances educational and environmental partnerships and provides Washington with a permanent presence near the Strait of Malacca — one of the world’s busiest maritime corridors.

The proposed closure comes as the United States seeks to deepen its Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest economy, the world’s largest Muslim-majority democracy and an increasingly influential G20 member.

Those ambitions sit uneasily alongside a shrinking American diplomatic footprint in one of Indonesia’s most important regions.

For years, U.S. officials have argued that competition with China extends beyond military deployments and naval exercises. It also depends on trade, investment, educational exchanges, environmental cooperation and people-to-people ties.

Those objectives require diplomats on the ground, particularly outside national capitals where many of today’s political and commercial relationships are forged.

“The administration should reconsider closing a strategically located consulate near the Strait of Malacca,” Patrick Cronin, chair for Asia-Pacific Security at the Hudson Institute, told UPI. “Recent tensions around the Strait of Hormuz remind us how indispensable the Strait of Malacca remains to global commerce.”

Sumatra is one of Indonesia’s economic engines, producing energy, palm oil, coffee, rubber and other commodities, while anchoring important shipping and trade routes across the Malacca Strait and the Indian Ocean.

The island accounts for a large share of Indonesia’s palm oil production, while its provinces are also major exporters of rubber, coal, agricultural products and manufactured goods.

North Sumatra recorded more than $3.5 billion in exports in 2025, while South Sumatra recorded $6.3 billion. American companies operating in energy, agribusiness, manufacturing and logistics therefore have commercial interests that extend well beyond Jakarta, including relationships with provincial governments, suppliers, ports, industrial estates and local business communities.

A diplomatic presence in Medan provides U.S. officials with a base for supporting those relationships, monitoring commercial conditions and helping American companies navigate regulatory and administrative issues in a region central to Indonesia’s trade and resource economy.

“It will reinforce the perception that the United States is shrinking its footprint in Southeast Asia,” Murray Hiebert, head of research at BowerGroupAsia, told UPI. “Closing Medan also removes the only permanent U.S. diplomatic presence near the Strait of Malacca.”

Unlike many countries where political authority is concentrated in one capital, Indonesia’s decentralized system gives provincial governments considerable influence over investment, environmental management and economic development. Relationships built through a regional consulate cannot easily be replicated through periodic visits from embassy officials based in Jakarta.

Indonesia also occupies a distinctive place in Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy. It is neither a treaty ally nor a strategic adversary, but an independent regional power that has consistently pursued its long-standing “free and active” foreign policy. Jakarta has resisted choosing sides between Washington and Beijing, preferring to cultivate strong ties with both.

Ted Osius, former U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, who also served as president and CEO of the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council, said Washington has spent years strengthening its partnership with Indonesia as both countries seek closer trade and defense cooperation.

“The annual cost of operating the U.S. Consulate in Medan, staffed by just two American diplomats serving an island of more than 60 million people, is roughly equivalent to one minute of Pentagon spending during the conflict with Iran,” Osius told UPI. “The modest savings from closing the post would come at a disproportionate strategic cost.”

China has long recognized that influence is built through sustained local engagement as much as national diplomacy. Over the past decade, Beijing has expanded its presence across Indonesia through infrastructure projects, mining investments, industrial cooperation and Belt and Road financing.

Chinese companies dominate Indonesia’s rapidly growing nickel-processing industry, while the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway has become Beijing’s flagship infrastructure project in Southeast Asia.

Chinese engagement extends well beyond Jakarta. Provincial governments across the archipelago work directly with Chinese companies, universities and local officials, allowing Beijing to deepen relationships through consistent local engagement rather than high-profile diplomatic initiatives alone.

Against that backdrop, reducing the American presence outside the capital risks reinforcing perceptions that Washington’s commitment is narrowing rather than expanding.

The implications extend beyond geopolitics. Sumatra contains some of the world’s richest tropical forests, including the Leuser Ecosystem, one of the few places where orangutans, elephants, rhinos and tigers still co-exist in the wild. These forests also rank among the world’s most important carbon sinks, making them central to global biodiversity and climate efforts.

