united states

On the same day Delcy Rodríguez was in New York meeting Donald Trump and representing Venezuela at the United Nations, María Corina Machado was trying, unsuccessfully, to get closer to her own country.

It was her third attempt in barely 24 hours. First came a planned maritime departure from Panama, which was canceled after the company operating the vessel reported mechanical problems. Then came an attempted flight to Aruba, from where Machado intended to continue by sea. Finally, there was another flight plan, this time for Curaçao. That trip did not happen either. Her team now says she has attempted to return to Venezuela seven times since she left in December 2025 to get her Nobel Prize in Oslo.

The exact responsibility for the latest failures remains unclear. But what happened during previous attempts is better documented. Axios reported in July that the Trump administration’s position was that third countries should not help Machado enter Venezuela. When Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau appeared to tell the Dutch government otherwise, officials in Washington corrected the message. Curaçao withdrew permission for Machado’s plane to land while she was already in the air. According to the same account, Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently reiterated the policy to Machado personally.

This sits awkwardly beside Washington’s public position. Rubio said this month that Machado, as a Venezuelan citizen, has every right to return “whenever she wants.” A State Department official told Congress in July that the US would not obstruct her return. Trump himself has denied telling her to stay away.

After World War II, keeping Emperor Hirohito in power did not mean preserving his capacity to decide who could participate in Japanese politics.

All of those statements may be technically true. The US does not issue Venezuelan visas and cannot legally forbid a Venezuelan citizen from entering Venezuela. But Machado cannot teleport into Caracas. Getting home requires aircraft, airports, territorial waters, neighboring governments and, increasingly, governments that want to know Washington’s position before helping her. There is a meaningful difference between saying that the US will not prohibit her return and telling American partners that facilitating it is not US policy.

This would already be an odd arrangement for any opposition leader. It is stranger still in Machado’s case. She is hardly a geopolitical threat to Washington. She has gone out of her way to present a democratic Venezuela as a close strategic partner of the US. In December, she said explicitly that America would be Venezuela’s “main ally.” She has spoken about opening the country to Western investment, rebuilding the energy sector with foreign capital and transforming Venezuela from a security liability into a partner for the US. After Maduro’s removal, she publicly thanked Trump and Rubio and described the outcome as a potential “win-win” for both countries.

Yet Reuters reported last week that US officials remain wary of her return because they fear her presence could disrupt the transition Washington is supporting around Rodríguez. Machado’s movement is not part of the current US-backed negotiating mechanism, while Delcy’s government has become Washington’s main Venezuelan interlocutor.

That raises a question that goes beyond Machado.

The postwar parallel

The Trump administration has repeatedly defended its approach as a matter of sequencing. Venezuela needs stability first, then economic recovery and reconciliation, and “ultimately democratic transition.” The White House argues that rebuilding the economy is a precondition for elections rather than a substitute for them.

There is a serious argument behind that position. Venezuela inherited a devastated public administration, a crippled oil industry, enormous external debt and institutions hollowed out by years of authoritarian rule. Abruptly dismantling the bureaucracy, military hierarchy or State-owned companies could reproduce some of the worst mistakes made in other post-authoritarian or post-conflict transitions. A functioning State matters.

But preserving the State is not the historical equivalent of preserving the regime.

After World War II, the United States repeatedly confronted versions of this distinction. In Japan, the occupation retained Emperor Hirohito partly because American planners believed institutional continuity could make the transition less destabilizing. But keeping the emperor did not mean preserving the emperor’s capacity to decide who could participate in Japanese politics. On October 4, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur ordered the Japanese government to remove restrictions on political and civil liberties and release political prisoners. Among those released were prominent Japanese Communists who had been imprisoned by the old order. American officials later acknowledged that the resulting political opening was so broad that some Japanese mistakenly concluded that the occupation itself favored the Communist Party.

When it comes to the geopolitical role of the US, the Trump administration depicts itself as the decisive actor reshaping Venezuela. When questions turn to the lack of institutional reforms, Venezuela’s sovereignty becomes a much more convenient explanation for the limits of American responsibility.

Something similar happened in Italy. The Allies initially worked through King Vittorio Emanuele III and Marshal Pietro Badoglio because they needed an Italian government capable of administering the country during the war. At the same time, political exiles were allowed to come home and anti-Fascist parties returned to public life. The contrast is particularly striking in the case of Palmiro Togliatti, the leader of the Italian Communist Party and a former senior official of the Communist International. When Togliatti sought to return from Moscow in 1944, the US State Department explicitly said it had “no objection.” He returned and soon participated in the new political order.

Neither Japan nor Italy offer a blueprint for Venezuela. The historical circumstances were radically different, and American occupation policy was hardly politically neutral. But the underlying distinction is useful. Administrative continuity did not require preserving the old regime’s monopoly over politics. The State could survive while the political system opened around it.

That is precisely where Washington’s current Venezuelan policy becomes harder to understand.

The art of deflecting

Keeping experienced civil servants at their desks is State continuity. Avoiding a wholesale purge of the armed forces may be State continuity. Keeping PDVSA pumping oil while new rules are negotiated is State continuity. None of those choices inherently require preventing opposition politicians from returning, organizing, or campaigning.

And Venezuela’s political opening remains incomplete. A UN Fact-Finding mission reported this month that, despite prisoner releases and some liberalization, the structures responsible for years of repression remain largely intact. Officials linked to previous abuses remain in important positions, restrictive laws survive and arbitrary detention and mistreatment have not disappeared.

This makes the widening gap between economic opening and political opening particularly important. Washington is moving rapidly on the former. Rodríguez traveled to New York accompanied by officials discussing oil, mining, debt restructuring and access to international financial institutions. American companies are negotiating their return to Venezuela’s energy sector. Trump has made the oil agreement one of the centerpieces of his foreign-policy narrative.

At the United Nations this week, Trump went further. After celebrating Maduro’s capture, the release of prisoners and Washington’s relationship with Venezuela’s current leaders, he described the new oil arrangement in unmistakably triumphalist terms. “It was a war,” he said, before invoking the old expression: “to the victor belong the spoils.” He then presented Venezuela as proof that the US would once again impose its power against threats in the Western Hemisphere.

If Machado returns, travels freely, organizes her movement, holds rallies and begins preparing for an eventual presidential campaign, Delcy’s continued presence can still be understood as part of an administrative transition.

The rhetoric creates an uncomfortable asymmetry. When discussing oil, geopolitical alignment or American power, the administration depicts itself as the decisive actor reshaping Venezuela. When questions turn to the remaining coercive apparatus, restrictions on political competition or the continued exclusion of important opposition actors, Venezuela’s sovereignty becomes a much more convenient explanation for the limits of American responsibility.

Washington cannot have unlimited responsibility for everything that happens inside Venezuela. Delcy Rodríguez still controls a government, a bureaucracy and a security apparatus of its own. But the US plainly possesses enormous leverage over the political and economic environment in which that government operates. The history of Machado’s attempts to return suggests that this influence may extend even to whether neighboring governments are prepared to help a Venezuelan opposition leader reach her country.

That is why Machado’s return matters beyond Machado herself.

If she returns, travels freely, organizes her movement, holds rallies and begins preparing for an eventual presidential campaign, Delcy’s continued presence can still be understood as part of an administrative transition: an imperfect bridge between the regime that existed under Maduro and a genuinely competitive political order.

If her return continues to be regarded as destabilizing, however, the logic starts to invert. Political competition itself becomes a threat to stability. The government is no longer merely being preserved so that the State can function while politics reopens; political reopening is being limited because it might endanger the government being preserved.

Venezuela does not need another collapse of the State. But avoiding State collapse and protecting the political equilibrium inherited from chavismo are two different objectives.

The distinction between them may ultimately define this transition.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes to his feet at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York later on Thursday, he does so at a critical point in both his political career and in his country’s long and fractious relationship with the international body.

Israel has faced repeated accusations of genocide at the UN, as well as systematic war crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Those criticisms continue to shape the country’s fractious relationship with the body.

For Netanyahu, appearing in front of the UNGA for the 15th time, the stakes have rarely been higher. Addressing a domestic Israeli audience that polls show to be losing faith in him and his Likud party ahead of crucial elections later this year, Netanyahu has already pitched himself as Israel’s primary voice on the international stage.

