united states

Venezuela’s National Assembly approved, in its first reading on Thursday, August 27, the reform of Article 65 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice. Why is a measure like this so important for Venezuela? Because it is the first institutional and legal step taken by the interim authorities that might lead to a genuine transitional process.

On August 12, the first agreement was signed between the delegation of the interim authorities and that of the National Assembly in 2015. But that is a political document, of which the reform of Article 65 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice would be the first true institutional implementation, a first legal step in a process that is just beginning and that, eventually, could take us to a transition.

Article 65 of the current law regulates the composition of the Nominations Committee: the body that selects citizens nominated for judgeships, from which the National Assembly chooses the judges. Currently, the Nominations Committee has 21 members: 11 members of the National Assembly and 10 members of civil society. The reform (which must be approved in its second reading in the National Assembly and then become law) would increase the number of Committee members from 21 to 23, but the most significant aspect is that these two additional members would come from civil society.

According to the political agreement of August 12, the National Assembly must appoint all 32 Justices of the Supreme Court.

In short, the reform allows for greater citizen participation in the choosing of the 32 justices, just after the agreement reached on August 12 to completely renew the country’s highest court, a key component of chavista’s hold to power during the 21st century. This shift, along with the other aspects of the August 12 agreement, could generate confidence for prestigious university professors and lawyers to apply in the upcoming process to form the new Supreme Court of Justice.

This reform could be followed by another, also structural in nature, concerning the same Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice (LOTSJ) and other laws of the justice system, as announced at the end of the first round of talks between the delegations of the interim authorities and the National Assembly in 2015. Therefore, this first step could be very important for moving toward a political transition. 

Naturally, the question that arises from the previous experience of two decades of dialogue between Chavismo and the opposition is how to prevent the regime from controlling the Nominations Committee and ensure that it has a loyal majority among the 12 members of civil society that it would have if this reform is approved.

The answer is the same as it applies to this process: unlike all previous negotiations, here there is a third party that, rather than being a mediator, has the most influence—a Trump administration that theoretically benefits from a safer legal environment for foreign investment, and therefore has incentives to ensure that this reform truly becomes an opening that leads to the restoration, albeit gradual, of Venezuelan institutions.

Order declares a national emergency over an ‘unusual and extraordinary foreign threat’ to the grid.

United States President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency over what his administration describes as security risks linked to foreign-made equipment used in the US electricity grid.

Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday that restricts the purchase and installation of certain foreign-produced equipment used in the bulk-power system.

The order cited an “unusual and extraordinary foreign threat” from foreign-made systems, saying they could create vulnerabilities for US national security.

The directive targets certain bulk-power system equipment as well as related software and digital capabilities that the Trump administration said could create cybersecurity or operational risks.

The Department of Energy has 120 days to publish formal rules implementing the policy. In the meantime, experts are watching utility companies, which face the enormous task of compiling an inventory list of equipment flagged by the Trump administration.

“Blocking new purchases is the easy part. Knowing what’s already running is where the real work starts,” John Bruggeman, virtual chief information security officer of the telecommunications company CBTS, told Al Jazeera. “Utilities running foreign-sourced grid equipment … have a live compliance clock starting today.”

The move is the latest effort by the White House to address potential foreign security threats against the grid. Last year, US experts reported finding undisclosed communication devices in some Chinese solar power inverters. In July, the Federal Communications Commission banned all new foreign-made power inverters designed with remote communication capabilities and operating within the electric utility grid.

Still, the order does not prohibit all foreign-made equipment used in the US electricity system. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright has been directed to establish conditions for the continued use and operation of affected equipment.

“The executive order establishes the authority to act,” Michael Centrella at the cybersecurity company SecurityScorecard, told Al Jazeera. “The difficult next step will be giving operators scalable, independent visibility into which assets and vendor relationships present the greatest risk without disrupting the reliability of the power system.”

Voting from home

California’s mail-in voting system has also become a particular target for Trump.

Voting by mail surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, California passed a law to automatically mail a ballot to every registered voter.

More than 80 percent of the state’s voters cast a mail-in ballot in 2024 alone.

Moreles, the Santa Clara registrar, said his county has an even higher rate. More than 90 percent of voters in his jurisdiction use mail-in ballots to vote.

His county processed more mail-in ballots in the last general election than the entire state of Texas did. While Texas accepted roughly 342,000 mail-in votes, Santa Clara County sent out more than a million.

That widespread use suggests that voters do not share Trump’s scepticism of the mail-in system, according to Moreles. “They like the accessibility of it. They must believe it’s secure as well,” he said.

But mail-in ballots can continue to trickle in after the election ends, causing vote tallies to fluctuate in the days and weeks after polling stations close. In California, all mailed ballots are valid so long as they are postmarked by election day, and must also be received no later than seven days after.

Trump has pointed to those long vote counts and shifting tallies as evidence of fraud.

Even some Democrats have pushed for the process to be faster. By law, elections must be certified within 30 days of the election. But Moreles argued that not rushing can have its virtues, too.

“For the folks who are living here and are used to it, it makes sense and, to a lot of people, is reassuring,” Moreles said. “Taking the time to get it right is something that intuitively makes sense to people.”

Still, on August 24, the Supreme Court opened the door to additional uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots.

In a six-to-three ruling, the court’s conservative majority allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing a March executive order that would impose new restrictions on mail-in voting.

The order could impact both the design of mail-in ballots and who is eligible to receive one.

But state officials have questioned the feasibility of redesigning and reprinting ballots with so little time before the midterm elections. Early voting in some states starts as early as September.

Others have speculated about whether the legal wrangling with cause confusion or discourage voters who rely on mail-in ballots.

On Wednesday, California announced it was co-leading a group of 24 state attorneys general in filing a new lawsuit to see the executive order blocked.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” the state’s Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement accompanying the suit.

“California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.”

A second court order pausing part of Trump’s plan for mail-in ballots remains in effect.

European football’s governing body considers making a criminal complaint ​against Infantino over World Cup selloff plans.

UEFA has asked ⁠a US ⁠federal court for permission to obtain testimony and documents from FIFA entities in ⁠Florida for use in a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against FIFA President ⁠Gianni Infantino, according to a court filing.

In an ex parte application filed under US law, European football’s governing body said it is considering ‌criminal proceedings against Infantino and potentially other FIFA officials and advisers over a now-abandoned plan to transfer commercial rights linked to men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup into a new ⁠subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).

“UEFA is actively considering legal action arising out of and in connection with the … plan proposed by FIFA,” read the legal document filed in a Florida court in the United States, according to the AFP news agency.

“More specifically, UEFA and other interested parties are preparing to bring criminal claims in Switzerland against Infantino and possibly other FIFA officials and advisors for criminal mismanagement under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code.”

UEFA ⁠alleges Infantino developed the proposal in secret with a small group of advisers and investors, bypassing FIFA’s normal ⁠governance processes and failing to consult the FIFA Council, regional confederations ⁠or member associations.

The filing asks ⁠a US court to authorise discovery from FIFA (AMERICAS), Inc. and FWC2026 US, Inc., two Florida-based FIFA entities. UEFA ‌said the organisations may possess documents and witnesses relevant to how the FFE transaction ‌was ‌conceived, structured, valued and approved.

Meta has agreed to a landmark $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing it of endangering children, the terms of which will force the social media giant to introduce new safety features to platforms including Instagram and Facebook.