“We should not be closing the U.S. Consulate in Medan,” Robert Blake, a former U.S. ambassador and now senior managing director at McLarty Associates, told UPI. “Despite its relatively small operating cost, the consulate punches well above its weight.

“It enables U.S. diplomats to engage with Sumatra’s 60 million people, promotes American business in a region rich in energy, palm oil and coffee, and supports Indonesia’s efforts to protect Sumatra’s unique biodiversity — a globally significant natural heritage and one of the world’s most important carbon sinks.”

That work has included support for conservation partnerships, scientific cooperation, educational exchanges and civil society initiatives. As climate change increasingly intersects with national security and economic policy, environmental diplomacy has become another arena in which countries build long-term influence.

The Medan consulate has served as a regional presence in North Sumatra, providing U.S. diplomats with direct access to local officials, business leaders, universities, civil society organizations and other institutions outside Indonesia’s capital.

Its location also gives Washington a base for monitoring developments across a strategically important part of the country, including trade, investment, maritime activity and regional ties.

Closing or consolidating that presence would shift more of those functions to the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta and other regional posts, potentially changing how frequently American officials engage with counterparts in Sumatra.

Supporters of consolidation argue that modern communications and periodic travel can substitute for permanent regional offices, particularly during a period of fiscal restraint. But diplomacy remains fundamentally relational. Trust develops through sustained interaction, familiarity with local institutions and networks that cannot be built through occasional visits.

Whether the closure ultimately proceeds is less important than what it signals. Throughout the Indo-Pacific, Washington contends that strategic competition with China will be won not only through military strength, but also through sustained economic, diplomatic and societal engagement. That strategy depends on people, institutions and local relationships built over decades — not only on high-level summits or defense agreements.

The annual savings from closing a small consulate in Medan are likely to be modest. The strategic cost may be harder to measure.

James Borton is a non-resident senior fellow at Johns Hopkins SAIS Foreign Policy Institute and the author of Harvesting the Waves: How Blue Parks Shape Policy, Politics, and Peacebuilding in the South China Sea. Borton is the editor-in-chief of the South China Sea NewsWire. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Trump administration has filed fraud-related charges against a former Southern Poverty Law Center official who testified during the Jan. 6 insurrection investigation, as its crack down on the anti-hate group and President Donald Trump‘s perceived opponents.

The Justice Department originally charged SPLC in an 11-count indictment in April, alleging that the frequent target of right-wing criticism had defrauded donors by using their money to pay informants within hate groups they were monitoring. The Trump administration has framed the payments as paying the hate groups it was supposed to monitor, such as the KKK. SPLC vehemently denies the allegations.

On Wednesday, federal prosecutors unveiled a superseding indictment against Heidi Beirich, 59, a political extremism expert and former SPLC chief financial officer, and the SPLC, charing them with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to submit false statements to a federally insured bank.

Beirich, of Palm Springs, Calif., was arrested Wednesday morning, FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement.

“The indictment unsealed today reflects the continued work of federal investigators and prosecutors in examining this alleged scheme,” U.S. Attorney Thomas Govan said in a statement.

“We look forward to presenting the evidence in court and allowing the judicial process to determine the facts and the defendants’ responsibility for the alleged crimes.”

The SPLC has long faced criticism from some Republicans and conservatives, who say the prominent anti-hate group has drifted from its mission of fighting extremism and White supremacy by labeling several right-wing organizations as hate groups.

Pressure from the White House has mounted on the group since Trump returned to the helm of the government. The Trump administration has brought a number of federal and civil prosecutions against the president’s perceived opponents, attracting criticism from judicial and civil rights advocates as well as Democrats who accuse it of weaponizing the Justice Department.

As an expert in far-right extremist political violence, Beirich, in her role as co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, testified before the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection attempt by Trump supporters, stating that there was substantial political and personal overlap between the Proud Boys and Trump’s movement.