Nevertheless, analysts say Netanyahu’s address could prove a pivotal moment domestically, amplified by international criticism of Israel and expected to dominate headlines and be carried live across the country’s television networks.

“This is a regular fixture for him,” former Israeli consul general in New York and ex-government adviser Alon Pinkas told Al Jazeera. “It’s his way of being seen in Israel as standing up against the world and of telling members that he will never give up or surrender. He’s also turned the event into some kind of national holiday in Israel, with everyone sitting down to watch the address on television. He’s brainwashed people in Israel into believing his speech is somehow an announcement of policy, stated in defiance of the [rest of the world] who don’t believe a word he says.”

A history of hostility

Israeli leaders have long framed their stance towards the UN as one of defiance in the face of hostility. The UN has long been a platform for critics of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land and repeated attacks on its neighbours. It has included attempts to censure Israel over what UN investigators have described as apartheid in the West Bank, as well as accusations of genocide and pogroms across the occupied Palestinian territory since October 2023.

There have been numerous UNGA resolutions criticising Israel’s conduct — nearly all dismissed by Israeli lawmakers as evidence of institutional bias — culminating in Israel declaring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres persona non grata and severely restricting the operations of the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

“Generally speaking, many Israelis tend to see the UN as anti-Israeli,” Nimrod Goren, the president of the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policy, Mitvim, said.

Against that background, criticism from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani — already cast as anti-Israel in the Israeli press — has drawn greater public attention to the event. Underscoring the sense of hostility towards Israel are stories within the country’s media suggesting that Netanyahu’s visit to New York has been curtailed due to unspecified security concerns, with the Israeli premier expected to fly out of New York on the same day as his arrival.

In response, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, who has repeatedly accused the organisation of waging “diplomatic terrorism” against the state called for Mamdani’s arrest for what he said was the mayor’s incitement against New York’s Jewish community ahead of Netanyahu’s visit.

“Netanyahu is going into his UNGA speech with not one but both eyes focused firmly on the upcoming Israeli election,” Goren said. “The speech is usually treated in Israel as a major event, receiving broad coverage and dominating the news cycle. Netanyahu will likely try to leverage this to bolster his image as a close ally of the US and to talk up the threat posed by Iran.”

US backing

Some have interpreted US President Donald Trump’s apparent lack of availability to meet Netanyahu during this trip as a sign of waning support. But US backing for Israel at the UN has remained steadfast since the October 7 attack and has contributed to growing frustration within the UN over what they see as Israel’s ability to resist international censure.

Alongside the creation of the Board of Peace, which shifted significant responsibility for Gaza’s future from the UN to the Trump-founded organisation, Washington has repeatedly used its veto at the UN Security Council to shield Israel from resolutions it opposes. The US has vetoed at least six UN Security Council resolutions on Gaza since October 2023, most of them demanding an immediate ceasefire.

“There seems to be genuine frustration within the UN General Assembly over the body’s failure to play a significant political role in Gaza and the West Bank, but also in its failure to protect its own staff and agencies,” Chatham House Associate Fellow Zizette Darkazally, who previously worked with the UN, said.

“However, it’s worth remembering the context the UN operates within in the occupied territories and the important humanitarian role it plays. The UN continues to get aid and medical support into Gaza and the West Bank, which are both areas where Israel has absolute control over access,” she said. “It’s also worth remembering that the UN is only as strong as the commitment of its member states.”

“That, combined with a system of veto that’s more than 80 years old, has left the organisation weaker now than it had ever been,” she said of the confrontations between the UN and Israel. “And we’re seeing the effects of that, not just in Palestine, but in Yemen, Sudan and Iran, where the UN is playing next to no political role.”

United States President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping are set to meet in Washington, DC on Thursday for a summit that is expected to cover trade, artificial intelligence (AI), Taiwan and the US-Israel war on Iran.

In advance of the talks, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Washington had proposed an AI “notification mechanism” with China – effectively a hotline to alert each other when AI incidents threaten national security.

The meeting comes as leading AI companies warn about the technology’s risks, while both superpowers push to accelerate their AI race. In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera compares the US and China’s AI strength in computing power, AI models, spending and research.

Who has more computing power?

Training and running AI requires enormous amounts of computing power. The more powerful chips and computers a country has, the faster it can build and improve AI models, making computing power one of the biggest advantages in the AI race.

Computing power is measured in FLOP/s (floating-point operations per second) – or how many calculations a computer can perform in one second.

Adding up the computing power of all the AI chips a country has gives a sense of its total AI capacity. By that measure, the US is well ahead, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the world’s total AI computing power, while China holds just more than 14 percent, according to Epoch AI, an AI research institute.

The US lead comes largely from its access to the most advanced chips. US company Nvidia accounts for more than 60 percent of global AI computing capacity among major chip designers, while China’s Huawei holds a much smaller, but growing share, according to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index.

Those chips also need somewhere to run. The US has more than 5,400 data centres – the large buildings which house thousands of computers – about 10 times as many as any other country. It also leads in dedicated AI data centres, with 84, more than the next eight countries combined.

Whose AI models are people using?

Frontier models are the most advanced AI systems, such as OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude and DeepSeek’s models in China. They are trained using vast amounts of data and computing power to write, reason and code.

The US has led the development of these models, but Chinese models are gaining ground.

As of March 2026, US and Chinese AI models were closely matched on Arena, a leaderboard where users compare two anonymous models and vote for the better answer. US companies Anthropic, xAI, Google and OpenAI ranked near the top, alongside China’s Alibaba and DeepSeek.

On OpenRouter, a platform that ranks AI models by real-world use, Chinese models dominate the leaderboard. Models from Chinese companies DeepSeek, Z.ai and Tencent hold the top three spots on OpenRouter by tokens processed, the units of text that AI models read and generate.

This is partly because Chinese models are cheaper to use. Many are also open-weight, meaning developers can download, adapt and run them themselves.

Chinese models can now compete with US ones in many real-world tasks, with Chinese AI models “months, not years, behind US frontier models”, according to a July analysis by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

In May, the US government’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) estimated that DeepSeek V4 Pro, released in April, was about eight months behind leading US models.

Who is spending more?

The US is spending far more than China on the infrastructure needed to build AI, giving its tech companies a significant advantage in the race for computing power.

Goldman Sachs estimates that US hyperscalers, the giant tech companies that run large-scale cloud computing and data centres, will spend about $764bn in 2026. That includes Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta and Oracle. By comparison, China’s Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu and ByteDance are expected to spend $102bn.

But China’s spending is increasing faster. TrendForce, a market research firm, expects China’s four hyperscalers’ capital expenditure to rise by more than 80 percent in 2026, compared with a projected growth of 76 percent for US hyperscalers, according to the news agency Reuters.

The spending gap reflects the scale of the US tech sector, whose companies have larger revenues to reinvest in chips, data centres and talent.

Who is leading in AI research and talent?

China is producing more AI research and training more technical talent, but the US remains a magnet for the world’s top AI researchers.

China accounted for more than 27 percent of global AI publications in 2024, including journal articles, conference papers, working papers and preprints compared with 12 percent from the US, according to the Center for Security and Emerging Technology. The figures only cover publications with an English-language title or abstract.

China also trains more top researchers. According to a study by MacroPolo, 47 percent of the world’s top 20 percent of AI researchers completed their undergraduate studies in China in 2022, up from 29 percent in 2019. The study also found that 72 percent of the top AI researchers educated in China were working in the US.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has revealed a security breach of a government website containing Australians’ health data by an “AI agent”, less than a day after signing a joint appeal for “urgent global guardrails” around artificial intelligence.

Albanese co-signed the “A Call for Control of Frontier AI Models” statement on Tuesday together with 21 signatories including Canada, Spain and Germany, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting in New York.

Addressing reporters on Wednesday, Albanese said the agent, developed by OpenAI, accessed public and non-public data on the government’s Medicare portal in June.

Australia’s Labor government is tightening tech regulations with new online safety laws, age bans and proposed digital duty of care frameworks.

Albanese said he had spoken to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to express Canberra’s “extreme concern” about the hack and disappointment that the company took three months to admit the breach.

OpenAI responded in the hours after the news conference, stating that while it was still investigating, there was no evidence patient records were accessed.