The social media giant has faced an avalanche of legal cases against it this year, mostly arguing that it deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive and that they have harmed children. It has already lost two of these and been forced to pay damages.

Under the agreement, child users under the age of 18 will see a slew of changes to their Facebook and Instagram accounts, ranging from night curfews to two-hour usage limits, which Meta must implement as part of the settlement reached on Wednesday with 48 US states.

The agreement could have a global ripple effect as several countries around the world are already taking regulatory action against Meta and other social media companies over their platforms.

So, what is in the settlement Meta has reached in the United States, and how will Instagram and Facebook change for users?

What was the lawsuit about?

Twenty-nine US states sued Meta, accusing it of designing its platforms in ways that “encourage addictive behaviour, fail to verify users’ ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitative content”, according to filings at the Court of Appeal in California.

The first four of the states that originally filed their federal lawsuit against Meta in 2023 – California, Kentucky, Colorado and New Jersey – began their cases in a California federal trial last week.

The attorneys general bringing the case also asked the court to order that changes be made to Meta’s platforms to protect young social media users. In particular, they demanded that Meta introduce a process of parental verification for teenage users; change its “dopamine-manipulating” algorithms; remove image filters for users’ personal images; forbid the creation of multiple accounts; and end “disappearing” messages and posts.

The lawsuit also alleged Meta had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting, ⁠retaining and using personal data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

In February this year, Meta lost a multimillion-dollar case brought on similar grounds by a young woman referred to as KGM in Los Angeles, over platform features linked to addiction in younger users.

In March, a US jury ordered Meta to pay $375m for endangering children in a case brought by the state of New Mexico.

Last month, a judge in New Mexico also ordered Facebook and Instagram owner Meta to pay a further $567m in a second phase of the trial.

Meta denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle after evidence was heard that Meta knew its products harmed children’s mental health. The total payout – to be paid over 10 years – is a fraction of Meta’s 2025 revenue of $201bn.

The company, which was originally founded as Facebook in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, agreed to make maximum payments totalling $16.7bn to 47 US states as well as Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; American Samoa; and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Among those, California could receive a $2.2bn payout, while New York could receive $1.1bn. Texas reached a separate settlement worth more than $1bn. Some states will deposit funds they receive in general accounts, while others will earmark portions to address children’s mental health services.

The settlement does not require Meta to discontinue personalised recommendations or targeted advertising.

It also does not address some content researchers found particularly problematic, including posts that made Instagram users uncomfortable with their body image.

“Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta,” Meta said in a blog post. “We want to get this right for parents and teens.”

What changes will be seen on Instagram and Facebook?

Under the agreement, children under 18 using Meta platforms will be restricted to two hours’ use per day, with a night curfew in place from midnight to 6am. Meta will limit “social comparison” features by hiding likes and reactions to children’s accounts, and will ban “cosmetic procedure filters” that alter the appearance of a user’s image, as a default setting. These settings will only be able to be overruled by parental consent.

The company also agreed to disable the majority of push notifications from the platforms during school hours – 8am to 3pm – for teenage users.

It will also facilitate much closer parental supervision of social media accounts by giving designated adults the ability to more extensively monitor and change settings on a social media account.

Parents and guardians will be able to receive information about time spent on platform apps, and usernames of social connections and accounts sending messages to children.

Supervising parents will also receive daily notifications from Meta any time the teen account messages an adult account for the first time, as well as a link to the adult’s account. Parental accounts will also be notified any time the teen account searches for keywords related to suicide, self-harm or eating disorders.

Meta also agreed to improve the technology used to check children’s ages, using its own as well as third-party tools, with regular outside audits on how well this monitoring is working. This measure is particularly notable because Australia banned under-16s from using social media platforms in December last year. However, the Australian internet watchdog, eSafety, found in August this year that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens continue to use them – largely because age-check procedures are ineffective.

So far, Meta has only agreed to pay 70 percent of the settlement, or roughly $12.7bn, over the next 10 years. It will only pay the remaining amount, about $5bn, if its rivals – including Snapchat, TikTok and Alphabet-owned YouTube – adopt similar measures and agree to pay the same. It also said it would reduce time restrictions to one hour per day if other platforms do the same.

These changes would be phased over time. Once the court approves the settlement, non-personalised feeds would be introduced within four months; broader compliance measures within six months; and major age-assurance requirements within one year.

While these changes will apply to users in the US, it is unclear if Meta plans to introduce them worldwide. However, Meta is already under rising regulatory pressure in European Union countries and those elsewhere to implement similar changes.

How much difference will these changes make?

Critics and child safety advocates have acknowledged that this settlement has forced landmark changes by Meta, the world’s biggest social media company, which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger, each of which has more than two to three billion monthly active users.

However, critics say the central plank of Meta’s latest settlement deal is the move to restrict teens to two hours per day on platforms, rather than fundamentally changing their addictive algorithms.

Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, which campaigns for youth safety online, said the deal is a “historic settlement that will have a lasting impact, but we cannot truly protect all children and teens until these protections are required on every platform and are permanent – that’s something only Congress can do”.

Ella Bradshaw, policy officer for child safety online at the NSPCC, a UK children’s charity, welcomed moves to rein in “addictive” design features like personalised algorithms and likes. “These are the things that we know keep children hooked and feeling out of control of their screen time, so action here is necessary and welcome. However, important gaps remain,” she told Al Jazeera.  

Bradshaw described the settlement as taking “piecemeal action” on tackling risky features and addictive design choices which drive harm of children.

“This means features like disappearing messages, infinite scroll, the ability to gift and livestreaming remain unaddressed. Similarly, little has been announced on how Meta’s AI chatbots will be made safer – better guardrails are needed, particularly when children raise safeguarding concerns.”

Bradshaw also called for stronger protections for younger children as well as protections that “don’t suddenly drop away the moment a teenager turns 18.”   

Furthermore, she said: “Not all children have families they can rely on to oversee their online worlds and help them to stay safe. We know that the issue of patchy online protections extends across the online world.

“This settlement must spur governments and regulators to go further faster; taking stronger action across the online ecosystem including private messaging, AI tools and online gaming. Without that wider shift, children will continue to face avoidable harm.”

What action are other countries taking against Meta?

While action against social media giants in the US is mostly taking the form of lawsuits, elsewhere it is regulators who are leading the charge.

In the European Union, regulators are pursuing several legal and regulatory cases against Meta, covering antitrust rules for artificial intelligence (AI) on WhatsApp, as well as child safety protections and addictive platform features under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU specifically accused the group of designing Facebook and Instagram to be “addictive”, adding that Meta has failed to adequately assess the danger its products pose to users’ physical and mental health.

On Thursday, a European Commission spokesperson said it is waiting on Meta to present changes to limit the addictive designs of its social networks.

“We have been very clear … Meta knows what we are expecting from them. … the ball is in Meta’s court,” Thomas Regnier said. “Now it is for the company to offer these commitments in the European Union to protect our kids here, too.”

In June, the UK government also announced a sweeping ban on social media for those below 16 to come into force next year, following a global trend after Australia pioneered it. The UK is also considering overnight curfews and ways to prevent infinite scrolling for those under 18.

In Brazil, a prominent consumer rights organisation, the Collective Defence Institute, filed twin lawsuits for three billion reais ($525m) in damages against the Brazilian subsidiaries of Meta, TikTok and Kwai in October 2024.