In October, FBI Director Kash Patel severed ties with the SPLC, saying it had “long abandoned civil rights work and turned into a partisan smear machine.”

The April indictment alleges that between 2014 and 2023, SPLC paid some $3 million in donated funds to members of violent extremist groups. In the superseding indictment unveiled Wednesday, the Justice Department no contends that it paid more than $4 million between 2007 and 2023.

During an unrelated press conference on Wednesday, newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer of the president, said Beirich is believed to have been part of an effort “to open bank accounts in completely fictitious companies’ names to make payments to individuals for reasons that were not accurate as described.”

Michael Proctor, Beirich’s attorney, accused the Trump administration of using the justice system to silence its political opponents.

“Heidi Beirich has dedicated her life to fighting hate groups and extremist movements like the KKK, neo-Nazis and other White supremacists,” Proctor said in a statement, NBC News reported.

“She has combatted these hateful, ugly and un-American extremists and their repeated uses of violence and intimidation in order to promote a fairer, safer and more just America. Her decades-long record of success dismantling hate groups — and the resulting threats to her life — speak volumes. For this, she has been indicted.”

Ein el-Hilweh, occupied West Bank – Adel Daraghmeh lies on his side on a thin mattress laid straight onto the dusty ground, one arm flung out, a sandal hanging half off his foot. “We don’t sleep, we barely drink, we barely eat,” he says weakly.

Above him, a patchwork of dark tarpaulins and old blankets is tied together between a few bent wooden poles – the only thing standing between his family and a sun pushing past 43 degrees Celsius (109 degrees Fahrenheit) in the early afternoon.

They are homeless again – their home destroyed days before by an Israeli bulldozer despite a court injunction they believed protected them. Beside him, his wife, Kheirieh, sits on a chair, a small plastic cup of water cradled in both hands.

About 30 metres up a slope, a settler-built fence now cuts across the hillside, cutting Adel and his brothers off from land their flocks grazed for generations. Past the fence, on the crest of the hill, an Israeli flag flies – visible from where Adel lies. “Isn’t this a disgrace, what we are living in?” he asks, more than once, over the course of an hour.

Adel manages diabetes with daily medication, but it’s been a struggle to obtain it in recent days. “They bulldozed the medication [in the house],” says Adel. “Our things, our household goods – all gone. They destroyed us. Our phones, the solar panels – no electricity, no water.”

As the family has learned in recent weeks, as Israel gears up for fiercely contested elections in October, even an Israeli Supreme Court injunction may not stop the bulldozers from coming now.

‘Five minutes to clear the whole area’

The wreckage of the Daraghmehs’ house is still scattered: clothes, a pulverised medicine cabinet, a hollowed-out mini-fridge with its door hanging open, and split cinderblocks.

Even after their son Hilal’s home was demolished shortly before without warning, the July 28 demolition of Adel and Kheirieh’s home came as a shock. With Adel a short drive away in Tubas collecting medication, Kheirieh was home with their daughter, Hanaa, when Israeli soldiers, settlers and Civil Administration officials arrived with a bulldozer and about 10 other vehicles. “They came while I was asleep,” she says.

Kheirieh walked out to meet them with the family’s legal papers – proof, she believed, that the home was protected by an earlier Israeli Supreme Court order barring demolition until the family’s case was resolved.

The court had suspended a 2022 demolition order while a case brought forward by the family progressed.

Soldiers took the documents, read them, conferred among themselves, and handed them back.

Then the bulldozer started anyway.

“Five minutes to clear the whole area,” one of them told her, she says.

“I told him: I can’t. I can’t clear the area. I’m on my own, and I’m ill,” she says. Already sick, and now seeing the bulldozers bearing down on her home with nearly everything she owned inside, she blacked out, waking up three hours later in an ambulance.

“And before I knew it, the bulldozer had started,” she says. “The whole house – all of it. All our belongings. Gone.”

“No order, no law,” added Adel weakly from the ground. “No humanity.”