The company’s review had identified activity involving several Australian government websites and services as its “models attempted to look up answers”, it said.

World leaders respond to AI warnings

The leaders of artificial intelligence companies warned of the risks of unregulated AI development before a 15-member UN Security Council meeting on Wednesday.

One of them, Yoshua Bengio, a Canadian considered one of the ‘Godfathers of AI’ and co-chair of the Independent International Scientific Panel, spoke of the “unprecedented threat” and the “real and imminent” dangers of the technology.

China’s UN ambassador Fu Cong told the meeting that Beijing believed continuous improvement of regulatory frameworks, emergency response and cross-border cooperation on AI was needed.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the United Kingdom was ready to lead an international effort to establish AI standards.

“We’ve all heard the warnings which we must heed… so we have to rise to this moment,” he said, but added he also wanted the UK to pursue the benefits of AI.

French President Emmanuel Macron warned against allowing the United States and China to dominate decision-making around AI during his speech to the assembly on Wednesday.

US President Donald Trump is at odds with many of his counterparts, comparing the dangers of AI to climate change, which he has called a hoax.

He also proposed rebranding the term AI to SI, or “super intelligence”, during his address to the UNGA on Tuesday, and earlier said he planned to appoint an AI adviser.

In a Truth Social post on Monday, Trump said the US was leading the AI race over China, that he was “not going to stifle Growth”, but added ⁠that the US would be careful.

White House science and technology adviser Michael Kratsios echoed Trump in remarks to the UN Security Council on Wednesday.

“You cannot govern technology you do not understand. This body and others like it should focus on sharing best practices to build domestic capacity, not establishing a global regulatory scheme,” he said.

The heads of several major AI firms told the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) their industry urgently needed global oversight to avoid dangers that could threaten the whole world.

“If managed poorly, I even believe AI could be a risk to humanity as a whole,” Dario Amodei, the chief executive officer of Anthropic, told members of the body on Wednesday.

Sam Altman, the head of rival company OpenAI, echoed his concerns, telling the 15-member council tasked with tackling major crises globally that humanity could “lose control of the future of AI”.

The meeting, which coincides with the UN General Assembly (UNGA) gathering in New York City, was convened by France and comes at a time when experts are increasingly warning that the rapid development of AI needs more human oversight to ensure it does not slip out of control and cause a global catastrophe.

Altman and Amodei called on world leaders to take action.

“If AI is to be democratic, the most important decisions cannot be made by labs in San Francisco alone,” Altman told members. “They must be shaped through democratic processes and by governments accountable to the people they serve.”

Their concerns were shared by several representatives on the council, including the foreign ministers of France and the United Kingdom, who said the international community needed to step in and create common frameworks for how the technology should be controlled.

Hugging Face CEO Clement Delangue, whose company has come under attack by out-of-control AI models in recent months – incidents used by the other companies as evidence of the need for more safety measures – told the UNSC his company had relied on the technology to defend itself in those same incidents.

Delangue said Hugging Face had relied on a Chinese AI model to help defend against the attack by OpenAI’s AI agents, because it faced fewer restrictions than comparable US tools.

“We were attacked by AI, but more importantly, we defended ourselves with AI,” he told the council.

US and China reluctant to impose restrictions

In the United States, though, where the largest and most influential companies developing AI are based, the administration of US President Donald Trump has baulked at imposing new guardrails on the industry.

The administration’s representative at the UNSC meeting, Michael Kratsios, told members, “We totally reject all efforts by international bodies to assert centralised control and global governance of AI.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to discuss whether and how to regulate AI during a visit to Washington, DC, this week. The two countries are locked in a technological race to develop more powerful AI tools, a competition that experts say makes it less likely that either country would want to impose any major new restrictions on their efforts right away.

Yet there is a growing recognition at the UN of the danger AI potentially poses to the world, said Daniel Forti, head of UN Affairs at the International Crisis Group. Member states understand that “there will be much more of a need for international cooperation, setting some rules of AI, even if the biggest players are more focused on growth opportunities than on some sort of collaboration,” Forti said.

For several years, the UN has been participating in multilateral meetings to shape everything from protections for workers from AI in emerging economies and ensuring open access to this technology, to following how AI is used in military conflicts. In 2024, the UNGA unanimously passed its first resolution on AI, a nonbinding statement that called on member states to protect personal data, monitor AI for risks and safeguard human rights.

The adoption of AI has taken off dramatically since then, and with it have come dire warnings from environmental groups, human rights advocates, and even the tech moguls whose companies are developing the tech.

The future of AI “cannot be decided by a handful of countries or left to the whims of a few billionaires”, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at a global summit held earlier this year.

Last year, the UNGA formed two new bodies to deal with AI: the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI that brings together experts to provide governments with independent assessments, and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, which provides a regular forum for discussing approaches to AI governance.

“The dangers are real and imminent,” Yoshua Bengio, a Canadian expert on AI and co-chair of the Independent International Scientific Panel, told the UNSC on Wednesday. “This council faces an unprecedented threat, one that none of its members would ⁠choose, that none can contain alone, and that does not respect the borders we defend.”

Trump takes rare step of meeting foreign leader at the airport, underscoring significance of US-China relationship.

United States President Donald Trump has welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping as he arrived in the US for a three-day trip focused on issues such as security, trade and technology.

Trump took the rare step of meeting the Chinese leader in person at Joint Base Andrews in the state of Maryland on Wednesday, the first president to do so in recent memory.

The US president and First Lady Melania Trump greeted Xi and his wife on the tarmac during a welcoming ceremony, where a red carpet was rolled out and the couples exchanged handshakes. Trump and Xi then walked side by side, flanked by US soldiers, before standing for a gunfire salute and the US national anthem.

The in-person greeting is a sign of the significance that Washington ascribes to its relationship with Beijing, whose meteoric economic rise over the last several decades has transformed it into a global superpower capable of rivalling the United States.

Despite tense relations that worsened after the Trump administration placed high tariffs on Chinese goods – a move that was met with retaliatory measures from Beijing – Trump has expressed personal affinity for Xi and his desire for strong ties with China.

The Chinese president’s trip to the US will include a state dinner, attended by leaders of the country’s powerful tech industry, a military ceremony at the White House, and a visit to the National Archives, home to documents of historical and cultural significance such as the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

But both countries remain wary of the other as they compete for political and economic influence. The trip is likely to include discussion of issues such as the US war on Iran, trade, technology, rare-earth minerals and US ties to Taiwan, the self-governing island that China claims as part of its territory.

An 11-month deal that offered temporary relief from punishing tariffs between the two countries is set to expire on November 10.

Hacker group ShinyHunters claims to have detailed data on thousands of FBI employees.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation says it is investigating a breach of its jobs website by a hacking group that claims to have obtained sensitive data on thousands of employees.

“The FBI is aware of a cybercriminal enterprise group claiming a compromise of the fbijobs.gov portal and alleged impact to FBI employee personally identifiable information,” the agency said in a statement on Wednesday.

“While the point of breach is still undetermined — whether a third -party or the FBI’s enterprise — we are actively and aggressively investigating this matter and working closely with those third-party providers that support fbijobs.gov to mitigate any and all risk.”

Several news outlets, including Reuters news agency, reported they had seen parts of the data, claimed to be part of a larger trove between two and three terabytes by ShinyHunters, a hacking group claiming responsibility for the breach. According to Reuters, the data includes granular detail about scores of bureau officials’s job assignments, including sensitive work against Chinese spies, Russian intelligence, drug cartels and more.

ShinyHunters said on Tuesday that it had breached the FBI and stolen data on a huge number of current and former FBI employees. ⁠⁠It said it is holding the data hostage until the bureau rescinds an unflattering statement about the group issued in May. On Wednesday, the group said it was trying to keep the ⁠⁠personnel information from circulating widely in the meantime.

An FBI statement in May characterised ShinyHunters as “threat actors” who often harass or threaten victims, using “their real or exaggerated claims of access to sensitive or personal information to prompt payment from victims”.

The group “may falsely claim to have sensitive or compromising information, including embarrassing photographs or videos of victims, which frequently do not exist,” the FBI said.

The FBI has been a common hacking target.