Those lawsuits also accuse the groups of failing to implement safeguards against addiction and use by children and adolescents. Since March this year, platforms have been required to link the accounts of children below 16 to legal guardians under Brazil’s Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents.

South Korea’s media regulator also reacted on Thursday to Meta’s settlement, calling for better protections for young users to be ideally applied worldwide, rather than just in specific markets.

This train track claimed the lives of hundreds of people during its 24 years of construction.

Burrowing beneath a towering mountain range in Massachusetts is a railway tunnel with a long and blood soaked history. The Hoosac Tunnel travels between North Adams in the west to the town of Florida, Massachusetts in the east. It was constructed in 1851 and finally finished in 1975.

However, during its 24 years of construction, this railway tunnel claimed the lives of around 200 men, giving it the terrifying nickname of ‘the Bloody Pit’. Men were killed by explosions, falling rocks and accidents with ladders and scaffolding, leading to a strike in 1865 where workers burned buildings in protest of the horrific working conditions.

Over the year following the strike, a further 14 men were killed or injured at work in the tunnel.

On October 17, 1867, the tunnel saw the deadliest accident of its 24 years in construction.

Workers were digging a 1,028 foot long vertical exhaust shaft when a candle ignited the fumes that had leaked from a lamp.

An explosion ripped through the shaft, setting the hoist alight. It collapsed into the shaft, trapping 13 men working at the base of the shaft inside the darkness.

The pumps were destroyed, and the shaft began to fill with water.

In a desperate attempt to save the men trapped below, a worker was lowered into the shaft the following day but was overcome by fumes and reported no survivors once he reached the surface again.

Horrifyingly, when workers reached the bottom of the shaft months later they found that at least some of the men had survived long enough to build a raft to escape the rising flood waters before they suffocated.

The men died due to a lack of oxygen as fires burned through the air.

Despite the tragedies that befall construction, the tunnel was finally completed and used by both passenger and freight trains.

Today, the tunnel still stands but is only used for freight trains.

OpenAI detected its artificial intelligence models communicating with each other and gaining internet access without authorisation months before they hacked the start-up Hugging Face, the creator of ChatGPT has announced following an internal probe.

In a report released on Wednesday, OpenAI said its AI agents exploited vulnerabilities in Artifactory, a software repository tool, to post notes and access the internet without human prompting as far back as May.

OpenAI said its agents went on to exploit a separate Artifactory vulnerability on July 8 to facilitate communication among themselves, setting in motion a chain of actions that culminated in the July 11 attack on AI company Hugging Face.

OpenAI’s findings come amid growing concern about the potential for AI to inflict serious real-world harm, including self-directed cyberattacks.

OpenAI said in its report that its agents collaborated and delegated work in the lead-up to the attack, sometimes referring to themselves as a “swarm” or “collective”.

METR and Redwood Research, two security research organisations contracted by OpenAI to investigate the incident, said in a separate report released on Wednesday that about 1200 agents had communicated with each other and roughly 700 participated in the attack.

After discovering how to escape OpenAI’s controlled environment, agents shared their methods via a “inter-agent message board”, enabling additional agents to exploit the company’s infrastructure, the tech giant said.

When one AI agent found Hugging Face user credentials that had been exposed online, it shared them with the group, enabling an agent to “discover and chain together several security exploits” that provided access to Hugging Face’s severs, according to the report.

“An internal team observed an agent engaging in message board activity and instances of disallowed internet access as early as late May, and with the benefit of hindsight, some early signals identified in our report should have triggered an earlier response,” OpenAI said.

OpenAI said agents created by an unreleased AI model were the primary participants in the attack, but publicly available GPT-5.6 Sol was also involved.

The company also revealed that it took its security team 11 days to detect the malign activities leading up to the attack, which the company uncovered on July 19 and publicly disclosed on July 21.

OpenAI, which described the incident as a “warning shot” for the world, said it would take several steps to strengthen its safeguards for its models, including restricting internet access, creating more secure testing environments and placing “stricter requirements on alignment throughout a model’s lifecycle”.

“We are also investing significantly more compute resources into chain-of-thought monitoring⁠ to more quickly intervene on misaligned behavior,” the San Francisco-based firm said.

Hugging Face, which operates a platform for hosting open-source AI models, did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside of business hours.

Toby Walsh, an expert in AI and professor at UNSW Sydney, said the public should be concerned that OpenAI had missed warning signs and allowed the malicious activity to go undetected for so long.

“We cannot depend on either their goodwill or their competence. This needs regulatory oversight. Now!” Walsh told Al Jazeera.

“They ignored some troubling early evidence like this,” Walsh said.

“External auditing is the only appropriate response.”

Walsh said the incident also highlighted the “inherent conflict of interest” at the heart of AI development.

“Labs are locked in a relentless race to push the boundaries,” he said.

Tim Miller, a professor specialising in AI at the University of Queensland, said OpenAI’s report left him more concerned than before about AI’s dangers.

“More concerned because they demonstrate that these models are very good at hacking, and that everyone has access to them,” Miller told Al Jazeera.

“I’m surprised how good these are,” Miller said.

“Unfortunately, I’m not surprised that OpenAI engineers were somewhat negligent.”

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani is due to visit Tehran on Thursday for talks on de-escalating tensions and reviving dialogue between Iran and the United States.

A spokesman for Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the visit in a statement on X on Wednesday.

Majed al-Ansari said Sheikh Mohammed, who is also Qatar’s foreign minister, will meet with “a number of Iranian officials” in Tehran to “discuss ways to de-escalate tensions” and “create the conditions conducive to dialogue”.

“The visit comes in line with the State of Qatar’s firm position that the diplomatic path is the best means of resolving differences & promoting security & stability in the region,” he added.

Iran also confirmed the visit, saying the discussions will cover “the continuation of Qatar’s mediation efforts and initiatives, as well as other regional developments”.

Qatar has served as a back-channel negotiator between Washington and Tehran and helped secure a memorandum of understanding in June that briefly paused hostilities. The agreement collapsed in July, and the conflict is now nearing its sixth month, with fighting largely paused but no diplomatic breakthrough in sight.

The US has, meanwhile, promised to increase economic pressure on Tehran by sanctioning its trade partners.

US President Donald Trump told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that he was in “no hurry” to resume talks with Iran, saying that he believed economic and military action against Tehran were both effective.

“I have no time schedule; whatever it takes,” he said.

‘Economic terrorism’

Iran has continued to denounce the economic pressure campaign.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote to the United Nations on Wednesday calling the new sanctions an “act of state and economic terrorism” and urging member states not to implement them.

“The sanctions deliberately harm civilians by restricting access to food, medicine, medical equipment, energy and other essentials, violating rights including the rights to life, health, food and an adequate standard of living”, he said.

The two sides also remain at odds over the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway that handled one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments before the US-Israel war on Iran began in February.

Iran wants control over the strait, while the US wants it to remain an international waterway that is free for all. That disagreement in part led to the collapse of the memorandum signed in June.

Oil flows through the strait have since fallen to a three-month low, with just 5 million barrels per day (bpd) transiting on Monday. Before the war, the strait carried roughly 20 million bpd of crude oil.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said Sheikh Mohammed will also discuss the waterway in his meetings in Tehran on Thursday, focusing on “the need for it to return to the status quo prior to February 28”.