‘Discriminatory’ system

“The army and the settlers demolished … despite the existence of a court order prohibiting it,” says Tawfiq Jabareen, the lawyer representing the Daraghmeh family, referring to the initial July 2 demolition of Hilal’s home. “The prosecution claimed it was a mistake by the army, and that it would not happen again – but the demolition was repeated.”

“The law and court rulings mean nothing to the settlers,” adds Jabareen, “who try to circumvent them by every means, believing that imposing facts on the ground is stronger than any law or court ruling.”

The Daraghmehs are herders of livestock who have lived along the Ein el-Hilweh spring, in the northern Jordan Valley, for generations. Four brothers and their families live in the area. “I was born here,” Adel says. “My father was born here.”

Nearby are the illegal Israeli settlement of Maskiyot and several settler outposts established in recent years, subjecting the extended family to numerous attacks, thefts and raids.

Like herding communities across Area C of the West Bank – under complete Israeli military and administrative control – the family has spent years navigating demolition orders under a planning system that leaves Palestinians almost no legal path to build.

Adel has had his home demolished before and spent significant money to rebuild it, he explains. What’s different now, they say, is that even that limited process – a warning, a demolition order, followed by a chance to appeal – has stopped applying to them at all. No demolition order was presented for either Hilal’s home or Adel’s when they came to bulldoze them despite the court injunctions.

Soldiers, settlers and Civil Administration officials arrived together during the demolitions, according to the family and activists present.

Allegra Pacheco, chief of party of the West Bank Protection Consortium and a lawyer who has represented Palestinians before Israeli courts for decades, says the irregularity of such demolitions is no aberration in an otherwise functioning system.

“This is a continuation of the deterioration of any pretence of legal protection for Palestinians,” she says. Even the ordinary planning process was built to fail Palestinians, she argues. Under a zoning system inherited from Jordanian and British Mandate-era law, Israel changed some of the laws to the detriment of Palestinians, leaving most Palestinian areas in Area C without approved building plans, while Israeli settlements – illegal under international law – are zoned and built freely.

“The Israelis set up the system to be discriminatory and to fail Palestinians,” says Pacheco. “So people build anyway, get the stop-work order, then demolition [order] – which you can appeal. But you’re appealing to the one who made the rule to discriminate against Palestinian construction.

“There’s no way for Palestinians in general to win under the current Israeli legal framework.”

As lines blur between authorities and settlers, who exactly spearheaded the demolition – soldiers, settlers, the Civil Administration – was unclear even to the family. “They’re all the same when they come,” says Hilal. “They’re all together.”

According to the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), since January 2023, more than 6,200 Palestinians, including more than 3,000 children, have been forcibly displaced, including more than 2,300 people since the beginning of 2026 alone. More than 907 Palestinian structures in the occupied West Bank have already been demolished this year.

Al Jazeera reached out to Israeli authorities and the military for comment on the events described in this article, but no response has yet been received.

‘Nothing is holding them back’

A short walk from the rubble of his parents’ home – and his own – Hilal sits under the shade of a tree beside the spring that sustained his family for generations, one that he and his flocks can no longer use.

Minutes earlier, he’d watched two settlers cool off at the spring, dousing themselves with water as one of them changed into a military uniform on the bank.

Hilal’s own remaining cattle – most of the herd already stolen, confiscated or sold – scrounge instead for whatever run-off is left once the settlers are gone. “We used to drink from this spring, and carry water on the donkey,” he says. “But they stopped us. The settlers fenced it off.”

Later, he rides his donkey across the road to what remains of his home. What had been walls and a roof is now a field of scorched rubble and gnarled metal piping, bent and knotted where the bulldozer dragged it. On his donkey, Hilal points to where each room had stood. He estimates the losses at 170,000 shekels ($57,000).

“Not a single thing I got to take – all of it is gone,” he says.

Next door, at the home of Adel’s brother, Qadri – which was previously demolished in August last year – several relatives, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal, describe an extended family bracing for its turn.

“Nothing is holding them back now,” one son says. “They don’t even need an order any more. Of course we are scared they will come for us next.”