In March, the FBI disclosed that it was investigating “suspicious activities” on an internal system that contains sensitive information related to surveillance operations and investigations. Also that month, a pro-Iranian hacking group claimed to have hacked an account of FBI Director Kash Patel and posted online what appear to be years-old photographs of him, along with a work resume and other personal documents dating back more than a decade.

The jobs portal was still offline Wednesday afternoon.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says summit would be opportunity for Russian president to engage with global leaders.

United States President Donald Trump has invited his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to the upcoming G20 summit in Miami, Florida, the latest step meant to build ties between the two countries amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that Putin had been invited to travel to the summit in December, saying that he hopes the Russian leader will take the opportunity to meet with global leaders.

“In order to solve problems, you have to meet with the people that you disagree with or the people that you might have some issues with,” Rubio said. “So we’ve invited President Putin to the G20.”

“We think it’s an opportunity for him to engage not just with the president, but with other world leaders. We hope that’s an invitation he’ll accept,” Rubio said.

Rubio’s remarks followed a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), currently convening in New York City.

During a speech to the UNGA on Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on the world to place more financial pressure on Russia.

“When someone gives Russia more money through trade, they give this war more time. And that is exactly why we insist on limiting trade with the aggressor, and why we are burning Russia’s revenues ourselves,” he said, adding that he is sceptical that Russia is sincerely interested in taking steps that could end the war.

Trump has searched in vain for an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to end the war sparked by Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Ukrainian officials have called for a pause on strikes targeting energy infrastructure and for steps to facilitate shipping for the Black Sea. Russia has given little sign that it is interested in such an arrangement.

“We are not going to have a pause in our special military operation,” Lavrov told the UN Security Council on Wednesday, accusing Europe of wanting to pause the fighting in order to “pump the Kyiv regime with weapons”.

Rubio, however, continued to express optimism about the possibility of a temporary ceasefire.

“I think both sides have expressed an interest in some limited ceasefire that involves grain and energy,” he said. “Obviously, you know, that won’t be easy, either.”

Zelenskyy told reporters that Kyiv remains open to a maritime truce in the Black Sea.

“We are waiting for Russia’s response,” he said, adding that his country is ready “to ensure safe shipping and food security in the Black Sea if Russia is ready to take real steps towards de-escalation, too”.

“We have to start somewhere,” he added.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 for the alleged war crime of deportation of Ukrainian children to Russian territory. The arrest warrant obliges member states to arrest Putin if he travels to their countries, but the court has no enforcement mechanism for this. The US is not a member of the ICC.

The ruling seals six years of legal battles after Weinstein’s initial conviction for sexually assaulting TV assistant.

Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced movie mogul, has been sentenced in Manhattan to 15 years in prison for a felony sex crime in another #MeToo reckoning.

Weinstein’s sentencing on Wednesday for sexually assaulting one-time TV production assistant Miriam Haley followed a legal odyssey spanning more than six years, when New York’s highest court overturned his 2020 conviction. A second jury found Weinstein guilty again at a retrial last year.

Once among the most powerful figures in the entertainment industry, Weinstein was an Oscar-winning producer whose hits included “Shakespeare in Love,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Chocolat.” But his downfall came quickly after sexual assault allegations in 2017 set off the #MeToo movement.

Weinstein, 74, is expected to appeal and maintains that he never raped or sexually assaulted anyone. He is now likely to remain behind bars well into his 80s. Seated in a wheelchair, he was quickly moved out of the courtroom after the sentencing, while some of his accusers hugged and brushed away tears.

Haley, 49, appeared in court on Wednesday morning and delivered a victim impact statement in which she talked about enduring seven years of public smear campaigns and humiliation orchestrated by Weinstein, his legal team and allegedly paid podcasters aiming to sour her image.

Haley added that her experience following the assault had “already been a life sentence” for her, and implored the judge to take all of this into consideration.

Owing to a cycle of retrials, appeals and judicial proceedings, Weinstein has remained incarcerated since his 2018 arrest and is now serving time in a prison medical ward.

Weinstein, first publicly accused of wrongdoing in 2017, was detained a year later. In 2024, New York’s highest court overturned the original 2020 conviction that had sentenced the former Hollywood producer to 23 years in prison, ruling that the inclusion of extraneous, non-indicted testimony had compromised the equity of the trial.

Prosecutors attempted to retry the case last June, but it ended in a split verdict after the jury foreperson refused to return to deliberate amid a jury room feud. Weinstein was convicted of a first-degree criminal sex act on a separate count at the time, again.

Weinstein is also awaiting resentencing in a separate rape case in Los Angeles.

In a defiant speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has delivered a sharp rebuke to a threat by US President Donald Trump from the same rostrum the previous day to annihilate the country, but left the door open for diplomacy to end nearly seven months of war.

“The US president called us terrorists but we are the victims of terrorists,” Pezeshkian said on Wednesday.

During his speech, Pezeshkian held up a picture of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – assassinated in a joint US-Israeli strike at the start of the war in February – as well as photos of schoolgirls killed in an alleged US air attack on their school in the southern city of Minab.

“They hit us, but we did not bow our heads or bend the knee,” Pezeshkian added.

As the Iranian president began his speech, an official from the US delegation walked out of the vast hall. The Israeli delegation also boycotted the address.

“[Trump] must know that the resistance of the Iranian people will only grow in the face of sanctions and increased pressure and bullying,” Pezeshkian said.

But Pezeshkian, a relative centrist in the Iranian ruling system, also left the door open for negotiations, saying, “Iran extends its hands towards the world.”

“We invite the world and call to it, not out of weakness, but out of a deep belief in our own power and steadfastness to cooperate and collaborate out of a deep understanding that no one in this region will have security alone,” he said.

‘Very good meeting’

On Tuesday, Trump said his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who are both leading negotiations with Tehran, had held a three-hour meeting with Iranian officials.

“They had a very good meeting, a very productive meeting,” Trump told reporters at the UN, adding that he believed there was “a lot of momentum” towards an agreement. Trump later said talks were continuing and that he believed a settlement would eventually be reached.

The remarks came after Trump used his speech before UN delegates to again threaten Iran’s destruction.

“Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before?” Trump said. “Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”

Strait of Hormuz

Addressing the US naval blockade of Iran and Tehran’s campaign to choke off trade in the Strait of Hormuz, Pezeshkian said Iran would resist what he called US efforts to use the critical sea lane to expand its war on the country.

“In the Strait of Hormuz, we cannot have some free access and gain their independence from that waterway while at the same time use that waterway to impose their aggressions upon us and to impose insecurity upon us; to forbid us access to our own waterways,” he said.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the US-based Center for International Policy, said the Iranian president’s speech showed usual flashes of defiance, but notably signalled an appetite for a diplomatic off-ramp.

“Iran wants a way out of this war. They’ve kept the door to diplomacy open,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Reading between the lines of the Iranian president’s speech, it seems Iran may even show some flexibility as far as a return to some sort of agreement that may not be exactly along the lines of the June Memorandum of Understanding that US President Trump doesn’t seem interested in returning to,” she said. The memorandum, which has expired, called for a halt to fighting, lifting the US naval blockade and opening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

Compromise still a possibility

Drawing parallels between the US and Israel bombing of Iran and Israel’s attacks in Gaza, Pezeskhian said Israel’s genocide in Gaza “revealed the double standards to which Iran is held by the international community”.

“They kill and we are sanctioned and we are punished,” Pezeshkian added.

Joey Hood, a former US diplomat and ambassador to Tunisia, said the speech leaned heavily into familiar Iranian official rhetoric and represented a lost opportunity to seek compromise.

“Instead of coming to the United Nations with something new and bold, we heard the same things that we’ve heard before,” Hood said, adding that a concrete peace offer or proposal posed to the US in the speech might have focused Washington’s attention.

“That would actually put Donald Trump on the backfoot, and he would have to respond. The Iranian president didn’t do any of that,” Hood said.

VICTORIA, British Columbia — A Canadian provincial premier called a snap election Tuesday, saying President Trump’s attacks on Canada are threatening jobs, businesses and the country’s ability to determine its own future.

The provincial election comes after U.S.-Canada trade talks broke down, deepening a dispute that has brought steep tariffs. British Columbia Premier David Eby effectively put Trump on the ballot, arguing the election offers British Columbians a choice between his government’s efforts to resist U.S. economic pressure and opponents he accused of embracing “MAGA-style politics.”