Regional diplomacy

Sheikh Mohammed’s visit comes two days after Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi met his Iranian counterpart, Araghchi, in Tehran.

Following those talks, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said the two countries had agreed on a new temporary route for shipping in the strait.

But he insisted that the waterway will not reopen until the US fulfils its commitments under the June deal, including the lifting of sanctions and the release of frozen assets.

Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, also visited Tehran earlier in the week in a bid to “end the stalemate” in the conflict, with Islamabad reporting “significant progress” in those talks.

Mostafa Khoshcheshm, a professor at the University of Applied Sciences in Tehran, said that regional countries were pushing for dialogue because “they believe that the situation is moving towards escalation”.

“They know that if war breaks out, it would be a fully-fledged war and the fire would spill over into the entire region and beyond, leaving a detrimental impact on the global economy,” he said. “So there are hectic diplomatic moves on the part of these countries.”

ICE agent Christian Castro faces criminal charges for shooting a Minnesota man in the leg during an immigration raid.

A United States judge has denied a request to compel the extradition of a federal immigration agent charged with shooting a man during an immigration raid in the state of Minnesota and lying about it.

Wednesday’s decision concerns the case of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Christian Castro, who has been detained in a county jail in Texas since May.

Minnesota has sought his extradition as he faces charges of assault and falsely reporting a crime in Hennepin County, which covers Minneapolis.

Under Texas law, the state cannot hold the subject of an extradition order for more than 90 days. At that point, the suspect must either be transferred or released. The deadline for Castro is set to expire on Thursday.

Minnesota argued in a lawsuit this month that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, has refused to authorise the extradition for political reasons.

But in Wednesday’s ruling, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr wrote that he could not intervene because Abbott has not yet acted – and has therefore not yet violated any law.

“The record reflects only that Governor Abbott has neither agreed nor refused to sign the rendition warrant as to Castro,” Rodriguez wrote.

Castro has been charged in connection with the non-fatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during an immigration raid in Minnesota on January 14, part of a mass deportation effort under President Donald Trump.

Starting in December, Trump oversaw a large-scale deployment of federal agents to the Midwestern state, dubbed Operation Metro Surge.

The operation, which lasted less than three months, sparked protests and allegations of civil liberty violations from residents and watchdog groups.

Prosecutors say Castro fired a gun through the front door of a Minneapolis home, shooting Sosa-Celis in the leg.

Afterwards, he and another agent accused Sosa-Celis and another man of assaulting federal authorities with a broom handle and snow shovel. Those allegations were later disproven after video of the incident emerged. Criminal charges against Sosa-Celis were subsequently dropped.

Todd Lyons, then-acting director of ICE, confirmed in February that the agents appeared to have made “untruthful statements”. Castro and the second agent were placed on administrative leave.

Castro is currently in custody in Brownsville, Texas. Minnesota officials have warned that he may flee the country if released, citing calls he made from jail to a woman in Mexico.

During those calls, Castro talked “about marrying her and buying a house in Mexico when he is released”, according to Minnesota’s lawsuit.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a request for a temporary restraining order last week to stop Castro’s anticipated release and force Governor Abbott to sign the extradition warrant.

Ellison has framed Abbott’s decision not to take action as a way of supporting Trump’s mass deportation campaign and skirting federal extradition law.

“For nearly three months, Greg Abbott has refused to return ICE agent Christian Castro to Minnesota, where he’s charged with shooting a Minnesotan in his own home,” Ellison wrote in a social media post.

“Abbott has a legal obligation to return him. Instead, he’s chosen to ignore the law.”

Israeli forces have raided the Qalandiya Training Centre, operated by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) in occupied East Jerusalem in what officials and analysts describe as a pivotal step towards dismantling international refugee protections and consolidating control over the occupied West Bank.

Tuesday’s storming of the UNRWA facility, led by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, was justified by Israeli authorities under October 2024 legislation banning the UN agency, prompting sharp condemnation from Qatar, which warned of systematic efforts to strip millions of Palestinians of essential services.

Strategic annexation

Israeli affairs expert Adel Shadid identified broader territorial ambitions behind the raid, carried out on the boundary line between East Jerusalem and the West Bank. He told Al Jazeera the assault serves a larger geopolitical scheme involving a historic airport close to the training centre.

“The institute is directly adjacent to the historic Qalandiya Airport, which was built more than 106 years ago,” Shadid said.

“The occupation aims to gain complete control over the airport adjacent to the institute to establish a massive settlement comprising over 9,000 settlement units in addition to a Jewish heritage centre and to erase the historical and geographical Jordanian landmarks of the airport,” he explained.

“By controlling these two areas and annexing them to the occupation municipality, the pillars of the ‘Greater Jerusalem’ project are completed. This project alone will carve out between 12 to 13 percent of the total area of the West Bank,” he added.

Shadid noted that this expansion would allow the municipality to control an area exceeding 800sq km (310sq miles), essentially destroying Palestinian continuity.

“The ultimate goal of the occupation exceeds preventing the establishment of a future Palestinian state. Rather, it aims explicitly to prevent the establishment of any independent Palestinian entity or presence on this land,” he said.

Echoing this assessment, retired Lebanese Brigadier General and military analyst Elias Hanna pointed to Israel’s tactical encirclement of urban Palestinian hubs.

“The importance of Qalandiya is linked to the broader settlement project in the West Bank, which is based on creating settlement blocs aiming to control geographical continuity between Palestinian areas and isolate them from each other,” Hanna told Al Jazeera.

“The control over the area can affect the movement and connection between the two cities,” he added, referring to Jerusalem and Ramallah.

Targeting refugee rights

Detailing the immediate impact on UNRWA’s institutional mandate, the agency’s media adviser Adnan Abu Hasna outlined the unprecedented nature of the takeover.

“UNRWA was not informed [in advance] of any action by the Israeli government against the UNRWA institute and complex in Qalandiya,” Abu Hasna told Al Jazeera.

“This measure is unprecedented as the UN flag is lowered and this headquarters is taken over in this unusual manner, and it represents a dangerous escalation against international humanitarian law, against UN laws and against the mandate granted to UNRWA by the UN General Assembly,” he said.

Abu Hasna underscored how the raid violated historic bilateral frameworks that long governed UN operations.

“There is an agreement signed between UNRWA and Israel on June 14, 1967, providing for facilitating UNRWA’s operations and protecting its facilities and its employees and headquarters enjoying immunity and privileges, but unfortunately, all of this has ended now under the weight of escalating Israeli measures,” he said.

The agency operates schools and provides healthcare, social services and microfinancing for Palestinians. Compounding the Israeli raids, destructions of its compounds and offices, and restrictions on its operations, the agency is also facing a financial crisis. Abu Hasna cited major political defunding campaigns, particularly by the United States.

“We have a large deficit, especially after the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers cut $360m, which constitutes about 30 percent of UNRWA’s annual budget,” he noted.

Settler-military cooperation

Regarding the operational dynamics on the ground, Israeli affairs specialist Anas Abu Arqoub highlighted the deepening alignment between state forces and armed settlers.

“It is a division of roles accompanied by a state of complete integration,” Abu Arqoub told Al Jazeera.

“The settler phenomenon … [is] in fact armed organisations with a clear leadership hierarchy, a system of regular and reserve fighters called upon when needed, and they possess a military combat doctrine,” he explained.

“A large part of them are elements from within the Israeli army, armed with its weapons, and undergo joint military training,” he added.