Prevented from rebuilding by nearby settlers and soldiers, Adel and Kheirieh now rely on relatives for help getting basic supplies. “All of our family helps each other,” says one relative, “but it is so hard when we don’t have enough, and we might be next.”

Following earlier thefts by settlers and confiscations from authorities a year and a half ago, the family had another 50 head of cattle stolen by settlers, they say.

Amid deteriorating health, an exhausted, heat-stricken Adel sits up from lying on the ground only when the topic of past weddings comes up. His hoarse voice strengthens, and he breaks into a wide smile. Softly, he begins clapping out the rhythm of a dahiyyeh – the sung, chanted line-dance of Bedouin celebrations – his wavering voice rising over the sound of his own hands.

“What beautiful times together,” he says. “Beautiful.”

Then, as if that singing expended the last of his dwindling energy, he sinks back onto the sweat-stained mattress and exhales. “Inshallah those times will return,” he says. “Inshallah.”

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.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — American astronaut Mike Fincke announced he was retiring Wednesday following 30 years of service and 549 days in space, ranking fourth most among NASA astronauts.

Fincke, 59, joined NASA in 1996 and first flew to space in 2004. During his career, Fincke flew four missions and completed nine spacewalks in support of the International Space Station for a total of 48 hours and 37 minutes.

“After exactly 30 years, I am departing NASA, but I remain deeply committed to the work of exploration,” Fincke said in a statement.

“NASA gave me the extraordinary privilege of serving alongside remarkable people, flying and helping develop spacecraft, and contributing to the International Space Station from its earliest days through command in orbit.”

According to NASA, the Emsworth, Pa., native was involved in spacecraft development, flight testing and mission operations, and during the early days of the ISS program he helped test and integrate several of the station’s initial modules before launch.

His flight experience spanned generations of space vehicles and he was a mission specialist and robotic arm operator on STS-134, the final flight of space shuttle Endeavour.

“Few people have had the opportunity to shape as many chapters of NASA’s history as Mike Fincke,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said in a statement.

“Over a remarkable career, Mike served our nation as a pilot, engineer, astronaut and mentor. From long-duration missions aboard the International Space Station to helping prepare the Artemis generation, his contributions have helped position NASA for what comes next.”

Fincke’s retirement comes after he identified himself as the astronaut who experienced a medical event, prompting Crew-11 to return to Earth early from the International Space Station in January. It was time NASA returned a crew early from the space station for a medical reason. Fincke has not disclosed the cause of the medical event but said he needed to return to Earth “to take advantage of advanced medical imaging not available on the space station.”

“Mike Fincke was one of the OG station guys,” Scott Kelly, a retired NASA astronaut and former classmate and colleague of Fincke, said in a statement.

“Hee was there for the whole thing. Extraordinary career. I salute you!”

Aug. 12 (UPI) — Some 15.2 million people across the world — mostly Europe — live in the path of totality of Wednesday’s solar eclipse.

It marked the first total solar eclipse viewable from Europe since 1999, Space.com reported.

A solar eclipse happens when the moon passes between Earth and the sun, casting a shadow on Earth as it blocks the sun’s rays. In some areas, the phenomenon will be what’s known as a total solar eclipse, in which all but the very outer edges of the sun will be blocked by the moon.

About 12% of the world’s population, or 980 million people, live in areas where they were be able to view the solar eclipse. A much smaller portion, about. 0.2% or 15.2 million people, live in the path of totality.

The vast majority of the world was able to view the eclipse, though, so NASA set up a live stream of the view from multiple cameras in the path of the event.

The eclipse, which got underway around 11:30 a.m. EDT, was expected to be viewable across a chunk of the Northern Hemisphere, including most of western Europe, the very northern reaches of Russia, northwestern Africa, all of Greenland, Iceland and Canada, and the northeastern United States. The path of totality is expected to stretch in an arc from northern Russia, across the North Pole, down the east coast of Greenland and through Iceland, before passing across northern Spain and ending in the Mediterranean Sea.

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.”