“Join us saying hell no to Trump and to his politics,” Eby said in announcing the Oct. 24 election.

Eby said Trump’s trade war and threats against Canada have changed conditions in British Columbia enough to justify an election two years early.

“Donald Trump is attacking our workers, he’s targeting our businesses, and he is threatening our sovereignty,” Eby said. “He’s threatening our ability to make decisions for ourselves.”

The left-leaning New Democratic Party leader said British Columbia needs to build a “firebreak” against Trump’s economic policies by protecting workers and businesses, reducing its dependence on the United States and finding new markets for Canadian products.

“This isn’t just a trade dispute,” Eby said. “It’s about the life that you and your family are building.”

Eby said British Columbia’s exports to the United States have fallen 4% while exports to other markets have risen 16%.

He also vowed to keep American alcohol off provincial shelves, saying “not one drop of Jack Daniels” would return until Canada gets a fair deal with the United States.

The New Democrats won a narrow majority in the 2024 provincial election, giving Eby enough seats to govern without relying on another party, and he was not required to call another election until 2028.

The election call also comes amid turmoil among the opposition British Columbia Conservatives. Kerry-Lynne Findlay resigned as party leader Sunday following a wave of defections and expulsions from her caucus. Lorne Doerkson was named interim leader.

At the colloquium established shortly after the second world war to prevent future wars, United States President Donald Trump did just the inverse: He platformed his unceasing threats against Iran, suggesting almost casually on Tuesday that he could “annihilate” the country he has waged war against since February 28.

But behind closed doors on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), a flurry of diplomatic activity concerning the ongoing US-Iran war has also been unfolding, as world leaders gather in New York.

The US and Iran held indirect talks for three hours on Tuesday. US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with Trump calling it a “very good” and “very productive” meeting. Trump also met Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders that day, with senior officials from the region mulling a Qatari proposal for a common security framework involving Iran and the Gulf states.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian arrived in New York early on Wednesday – the first time a leader whose country is at war with the US has set foot on US soil to address the gathering. And Chinese President Xi Jinping will skirt New York to instead meet Trump one-on-one in Washington, DC – his first state visit to the US in just less than a decade. Xi lands on Wednesday evening.

All these separate diplomatic initiatives, analysts tell Al Jazeera, are parts of a push to bring Iran and the US back to the negotiating table. According to Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran, Tohid Asadi, Araghchi’s meeting with Witkoff and Kushner was to convey Tehran’s latest set of conditions to end the war, following the collapse of the June 60-day memorandum of understanding (MoU) finalised in Islamabad, Pakistan.

But analysts say expecting an actual deal to emerge this week from the diplomatic meetings in the US would be unrealistic. Multiple actors and mediators in the conflict are testing possible off-ramps, but core disagreements between Washington and Tehran remain unresolved.

“I am sceptical that a breakthrough deal can emerge this week, but a series of understandings can build confidence for renewed diplomacy,” Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

Too early for a breakthrough

Vakil is hesitant to call the current moment ripe for a diplomatic breakthrough – it is far too early, and there is a history of negotiations failing, she said.

“Both sides have been negotiating for over two years and on two occasions, that ended with military conflict and these negotiations continue amid persistent military threats,” she said.

Iran has long pointed to its previous rounds of diplomatic talks with the US – in 2025 and again this year – as evidence that Washington can veer from negotiations to military action. It has cited the 12-day war last June, and the current conflict, which began with joint US-Israeli strikes on Tehran at a time Washington and Tehran were engaged in Oman-mediated dialogue.

Adel Abdel Ghafar, a senior fellow focusing on the Middle East at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that there appears to be “genuine” movement towards reigniting negotiations – but also “a fair amount of posturing”. He referenced Trump’s praise for Tuesday’s indirect Iran-US talks and his pugnacious UNGA speech the same day.

A breakthrough hinges on whether Iran’s diplomats in New York can actually deliver, he said.

“Araghchi and Pezeshkian can negotiate, but any deal will need the consent of the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and the hardliners in charge of the war back home,” Abdel Ghafar told Al Jazeera.

There are specific indicators to watch for another round of US-Iran contact, the analysts said.

“The signs to watch for are another confirmed round of US-Iran talks, agreement on sequencing or reciprocal steps, and language from both sides becoming more specific about implementation rather than simply repeating maximalist demands,” said Vakil.

Abdel Ghafar added that, against the backdrop of UNGA, signs could include Araghchi or Pezeshkian meeting directly with US officials, in addition to supportive statements from more hardline elements of the Iranian administration back home.

The appearance of such indicators could lead to a stronger push for such talks when Trump meets Xi, as well as an easing of fighting between the Iran-backed Houthi group and the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, which has escalated in recent weeks, the analyst added.

The limits of Gulf and Chinese diplomacy

The analysts agreed that the Gulf states remain crucial in brokering a return to talks because they have channels to both warring sides, as well as a very strong interest in preventing further escalation, having absorbed the cost of the fighting since February. Qatar, Oman and other Gulf states have been involved in mediation efforts throughout the conflict.

“Qatar and Oman, in particular, can help translate broad political messages into workable arrangements on issues such as Hormuz and regional security,” said Vakil.

China, meanwhile, has less capacity or interest to mediate, she argued.

Beijing, however, could use its economic and political leverage with Tehran “to encourage compromise and give Iran greater confidence that any agreement will not leave it completely isolated”, said Vakil.

Abdel Ghafar pointed out that China remains Iran’s main customer for its oil, explaining why Beijing has pushed for a return to the June interim deal and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Still, I think neither can impose a settlement – it ultimately comes down to Washington and Tehran,” he said.

Hostilities and Hormuz

The tit-for-tat rhetoric has resulted in continued deadlock in the conflict, with each side unwilling to relinquish to the other’s demands and appear to admit defeat.

On Tuesday, following Trump’s remarks on annihilating Iran, Iran’s military warned that it is ready to respond with “crushing” attacks more severe than earlier in the war.

“The main challenge is finding a formula that both governments can present domestically as a negotiated compromise rather than capitulation,” said Vakil.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a key obstacle.

“It’s Iran’s strongest card and the thing Washington most wants back, with oil prices high and midterms approaching,” said Abdel Ghafar.

“Tehran will be reluctant to give it up without firm guarantees in return.”

Still, he warned that even if Washington and Tehran de-escalate, that does not automatically extend to the Red Sea.

The wider landscape of regional instability and conflict has created new conditions for Yemen’s unresolved war to flare up once again. The Bab al-Mandeb, now under effective Houthi control, has gained greater significance amid Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil and gas supplies.

“Calm in Hormuz won’t necessarily mean calm in Bab al-Mandab,” said Abdel Ghafar.

Until now, Trump has acted in Venezuela with no congressional involvement. The administration decided to work in tandem with Delcy Rodríguez, secure the oil, and run a negotiation between the old remnants of an opposition-controlled National Assembly and the regime. This framework won’t be renegotiated if the Democrats win the House of Representatives on November 3, a goal they will likely achieve. But a new Congress can exert real legislative pressure to potentially change how it moves forward.

What the Democrats have done since Maduro’s ousting

Since January, the Dems’ first efforts were two resolutions, sponsored by Tim Kaine in the Senate and Jim McGovern in the House, about war powers and who may authorize force, not about what the Venezuelan process should become. Both were supported by a few Republican leaders and failed to pass.

On February 25, Rep. Jared Moskowitz introduced the Venezuela Democratic Transition Strategy Act. It required the Secretary of State to deliver a strategy within 180 days, covering the release of political prisoners, foreign influence and assistance, followed by annual reports. Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Ted Cruz also introduced a bipartisan resolution in the Senate regarding the transition in Venezuela.

None of Trump’s numerous executive actions have required a vote, ratification, or budget allocation in the Capitol. 

The initiatives by Democratic lawmakers have not aimed to reverse what happened on January 3rd, because the US cannot backtrack from the military incursion which meant, at least, Nicolás Maduro’s removal from power. What they are seeking, however, is the establishment of a plan that will lead to free elections and, in the long term, a genuine democratic transition. What is the Democrats’ position? They have maintained a stance of recognizing Edmundo González as president-elect and María Corina Machado as the leader of the opposition.