Abu Arqoub said Israeli research institutions, such as the Institute for National Security Studies, have recognised the severe implications of this convergence.

“The Institute for National Security Studies recently pointed out that this military force of settlers has become capable, under the cover of ‘loss of control’, of executing complete ethnic cleansing in the West Bank,” he observed.

US green light

Examining the international impunity enabling these actions, Birzeit University political science Professor Ghassan Khatib emphasised Washington’s decisive role.

“The weakness of the United Nations position is one of the two main factors driving Israel to persist and increasingly rebel against international laws and violate the rights of the Palestinian people,” Khatib told Al Jazeera.

“The first and most important factor is the American position, the actual sponsor of this Israeli rebellion,” he stressed, pointing out a “direct correlation between the rising pace of Israeli violations and the reascent of [President Donald] Trump to the leadership of the United States about two years ago”.

“These settler militias have become an integral part of the occupation system, and the danger will inevitably escalate,” Khatib added.

Electoral basis

From the local community’s perspective, Mohammed Saeed – public relations director for the popular committee of the Qalandiya refugee camp, which Israeli forces also raided on Tuesday – framed the raid as both diplomatic defiance and domestic political posturing.

The Israeli incursion, he said, was a clear message of defiance stating: ‘We are the owners of the land, and we decide its fate,’” Saeed told Al Jazeera on Tuesday.

Meta settles $16.68bn lawsuit over child addiction claims, agreeing to major changes in Facebook and Instagram features.

Meta Platforms has agreed to settle a lawsuit that accused the company of designing Facebook and Instagram in a way that addicted children, misled consumers about safety, and collected personal data of children on the platform.

On Wednesday, the social media giant agreed to pay a maximum of $16.68bn as part of a settlement to resolve claims brought in the United States case, championed by a coalition of 29 US states. The case, which started on August 18, was expected to last six weeks.

Meta, based in Silicon Valley in California, has also agreed to make changes to Facebook and Instagram nationwide as part of the settlement. Among these are daily usage limits of two hours for those under the age of 18, which can only be removed by a parent, and nighttime blocks.

The California State Attorney General’s Office said that the Mark Zuckerberg-led company would also identify and remove children under the age of 13 from the platform.

Meta denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which still needs court approval. It had faced up to $1.4 trillion in fines in the case, but the coalition had been seeking a penalty closer to $200bn.

The settlement comes after a loss in a comparable landmark case in New Mexico, where a jury ordered Meta to pay $375m in March and another $567m in August.

Meta’s stock tumbled in early trading on Wall Street, down 0.1 percent since the market opened.

A top Iranian official says Iran and Oman have agreed on a new temporary route for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but insisted that the waterway will not reopen until the United States fulfils its commitments under an interim peace deal signed in June.

The remarks by Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, came on Tuesday, after Iran and Oman’s top diplomats held talks in Tehran to finalise the details of a phased framework for managing the strait.

Iran and Oman, both coastal nations on the strait, have been in on-and-off talks for weeks about controlling traffic through the strategic waterway, which handled one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments before the US-Israel war on Tehran began in February.

Most ⁠shipping in the strait has been shut down since then.

Gharibabadi, speaking on state television, said Iran and Oman had agreed the new route’s entry “would be through our territorial waters, and part of the exit route would also be through our territorial waters”.

The transit corridor would be seven miles (11.3km) wide, he said.

“The agreed-upon transit route with Oman is a temporary route,” he added.

Earlier on Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with his Omani counterpart, Badr Albusaidi, in Tehran to discuss the temporary navigation corridor as well as a project to clear mines from the strait, according to a joint statement.

Albusaidi said on X he hoped the countries would “soon announce” the corridor, adding that “future management of the strait and a permanent solution will follow in due course.”

Technical talks are planned to develop a long-term arrangement, including mechanisms for information sharing and navigational and security services, according to the statement.

Mines in Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz became a flashpoint after Tehran responded to the US-Israel war by closing the waterway. It then announced a new shipping route through its territorial waters, bypassing the internationally recognised Traffic Separation Scheme adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1968. Tehran said that route had been mined.

Then in June, when Iran and the US signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to end the war, Oman and the IMO announced a new transit corridor in the Strait of Hormuz – backed by the US – that hugged the Omani coast.

Iran said the so-called southern route violated the MoU and launched attacks on ships using the corridor, resulting in the collapse of the interim deal.

Diplomatic efforts towards a broader peace deal have since stalled, and passage through the strait remains dangerous. An oil tanker was disabled by an unidentified projectile on Tuesday near Oman’s Ash Shishah, close to the strait’s entrance, the United Kingdom’s maritime trade watchdog said.

Gharibabadi, in his comments on Tuesday, said Iran would not consider the strait open despite the agreement with Oman.

He also dismissed a claim by US President Donald Trump that all mines had been cleared from the strait’s international waters, saying it was “only aimed at calming the markets”. He warned that US mine-detection vessels would become “very good targets” if they entered the area.

Gharibabadi insisted the US must fulfil its commitments under the MoU – including sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian assets – if it wants a return to the diplomatic track.

He also urged countries to resist US pressure over sanctions on Iran.

Trump had announced last week the “most crushing economic operation ever” against Iran, and threatened sanctions against any country that does business with it.

“We are urging countries not to succumb to American pressure regarding the sanctions that Washington wants to impose on us,” Gharibabadi said, adding that Washington was “mistaken about its ability to enforce its sanctions against our neighbours”.

He said an earlier US sanctions campaign under Trump had failed to achieve its goals and predicted new measures would meet the same fate.

“The new American sanctions are doomed to failure, and we have our own methods to counter them,” he added.

Meta, parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is on trial over claims it sought to hook young users on its platforms despite mental health concerns.

The top executive at Instagram has admitted that few teenagers have used a feature meant to counter addiction before it was turned on by default, as hearings in a landmark trial against its parent company, Meta, continue in the United States.

Adam Mosseri testified on Tuesday as Meta’s trial – over accusations that it designed its platforms, including Facebook, to be addictive to young people – entered its second week.

Mosseri, who has led Instagram since 2018, denied any suggestion by US states suing Meta that Instagram had stalled by not making the “Take a Break” feature the default setting for teenagers until September 2024, nearly three years after its launch.

“Most teens didn’t want it,” Mosseri said. “We decided to push forward with it anyway.”

Mosseri is a central witness in the lawsuit brought by 29 US states, in what experts call the biggest legal test yet of social media’s effects on young users.

Four of the states – California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey – have accused Meta of designing the platforms to hook young users, driving anxiety, depression and even suicide, while misleading consumers about the platforms’ safety.

All 29 states say Meta violated US federal law by improperly collecting and employing the personal data of children under 13 while they used its platforms.

The states are seeking approximately $200bn in damages from Meta.

‘Designed to fail’

Meta has rejected accusations that it sought to addict children, saying its research showed no clear link between adolescents’ social media use and a lack of wellbeing.

Under questioning from Jason Slothouber, a lawyer for Colorado, Mosseri acknowledged that the percentage of teenagers using Take a Break was in the low single digits before Instagram made it ⁠the default.

Take a Break encourages teenage users to close the app after a certain amount of time. Mosseri had estimated in a December 2021 blog post that more than 90 percent of teenagers who turned the feature on kept it on.

That number, however, referred to the number of those who had turned on the feature.