Besides, the impact of ICE and Border Patrol going after the Venezuelan community in the US has been repeatedly underlined by voices such as Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Rep. Darren Soto, who filed a discharge petition on March 19^th to force a vote on the Venezuela TPS Act.

What won’t change?

The broader US policy.

The oil agreement allegedly signed by the Trump administration, the company Nabep, and the Rodríguez regime is a 25-year project across 17 fields. That deal will not be undone by letters or congressional hearings. Not even Democrats attacking Trump’s dealings with Rodríguez have offered legislation to end them so far. A Democratic House will not be able to reinstate TPS without the Senate and a presidential signature.

The administration has shown it can take action on Venezuela without congressional involvement. That’s what it did with the military incursion on January 3rd, the deportations after invoking the Alien Enemies Act, the termination of TPS and the humanitarian parole, the formal recognition of Delcy Rodríguez as interim president, the lifting of sanctions on Delcy and sectors of the economy, the opening of the Venezuelan market to US companies, the removal of Venezuela from the list of countries that have failed to cooperate in combating drug trafficking, and the informal meeting with Rodríguez in New York. None of those executive actions required a vote, ratification, or budget allocation in the Capitol. 

The only formal check Congress has is the War Powers Resolution, which has already failed twice, and Trump has promised to veto it if it ever reaches his desk. Should he do so, even with a Democratic majority in Congress, at least two-thirds of the vote is required to override a presidential veto. That threshold remains very difficult to reach. 

Oversight already began

The clearest preview of what the midterm election can change came this month. Reps. Robert Garcia, Gregory Meeks and Jared Huffman, the ranking Democrats on Oversight, Foreign Affairs and Natural Resources, wrote to Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Blanche regarding the oil deal. They question why Alejandro Betancourt, who has faced investigations into alleged PDVSA money laundering, is treated as a business partner. They also say the administration has given Congress scarce details on the management of at least $13 billion in Venezuelan oil revenues.

The only thing that might change with a majority in Congress is the ability to obtain information, because those who are currently in the minority on the committees would become their chairs.

This issue is important if we expect a shift in the Legislative Oversight Committee on Venezuela. García has been the leading Democratic representative in the Oversight Committee since June 2025 and is well-positioned to chair the committee and exercise subpoena power if the Democrats win in November. Although his plans do not explicitly mention Venezuela as a priority, nor does the issue appear on the legislative agenda of Hakeem Jeffries (House Minority Leader), the agreements being negotiated and signed with Venezuela, as well as the management of oil resources, could fit perfectly with the demand for accountability and transparency that are indeed part of his priorities.

What’s happening in Florida?

We can’t talk about what we expect in November without discussing what’s happening in Florida. Although the Venezuelan vote isn’t decisive for the state, the Latino vote does carry significant weight and, in this case, naturalized US citizens or their descendants will consider immigration policies, as well as their economic impact, and abuses by ICE when they cast their vote.

The changes to electoral maps pushed by Republicans could have unexpected consequences. Moskowitz is seeking reelection and is in a competitive but winnable race. Wasserman-Schultz is in a better position in CD 20. Meanwhile, Angie Nixon, the Democratic Senate candidate, has been outspoken in her criticism of Trump’s immigration policies, demanding an end to deportations and the reinstatement of TPS.

If we want to see results regarding Venezuela that benefit Venezuelans, we have to look at the situation from an American perspective.

On the other side of the aisle, Maria Elvira Salazar’s recent announcement came as a surprise to many this week. In it, the Republican congresswoman tells Trump that his immigration control measures have gone “too far,” noting that half of the people detained by ICE in July had no criminal record. In June, she urged Trump to halt deportations to Venezuela following the earthquakes. Her actions appear to be driven more by the latest polls than by a commitment to defending immigrants’ rights.

How could a Democratic majority help the Venezuelan people?

To be honest, the only thing that might change with a majority in Congress is the ability to obtain information, because those who are currently in the minority on the committees would become their chairs. “Who negotiated the agreement? Where will the revenue go? What is the strategy behind the negotiation?” These are some of the questions that might carry more weight in the Oversight Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee if they were headed by a Democrat rather than someone from the ruling party.

Venezuela is neither the center of the world nor a priority for the Democratic Party. One might think that it would be “easier” for chavismo to deal with the Democrats. If we want to see results regarding Venezuela that benefit Venezuelans, we have to look at the situation from an American perspective. The military intervention by the US has already happened, and if the US controls much of Venezuelan politics, that isn’t going to change because of a shift in Congress.

Americans don’t necessarily care about Venezuela’s specific situation, but they do care that the president doesn’t have “superpowers.” In my opinion, this makes it possible for Democrats to use the Venezuela issue as a mechanism for congressional oversight and to seek alliances with non-“MAGA” Republicans to place limits on Trump.

UEFA president speaks for the first time since FIFA said it would review its decision-making, says trust still broken.

UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin says trust in world football has not ⁠been restored following the collapse of FIFA’s controversial private investment plan.

The remarks, made in a video address to the ⁠Portugal Football Summit on Wednesday, were Ceferin’s first public comments since FIFA president Gianni Infantino offered a review of the governing body’s decision-making.

Ceferin said unity, transparency and governance that served the wider game were essential to maintaining trust in football. “Yet not everyone places the game above their own ambitions.”

“Trust in our sport rests on three pillars: unity, transparency, and governance that serves the many, not the few. ‌In recent times, all three were disregarded by people who had sworn to protect them.

“The project that shattered the unity of world football may be abolished, but the trust it broke has not returned, and repairing it is our work now.”

Ceferin did not name Infantino or FIFA, but his comments were an apparent reference to the abandoned proposal to sell a 20 percent stake in FIFA’s commercial rights, including the World Cup, to private investors. The plan ⁠was dropped in July after fierce opposition from UEFA, the Asian Football ⁠Confederation and the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF).

“Football is not for sale,” Ceferin said. “That is the message UEFA has carried for years, and I’m certain this summit will carry it further.”

His intervention came two days after Infantino sought to address the fallout in a letter ⁠to the FIFA Council and the presidents of all 211 member associations.

He said he would ask the council whether it wanted to commission an ⁠independent external review of FIFA’s governance framework for major strategic initiatives ⁠and proposed consultations with confederations, member associations and other stakeholders on strengthening its decision-making processes.

He said any review could examine the roles of the president, bureau, council and congress and ways to improve transparency and accountability.

The letter has so far failed ‌to win over several federations that had criticised Infantino over the investment proposal.

Infantino has said he remains fully committed to leading FIFA and is expected to seek another term at the presidential ‌election ‌in March 2027.

Ceferin said those running the sport needed to remember whom they served.

“The game will remain safe if those who govern it remember whom they govern it for,” he said.

With world leaders at the UN General Assembly podium this week, play our quiz matching famous quotes to who said them.

This week, world leaders converge on New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), where representatives from the 193 UN member states are expected to take to the podium.

Over the decades, that same podium has hosted some of modern diplomacy’s most quoted moments, from Cold War warnings to wartime appeals.

Match each line to the leader who spoke it from the UNGA podium in the 10-question quiz below.

Islamabad, Pakistan – On September 16, a delegation from Powerus, a year-old United States drone company backed by two sons of President Donald Trump, was received by Pakistan’s military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, at military headquarters in Rawalpindi.

A day later, the company announced it had received a “limited procurement order” from Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence for unmanned aerial systems. It also said it had signed a separate memorandum of understanding (MoU) with senior Pakistani defence officials.

Neither the value of the order nor the systems involved have been disclosed. But for analysts studying Pakistan’s venture in drone technology, even bigger concerns have arisen from information that has since emerged.

Less than three months earlier, the same company had given an Indian defence manufacturer the exclusive right to make and sell its drone interceptor technology in India. And one of the cofounders of Powerus is an Israeli military veteran. Pakistan does not recognise Israel and accuses it of carrying out a genocide in Gaza.

Analysts are questioning why a country that already builds its own drones and buys others from China and Turkiye would turn to a company that was founded only last year – and has links to Israel and sells drones to India too.

“Pakistan technically already makes or is capable of making each of the drones shown by Powerus,” Bilal Khan, founder of the Quwa Group, a Toronto-based defence news and market intelligence platform, told Al Jazeera. “It’s unclear where Powerus fits in the long term [from Pakistan’s perspective].”

What did Pakistan sign?

In its statement on the meeting, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the Pakistani military’s media wing, said the two sides discussed cooperation in defence procurement, production and capacity building.

The statement did not mention the MoU.

But Powerus told Al Jazeera which institutions were involved. “The MoU was signed with the Pakistan army. The related procurement order was placed by Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence,” a company spokesperson said.

In its own statement, Powerus said the memorandum was not a definitive agreement, created no purchase obligation and would be subject to US laws and government approvals.

“We are proud to support Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence, and the memorandum gives both sides a strategic framework to build upon,” Brett Velicovich, the company’s cofounder, said in the statement.

According to media reports, Velicovich has also said the company is exploring ways to build technology in Pakistan.

The ISPR, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not respond to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment.

Founded in 2025 and based in Florida, Powerus is set to merge with Aureus Greenway Holdings, a Nasdaq-listed company that owns golf courses in the US state, in a deal expected to close in the final quarter of this year.

Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, President Trump’s oldest sons, are investors in Powerus through a vehicle called American Ventures, which is expected to hold a 9.9 percent beneficial stake in the combined company, according to US regulatory filings.

A spokesperson for Donald Trump Jr has told media outlets that he is a passive investor with no role in the company’s operations or contracts and had no prior knowledge of the Pakistan deals.

The White House has said there are no conflicts of interest.

The company makes about 3,000 interceptor drones a month, according to media reports, and last month won a US Air Force contract with a ceiling of up to $90m.

Asked how it addresses conflict of interest questions while pursuing government defence work in the US and abroad, Powerus said the Trump brothers played no part in its operations.

“Trump’s sons are not advisers to Powerus and have no involvement in how the company runs its business or structures its defence relationships, domestically or internationally. They hold no corporate-governance role. Our government relationships are pursued on their own merits,” the company told Al Jazeera.

The India question

Powerus’s first deal in South Asia, however, was not in Pakistan.

It was in India, Pakistan’s archrival, with which Pakistan fought a brief but intense conflict in May last year, one in which drones were used by both sides.

In a June 30 filing to India’s stock exchanges, Paras Defence and Space Technologies said Powerus had granted it an exclusive licence to manufacture and sell its Guardian-1 interceptor technology in India.

Mansoor Ahmed, an honorary lecturer at the Australian National University’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, said Washington has long armed rival states.

“The US has previously sold F-16s to Greece and Turkiye and Egypt and Israel and is now selling F-35s to Saudi Arabia, which Israel already operates,” he told Al Jazeera.

A former Pakistani government defence analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity said Pakistani planners had probably known about the Indian deal.

“Pakistan’s defence planners were likely aware of Powerus’s engagement with India,” he told Al Jazeera.

This isn’t the first time that Pakistan and India have ended up buying military equipment from the same company, the defence analyst pointed out. He cited the build-up to the conflict over the Siachen Glacier, where India launched Operation Meghdoot in April 1984 to take control of the heights.

“In 1983, Pakistan ordered high-altitude warfare gear from a London supplier, unaware that the same firm also provided gear to the Indian army, and subsequently, India learnt of it and planned Operation Meghdoot in 1984,” he said.

The analyst said the burden now lies with the company.

“In the present case, the challenge is more for Powerus than Pakistan or India as Powerus’s management must ensure it can manage and meet the requirements of two adversaries without jeopardising either side’s operational security.”

A retired Pakistan air force air marshal who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak publicly said the arrangement carries risks for Pakistan.

“Two adversary countries procuring from the same source has its pitfalls, especially when one of the adversaries has taken the lead as well as has a larger financial capacity,” he told Al Jazeera.

An Israeli link

The company’s leadership also has links to Israel, a country Pakistan does not recognise.

Powerus’s website described one of its cofounders, Ziv Marom, as a veteran of the Israeli military and said he founded Kaizen Aerospace, now a Powerus subsidiary.

Another senior executive, Justin Gans, the company’s vice president for mergers and acquisitions and a former member of the US Navy SEAL special forces, served as a vice president at Elbit Systems of America, the US arm of the Israeli defence company Elbit Systems, from 2018 to 2019.

A retired three-star army Pakistani general who served in senior roles before retiring in 2019 and requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject said such a background would normally draw attention during vetting.

“So under normal circumstances, a cofounder’s service in the Israeli military would be flagged as a sensitivity marker, even if the company itself is American,” he told Al Jazeera.

“In other words, for a serious acquisition, this background would be scrutinised carefully. For a political MoU, it may not have been a decisive factor.”

Quwa’s Khan, however, said Pakistan has long accepted Israeli components inside US or European systems.

“We can see that, generally, as long as there’s a country in the middle, Pakistan does not have qualms being in close proximity to Israel,” he said. “However, the two sides very, very rarely talk to each other.”

What drone technology does Pakistan already have?

Beyond questions over who else Powerus works with, analysts said the more fundamental issue is what Pakistan actually needs from the company.

Pakistan’s air force has publicly displayed Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 and Akinci drones, Chinese-made Wing Loong II drones and the domestically developed Shahpar-II.

China supplied 80 percent of Pakistan’s arms imports from 2021 to 2025, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

This month, the Pakistan air force revealed in a video that it had incorporated into its forces China’s HQ-17AE air defence missile system and Turkiye’s Korkut anti-aircraft gun and Sahin counterdrone system, all built to take on drones and other low-flying threats.

Khan said the state-owned Heavy Industries Taxila was also working with private firms to develop interceptor drones.

“So as it stands, Pakistan is following all the right best practices to build its C-UAS posture,” he said, referring to counterdrone systems.

“For Pakistan, the challenge isn’t whether it can get the designs but whether it can produce or induct these in large enough numbers fast enough.”

An official at a private drone manufacturer in Rawalpindi who requested anonymity because he is not authorised to speak to the media said Pakistan’s drone market has grown well beyond state-run firms.

Dozens of private companies and more than half a dozen state-owned enterprises now make drones besides the army’s own production facilities, he said. According to him, Powerus would have to compete with all of them on the quality of its products.

The retired general offered a different reading of why Pakistan might be interested in a tie-up with a US firm.

“The gap is not drone manufacturing. It is electronics, integration and systems-level capability, which is where American firms traditionally dominate,” he said. “How far this particular company can help in this regard is a million-dollar question.”

Powerus’s Guardian interceptors are small, low-cost drones designed to knock down incoming drones. They are a weapon widely used by both sides in the war in Ukraine.

Hammad Waleed, a research associate at the Islamabad-based Strategic Vision Institute, said such systems fill a cost gap that conventional air defences cannot.

“Traditional air defences use costly missiles against incoming cheaper drones,” he told Al Jazeera. “Interceptor drones are way cheaper and easier to operate than traditional air defences.”

Capability or signalling?

The retired Pakistani general, who has experience with defence production, said a supplier of this kind would normally face financial, technical and security checks as well as a review of its track record.

“A company less than a year old, not yet listed and without a delivery record would not usually clear these checks for a strategic defence partnership,” he said.

“Such firms are typically considered too immature unless the MoU is political signalling rather than a procurement decision.”

Khan agreed that the process has been unusual.

“Yes, the way this deal came about is not generally in line with how the procurement heads of the tri-services typically operate,” he said, referring to the three branches of Pakistan’s military.

The Powerus agreements were made as Munir has built close ties with President Trump, who has called him “my favourite field marshal” and praised him on several occasions during the past 15 months.

In September last year, weeks after Pakistan signed a $500m critical minerals agreement with a US company, Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif met President Trump at the White House, where the Pakistani leaders presented him with samples of Pakistani minerals.

In January, Pakistan also signed an MoU with an affiliate of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s main cryptocurrency business.

Khan said Pakistan’s security establishment needs to ask what it is getting in return for that closeness.

“There was a time when such gains were measured in F-16s and the billions in US financial assistance, yet today, we are seeing more photo ops and supposed pacts that obligate the armed forces, but are they helping the armed forces as a fighting force?”

He also offered what he called a “less cynical take”.

Pakistan has a growing number of drone start-ups that lack the capital to build production facilities, he said, and ties with Powerus could draw US investment into them.

“So there is an argument that building rapport with Powerus and its backers can lead to that capital,” Khan said.