When asked whether Meta had disclosed its low adoption, which had reached only 1 or 2 percent of accounts, Mosseri admitted the company had not, but said the safety features were later turned on by default in Teen Accounts, which launched in 2024 and have parental controls.

Former Meta employees have said that features such as Take a Break and Quiet Mode were difficult to find and not widely used, casting doubt on whether they represented a serious effort by the company to limit screen time for young users.

“In my experience, Take a Break is a feature that’s designed to fail,” Arturo Bejar, a former Meta engineering director, testified last week.

George Volichenko, a data scientist who worked on safety features at Instagram in 2022 and 2023, likewise stated on Monday that adoption rates of such features were “very low” and that company leadership had declined to approve turning on Quiet Mode by default for young teenagers.

He added that turning on such features automatically would have had a “notable negative impact” on user engagement.

The trial could last six weeks.

Jurors are expected to issue an advisory verdict. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide whether Meta is liable and, if so, determine any civil penalties and changes to Facebook and Instagram.

The amended law was an attempt by state Republicans to crack down on unproven claims of voting by noncitizens.

A United States federal court has temporarily blocked an Ohio law that required proof of US citizenship from residents who wanted to register to vote while they obtained a driver’s license.

In his ruling on Tuesday, US District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr granted a preliminary injunction against the law, saying it likely violates the US National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) because it requires more information than necessary to determine a resident’s eligibility to vote.

“Election officials do not need documentary proof of citizenship to assess a voter registration applicant’s citizenship because signed attestation of citizenship is enough,” Oliver wrote.

The judge also pointed to a clause in the act that says each US state’s driver’s license application “shall serve as an application for voter registration with respect to election for Federal office unless the applicant fails to sign the voter registration application”.

Oliver said that Ohio must offer applicants the opportunity to register once they’ve submitted their driver’s license application, not after it’s been approved by the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

“To interpret this section of the NVRA otherwise would allow States to make registering to vote at the BMV more onerous, and could result in fewer voter registrations because the opportunity to apply was not proactively offered to otherwise eligible citizens,” Oliver added.

In 1995, Ohio passed a so-called “motor-voter” law that allowed residents the opportunity to register to vote when they applied for a driver’s license

But that law was amended last year by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature in an attempt to crack down on unproven claims, pushed in part by US President Donald Trump, that noncitizens were voting in the state’s election. US law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.

The ruling marks a victory for voting rights advocates like Red Wine & Blue, which sued Ohio’s secretary of state, Frank LaRose, over claims that the law disenfranchised eligible voters and violated the NVRA.

One of the group’s lawyers, Ben Stafford, praised the ruling, calling it “a win for Ohio voters.”

“With the registration deadline just weeks away, eligible Ohioans will now have the opportunity to register to vote at the BMV without having to produce unnecessary paperwork that is not required by federal law,” Stafford, an attorney at Elias Law Group, said in a statement.

LaRose said his office disagrees with the decision and will appeal.

Fire containment has reached 27 percent in the rampant wildfire that first erupted in the Sierra Nevada foothills near the city of Reno in the state of Nevada in the United States. At least seven people – three first responders and four civilians – have been injured.

The blaze first broke out on Saturday and exploded in size by Sunday, destroying at least 32 homes and damaging six as it spread perilously close to dense neighbourhoods. Local officials, speaking at an afternoon news briefing on Monday, said those numbers are sure to rise as assessment teams begin to survey the charred areas.

They also said the fire had no new growth and has held steady at about 60 square kilometres (23 square miles) since it burned out of control on Sunday.

“We are making progress,” assured US Forest Service District Ranger Matt Zumstein.

Videos posted on social media showed the smouldering ruins of homes and cars, with only a scorched basketball hoop still standing.

By Monday, the number of residents under evacuation orders and warnings was lowered to about 63,000, down from more than 90,000 people when the blaze first mushroomed over the weekend. While winds have eased, there are still concerns that gusts could propel the flames through dry brush into newly developed neighbourhoods in Nevada’s largest city outside of metro Las Vegas. Reno is home to about 280,000 people.

Schools across the local area were closed because of the evacuations and to keep roads clear for emergency crews.

‘Like nothing I’ve seen before’: Reno faces third wildfire in two weeks

Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve said the way the fire spread so quickly at its peak had her fearing for the worst.

“It lit up these areas like nothing I’ve seen before,” she said Monday, adding, “it took your breath away, in the worst way”.

This is the third large wildfire in the craggy, high-desert region north of Reno in just the past two weeks – driven completely by human behaviour, according to fire officials. They have not disclosed whether the Hawk Fire, which is what the blaze is known as due to having started near the Hawk Meadow Trail, was intentionally set or accidental. Much of the area that burned was sagebrush and grass.

Resident Crystal Hallock, 53, has lost her home to a fire twice in under a decade. She moved into the rebuilt house in 2019, a year after an electrical fire burned it down.

Nevada’s governor quickly declared a state of emergency in Washoe County over the weekend after mobilising the National Guard to help with aerial firefighting and protecting evacuated neighbourhoods northwest of downtown Reno. But at one roadblock, residents expressed frustration that they could not get back into their homes, according to The Associated Press news agency.

“There’s no fire here! Why are the National Guard here?” a driver yelled.

Washoe County Sheriff Darin Balaam said he understands that some residents are frustrated that they can’t get home, but the danger isn’t over yet. “It just takes that little breeze and one ember,” he said.

Reno is southwest of Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, site of the annual Burning Man festival, which begins on August 30.

Many who travel to Burning Man make Reno a regular pit stop. Organisers on Monday requested that attendees not take hotel rooms and other resources away from fire evacuees, while being mindful of closures.

“Treat our neighbors, first responders, hospitality workers and everyone affected by this emergency with patience and care,” a Burning Man statement read.

Western wildfire risk stays high

Much of Nevada’s western edge is under an increased risk of wildfires this week because of high winds and low relative humidity, the National Interagency Fire Center said. The National Weather Service says the region will see warm, dry and breezy conditions, and that critical fire weather conditions are possible in the week’s latter half. Reno sits at an elevation of 1,370 metres (4,500 feet).

Extremely dry conditions across the American West have sparked a rash of wildfires this summer. Fires in eastern Washington state forced the evacuation of 60,000 people in the Spokane area in early August.

Nationwide wildfires have topped 50,000 this year, marking a 10-year high for the same period, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

TORONTO — Canada struck back at the United States on Tuesday with retaliatory tariffs on about $20 billion worth of American goods, including steel, dairy products, appliances and farm equipment, as the trade war between the once-friendly neighbors escalated sharply.

The tension threatened one of the world’s largest trading relationships. The new tariffs extended well beyond industrial goods, hitting everyday purchases such as seafood, cheese, clothing, cosmetics and toilet paper, with some facing duties as high as 50%.

“We did not choose this conflict, but when our economic integration is used as a weapon rather than the foundation for a win-win partnership, we need to stand up,” Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in French, calling the situation “an unprecedented challenge imposed on Canada.”

Canada’s retaliation came after the Trump administration imposed 50% tariffs over the weekend on Canadian goods following the collapse of trade negotiations. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney accused Washington of trying to subordinate Canada and said U.S. demands during the failed talks showed that Americans wanted to “destroy our major industries.”

President Trump intensified the confrontation Monday, telling Canadian leaders to “fall in line” or face consequences “far WORSE” than existing tariffs and threatening new 50% tariffs on Canadian vehicles, auto parts and steel.

Trump added another provocation Tuesday, saying the United States was giving “serious consideration” to renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” in a feud with Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Such a change would be reminiscent of the Republican president’s unilateral action last year by executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

The tariffs will take effect Sept. 8 at rates of 15%, 25% and 50%, with Canada matching the corresponding U.S. tariff rate on more than 700 products such as pulp and paper and electronics. The tariffs on many American products would double from 25% to 50%, with the largest share of the new measures affecting steel and aluminum.

Canadian officials said the goal is not to raise revenue but to protect Canadian companies and reduce U.S. imports.

U.S. steel imports, for example, have already fallen 30% since Canada imposed a 25% tariff, and the new 50% rate is expected to cut them further, Canadian officials said.

Goods facing 50% tariffs include some steel and aluminum products, furniture and clothing. Appliances, dairy products including cheese, fish and seafood, and certain steel and aluminum derivatives will face 25% tariffs. Existing Canadian countertariffs on U.S. autos will remain in place.

Canada also announced a support package for workers and businesses affected by the dispute worth $7.5 billion in Canadian dollars ($5.4 billion in U.S. dollars).

Canadian officials acknowledged the counter tariffs will raise costs for some businesses and consumers but said they expect the overall economic effects to be moderate.

They said the government has provided more than $30 billion Canadian dollars (US$21.7 billion) in tariff-related support since the beginning of 2025 — far more than it has collected in retaliatory duties — as it tries to cushion the blow from the trade fight.

Canada and the United States have deeply integrated supply chains across autos, energy, agriculture and manufacturing, making a prolonged trade fight potentially costly for businesses and workers on both sides of the border.

Businesses and consumers are caught in the middle, facing uncertainty about how much prices may increase.

Michael Howard II, owner of a furniture business in Warren, Michigan, outside Detroit, said the tariffs will hamper the “ability for us to put food on the table for our family” and affect “the ability for us to give back to our community.”

Howard and his wife started their business a decade ago. They make and sell everything from dining room tables to bookcases.

“To say that we don’t need Canada is just disingenuous,” he said. “It’s dishonest. And it’s just absolutely not truthful. We need our neighbor, but also they need us.”

Carney said Monday that Canada may need to move away from matching U.S. tariffs dollar for dollar and instead use more targeted retaliation aimed at protecting Canadian workers and businesses.

“An attitude at the negotiation table that Canada is a subsidiary of the United States” is “not something we’re going to accept,” Carney said.

Carney was even more blunt in French.

“We learned during the negotiations that the Americans want to destroy our major industries, including autos, steel and aluminum,” Carney said. “That was one of the main reasons we said no. It was a bad deal.”

On Monday, Carney said U.S. negotiators had raised the discoverability of French-language content on streaming platforms, along with French-language labeling rules, as trade irritants. He rejected the idea that those protections were negotiable, saying in French: “For the Americans, questions about the French language, Quebec culture, francophone culture and Canadian culture are irritants. Here in Quebec, here in Canada, they are rights.”

In a social media post early Tuesday, Trump wrote: “I would never interfere with Canadians speaking French! In fact, I have never even thought of doing such a stupid thing. This lie was made up by a weak and ineffective Prime Minister in an attempt to gain political support, which he has totally lost, from the people of Quebec. I love French Canadians!”

Gillies writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim in Washington and Mike Householder in Warren, Mich., contributed to this report.

Islamabad, Pakistan — Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir spent Monday moving through the power corridors of Tehran: the presidency, parliament, the Supreme National Security Council, and the foreign and interior ministries.

He met Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, as well as Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who is Tehran’s chief negotiator in talks with the United States to end their now six-month-long war.

But amid a deadlock in those peace negotiations, many analysts say that Munir’s true test as mediator will lie in his ability to use his position as one of the region’s most powerful military leaders to convince his Iranian counterparts in olive uniforms to agree to a return to talks with Washington.

Days before Munir’s visit, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told a gathering of doctors in Tehran that it was time to end the war while Iran held the advantage, a message aimed as much at Tehran’s own security establishment as at Washington.

“It is better that we bring the war to an end now as we are in a position of power and dignity,” he said, adding that “the whole world acknowledges our victory”.

Hours later, on August 21, the chief of the general staff of Iran’s armed forces, Major-General Ali Abdollahi, promised “revolutionary, crushing, regret-inducing and devastating” responses to any American miscalculation.

It was a sharp illustration of the gap between Iran’s president and the men now running its military — one that Munir will need to also navigate, analysts say.

And that’s why Munir’s most significant meeting on Monday might have been with General Mohsen Rezaei, a representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and the newly appointed secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. Rezaei is essentially the bridge between the military and Khamenei.

State of the war

Munir’s visit to Tehran came on a day when the region and the world were bracing for US President Donald Trump’s threatened “economic D-Day” sanctions against Iran, accompanied by a threatened punishment for all countries that continue to trade with Tehran.

Later in the day, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unveiled “Operation Economic Outcast“, a sweeping sanctions campaign targeting Iran’s digital assets, gold, aviation, technology and shipping networks.

But while warning other countries to sever trade ties with Iran, he held back from actually announcing any penalties for those nations, acknowledging that such a step would “blow up the global financial system”.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking the same day, kept the option of renewed strikes open.

“If we need to use kinetic strikes, we’ll use them. If Iran is foolish enough to overplay their hand or mess with the American military, we’ll do what we need to do,” he said.

It’s unclear whether Munir’s visit helped stave off broader US action against Iran and its trading partners.

But the timing was significant, analysts point out. Munir travelled to Tehran days after taking a phone call from United States President Donald Trump, who reportedly asked Islamabad to use its influence to bring Iran back to the table.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) said the one-day visit had produced “comprehensive discussions” on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war.

Iranian officials, the ISPR added, “appreciated Pakistan’s constructive role and sincere efforts”.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, who travelled with Munir, went further, calling the talks “very positive and productive” and saying “significant progress was made”.

A reshuffled Iranian military

This was his fourth visit to Tehran this year, but his first since Iran’s military hierarchy changed earlier this month.

On August 10, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei installed Abdollahi as chief of the general staff and moved Rezaei into the Supreme National Security Council. Ahmad Vahidi, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has held his post since March, when his predecessor was killed in the war’s opening strikes.

It is these military men that analysts say are now shaping Iran’s war moves, potentially giving a fellow man in uniform an edge over traditional diplomats in convincing Tehran to get back to talks.

“It is increasingly the IRGC and the wider security establishment driving decisions on war and peace during this crisis,” Ahmed Saeed, a former vice admiral in Pakistan’s navy and a defence analyst, told Al Jazeera.

Naqvi, the interior minister, has travelled to Tehran eight times since April without those visits producing a substantial breakthrough.

But unlike him, Munir is not a politician. He’s a general who appears to enjoy the trust of both the Iranian leadership and, crucially, Trump — who has described the Pakistani army chief as his “favourite field marshal”.

“The call [to Munir a few days ago] was initiated by Trump himself, requesting Pakistani leadership use its influence to bring Iran back to the table,” Saeed said.

Warm words, no movement

What Iranian officials actually told Munir, in accounts carried by Iranian state media, differed little from what they have been telling their own broadcasters all week.

“We distrust America, and it must change its behaviour,” Rezaei told Munir, according to IRNA.

Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker, was blunter.

“We are pursuing the implementation of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, and it is America that must adhere to its commitments based on the Memorandum of Understanding,” he told Munir, according to IRNA.

Pezeshkian, meanwhile, pressed Munir to tell Washington to “correct its tone and approach”, warning that “relying on force and bullying will only complicate the process”, according to Tasnim, another Iranian outlet.

Two tracks, one strait

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi is also expected in Tehran today for a separate round of talks focused specifically on the Strait of Hormuz, a track that has run alongside Pakistan’s mediation for months.

Oman’s involvement is not new. Albusaidi has held recurring talks with Tehran on the strait’s navigation rules.

Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst, said the Omani and Pakistani diplomatic tracks complement each other.

“Oman and Islamabad channels complement, because clause 5 of the Islamabad MoU stresses a bilateral understanding on the strait [between Oman and Iran],” he told Al Jazeera. The Strait of Hormuz passes through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman.

“This [a deal between Iran and Oman to jointly manage the strait] is not in the interest of the US, which is why Trump has threatened to bomb Oman,” Haider said, referring to remarks Trump made on August 17, when he told Fox News he would bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of reopening the strait, the second time he had threatened the US ally over Hormuz.

Where Islamabad’s advantage as a mediator lay was in its “direct access to Vahidi, Abdollahi and Rezaei, the actual architects of Iran’s decision-making”, Saeed, the former naval official, said.

An Iranian official close to the negotiations, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Albusaidi would be in Tehran “primarily to hear what Iran has decided and what it has discussed with its Pakistani mediator”.

Who holds the leverage?

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of defence studies at King’s College London, said the differences that had emerged between the Iranian military and civilian leaderships demonstrate a gulf between their understanding of where the war stood.

Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf, Krieg said, were “essentially warning that Iran cannot live indefinitely in this condition”, while “parts of the IRGC believe the opposite and think time is working against Washington”.

But ultimately, he said, “Mohsen Rezaei, Ahmad Vahidi and the IRGC are central to whether any political understanding [to end the war] can be implemented”, referring to Iran’s top military leadership.

“[Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas] Araghchi can negotiate something, and Qatar can broker it, but none of that matters if the security apparatus does not accept the operational consequences.”

For now, Munir appears to be the candidate mediators believe has the best shot at getting Iranian generals from their war room to the board room.

Netanyahu’s claim comes after US and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader and four of his family members in a strike on Tehran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that Iran tried to kill one of his sons, but gave no details on when or where the alleged plot took place or which of his sons was targeted.

Netanyahu’s allegation on Monday came as his coalition trailed in opinion polls ahead of the general election in October, in the wake of the United States and Israel’s war on Iran.

The war began with a joint US-Israeli strike on Tehran that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and four members of his family, including his daughter, Boshra, and his 14-month-old granddaughter, Zahra.

According to The Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu made the claim about the alleged Iranian plot against his son during a phone interview with Channel 14, a conservative Israeli outlet known for favourable coverage of the government.

“This is an unbelievable case. Iran targeted one of my sons. Iran tried to murder him, tried to murder one of my sons,” Netanyahu said.

He was responding to reports that one of Israel’s security agencies had declined to provide a security detail for Gadi Eisenkot, the former army chief who is running neck and neck with Netanyahu for the next prime minister ahead of elections.

Netanyahu voiced support for around-the-clock protection for Eisenkot, saying it was “not a luxury”.

“Without that, [the Iranians] will succeed,” he said.

Netanyahu has two sons and a daughter. Both of his sons and his wife were granted extended personal protection by Israeli authorities in July, according to The Jerusalem Post.

His elder son, Yair, 35, has spent extended periods in the US city of Miami since early 2024, drawing controversy in Israel over the cost to taxpayers of protecting him.

Iran, meanwhile, has promised revenge for the killings of Khamenei and his family.

Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, was named the new supreme leader a week after Ali Khamenei’s death.

Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen in public since his appointment, but in a message published on the occasion of funeral ceremonies for his father, he pledged to “avenge the blood” of the former supreme leader.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum status in the United States. If it happens, the move would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history and would likely face legal challenges.

Unless challenged or revised, the State Department is expected to announce in the coming weeks the revocation of so-called B1 and B2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 whose holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum, according to State Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and two U.S. officials. The action will be taken in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.

“We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” said State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott.

He declined to comment on the number of visas that might be revoked, saying “as the process will be ongoing, the number of revocations remains dynamic and will be done on a rolling basis.”

The revocations would not necessarily result in their immediate deportation, the officials said. Most of those with asylum cases currently pending would be recategorized but would lose their status as business or tourism travelers, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the revocations are not final yet.

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term last year, his administration has steadily ramped up restrictions on visa applicants — demanding more information about their social media histories, requiring the posting of expensive bonds for the processing of visas, and outright banning the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries.

In a social media post on Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called out people who he said try to use tourist and business visas to get into the United States and then apply for asylum.

“People in the US and all over the world are fed up with bogus asylum claims,” Landau wrote on X. “Asylum isn’t supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law.” Landau cited the case of a Colombian citizen who came to the U.S. in 2015 on a tourist visa and then applied for asylum.

B1 visas are generally issued for business trips and B2 visas are generally issued for tourism, family visits or medical care. It was not immediately clear from the documents or the officials how many of these visa holders are seeking or have sought asylum in the United States and would be affected by the revocations.

Current applicants for B1 and B2 visas are asked to affirm that they will not apply for asylum in the United States and prove that they intend to return to their home countries.

In the past 18 months, the State Department has revoked about 175,000 visas for people who have been convicted or accused of crimes ranging from drunken driving to rape and robbery, as well as for people who have spoken out publicly against U.S. policies, particularly in the Middle East.

The administration has also moved to crack down on so-called birth tourism, a practice the administration claims is used by foreign pregnant women to come to the United States to give birth so that their child will benefit from birthright citizenship. Trump has tried several times to end birthright citizenship, but those challenges have been rejected by courts, including the Supreme Court.

The State Department documents obtained by the AP suggest screening of current B1 and B2 visa holders began after the State Department received information about asylum requests from the Citizen and Immigration Service.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

If the action happens, it will be the largest single mass revocation of visas in US history, AP reports.

The United States is preparing to cancel business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are seeking asylum in the country, according to the Associated Press news agency.

The AP, citing State Department documents and interviews with two US officials, reported on Monday that if the plan goes ahead, it would be the “largest single mass revocation of visas” in the country’s history.

It said the State Department is expected to announce the action within the coming weeks, working in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

It would target so-called B1 and B2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026, whose holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum.

“We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” said State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott.

Officials cited by the AP said the revocations would not automatically trigger deportations.

Instead, most people with pending asylum cases would be shifted into a different immigration category, effectively stripping their business or tourist designation while their cases proceed.

In a social media post on Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called out people who he said try to use tourist and business visas to get into the US and then apply for asylum.

“People in the US and all over the world are fed up with bogus asylum claims,” Landau wrote on X. “Asylum isn’t supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law.”

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term last year, his administration has steadily ramped up restrictions on visa applicants – demanding more information about their social media histories, requiring the posting of expensive bonds for the processing of visas, and outright banning the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries.

In the past 18 months, the State Department has also revoked about 175,000 visas for people who have been convicted or accused of crimes ranging from drunk driving to rape and robbery, as well as for people who have spoken out publicly against US policies, particularly in the Middle East.