Ahmed said Pakistan is looking beyond a single purchase.

“Pakistan’s primary interest appears to be the acquisition of state-of-the-art drone technologies that also allow for local production and indigenisation,” he said.

What about China and Turkiye?

The retired Pakistani general said bringing in a foreign private company could overlap with Pakistan’s existing Chinese and Turkish partnerships.

“It has the potential of being seen by Turkiye and China as Pakistan hedging politically,” he said.

Khan, however, disagreed.

“There’d be no issue with the Turks as they work with US companies all the time and the drones on offer by Powerus don’t overlap with the ones NASTP is designing with Turkiye,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s National Aerospace Science and Technology Park.

He added that any Powerus designs built cheaply in Pakistan would still rely on Chinese parts.

“With the Chinese, it’d be less of an issue because, ultimately, the only way to make these Powerus designs at a low enough cost for the Pakistani armed forces to induct is to literally import the upstream subassemblies from China.”

Waleed said the deal would not dent Pakistan’s defence ties with Beijing and Ankara.

“Pakistan is prioritising China and Turkiye for the sophisticated and modern combat systems in the drone and counterdrone domain. That relationship is not only unaffected and is going upwards in trajectory,” he said.

For now, Khan said, the real test of the Powerus deal would be what follows it.

“I would not pass judgement on the Powerus deal yet, but we can track whether it’s serious by seeing if the MoD [Ministry of Defence] signs similar deals with other foreign and local vendors in the coming months,” he said.

“Basically, will we see a consistent pattern moving forward, or will this be a one-off?”

The United States and Iran have engaged in hours of indirect talks through mediators on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, but accounts differed over whether officials from the two countries met directly.

US special envoy Steve Witkoff said mediators had “shuttled between” the American and Iranian delegations throughout Tuesday.

“Today, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, we engaged in lengthy talks with the Iranian delegation through the mediators, who shuttled between the two sides throughout the day,” Witkoff said in a post on X.

“They successfully completed a round of discussions that we hope will prove constructive and promising. The mediators will continue their work.”

US President Donald Trump gave a more direct account, saying Witkoff and Jared Kushner had held a three-hour meeting with Iranian officials.

“They had a very good meeting, a very productive meeting,” Trump told reporters at the UN, adding that he believed there was “a lot of momentum” towards an agreement. Trump later said talks were continuing and that he believed a settlement would eventually be reached.

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington, said Trump’s initial comments had created confusion over who had participated. She said the White House later clarified that Trump had not attended and that Witkoff and Kushner represented the US side.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran, said state media had confirmed a meeting between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Witkoff after weeks without direct contact.

“This latest meeting was held at the request and insistence of the American side, and was aimed at conveying Iran’s messages and conditions, particularly around reopening the Strait of Hormuz,” Asadi reported.

Iranian state media said those conditions included lifting the US naval blockade, releasing frozen Iranian assets and ending the war on what Tehran describes as the “resistance” fronts.

Asadi also reported that an Iranian security source told Al Jazeera there could be room for further diplomatic engagement if Washington met Iran’s conditions and commitments.

The contacts came after a senior Iranian official told the Reuters news agency that Tehran’s delegation in New York had full authority to pursue diplomacy and described the UN gathering as a “golden opportunity” for Washington to return to negotiations.

The official said Iran had submitted its latest proposal to Washington through mediators on September 16 and that details of a possible agreement to end hostilities could be discussed in New York.

The official also said Iran could reopen Hormuz within seven days if the US eased military pressure and lifted its blockade of Iranian ports.

Regional powers push for de-escalation

The indirect talks have been accompanied by a broader diplomatic effort involving the Gulf and other regional states.

Qatar said it was working with Pakistan to reduce tensions between Washington and Tehran, safeguard freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and promote regional stability.

Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani also met Araghchi in New York on Tuesday.

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said they discussed developments in the region, efforts to de-escalate tensions and ways of creating conditions for dialogue.

Oman has also been involved in maritime diplomacy over the waterway, having previously discussed maritime arrangements with Tehran aimed at facilitating navigation through the strait.

Trump also met leaders and senior officials from Gulf Cooperation Council states, Turkiye, Jordan, Syria and Iraq on Tuesday to discuss Iran and regional security.

Reuters reported that a Qatari proposal for a common security framework involving Iran and Gulf states was among the issues under consideration, with one regional source saying Tehran was reviewing it.

Qatar has not made the proposal public.

Talks follow Trump’s warning

The indirect talks came hours after Trump used his UNGA address to combine the possibility of an agreement with another warning of military escalation.

Trump said he faced a “big decision” between reaching a deal that would allow Iran to rebuild and moving to “annihilate the Islamic Republic”. He also said Washington had previously offered Tehran “full economic cooperation” in return for ending its nuclear programme and what the US describes as Iranian support for terrorism.

Iran’s General Staff of the Armed Forces and Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters responded in a statement carried by Iranian media, describing Trump’s threats as evidence of “strategic weakness” and saying Iran was ready to deliver “more severe, crushing, and unpredictable blows” in response to further attacks.

US officials have repeatedly suggested that negotiations were making progress following the collapse of the June memorandum of understanding. In early August, Trump said the sides had reached parameters for a possible agreement and later described talks over Hormuz as “moving along nicely”, although significant differences remained. Earlier this month, he again said he hoped the war was “towards the end”.

Tehran continues to condition the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz on the US easing military pressure and lifting its blockade of Iranian ports, while Witkoff said mediators would continue their efforts following Tuesday’s mediated exchanges.

US-led anti-cartel alliance backs sanctions against crime groups after Trump urges stronger action.

United States President Donald Trump has pledged to use “unmatched military might” against drug cartels in the Western Hemisphere during a meeting of the Washington-led Shield of the Americas coalition in New York City.

In a meeting with leaders and foreign ministers from the anti-cartel alliance, Trump on Tuesday urged member countries to join the US in targeting 24 criminal organisations, which he earlier described as the “ISIS of the Western Hemisphere”.

He said he was asking “all nations in the Shield of the Americas to formally designate narco-terrorists as common threats to stability and apply crushing sanctions” against all of the groups. The meeting took place on the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City.

The coalition’s 15 governments later issued a joint statement saying they intended to impose asset freezes and visa restrictions on members and supporters of the groups and to pursue criminal charges against them.

At the top of the list are two groups that have been declared “terrorist” organisations by Washington: Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) – one of Central America’s most powerful criminal gangs – and Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that is also active in Colombia, Peru and Chile.

The list also includes major Mexican cartels, Colombian armed groups such as the National Liberation Army, Brazil’s Primeiro Comando da Capital and Comando Vermelho groups, and Peru’s Shining Path.

Al Jazeera’s Alessandro Rampietti, reporting from Bogota, Colombia, said the statement was largely symbolic for now, because each country must follow its own legal procedures.

“For example, here in Colombia, it will require a law to pass in Congress. We understand that the government here has asked Congress to move forward in drafting such a law. So while the consequences may not be immediate, this is clearly an important step towards building what the US has been trying to do in Latin America [through] this alliance,” he added.

The coalition is made up of governments closely aligned with Trump, including Argentina, Ecuador and El Salvador, whose leaders he has praised or endorsed. Colombia and Peru joined after Trump-aligned presidents took office in recent months.

Brazil and Mexico have not joined.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also attended, praised “the emergence of strong leaders who are committed to the challenge of taking on transnational terrorism”.

The gathering was the administration’s latest effort to rally the region behind a more aggressive approach to drug trafficking. Since returning to office last year, Trump has designated cartels as foreign terrorist organisations and ordered dozens of strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that US officials say were carrying narcotics bound for the US.

The strikes have killed more than 223 people, and UN experts say they violate international law and could amount to crimes against humanity.

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, released late last year, laid out plans for a revamped Monroe Doctrine, the 19th-century policy asserting US primacy in the hemisphere that critics associate with decades of US intervention.

Trump has also spoken of retaking the Panama Canal and annexing Greenland and Canada. On Tuesday, he signed an agreement on Greenland that stopped short of his demand that the island become US territory.

The focus on the hemisphere has raised concerns across the region.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in his UN speech, bristled ⁠at the approach, warning countries in Latin America and the Caribbean of “renewed hegemonic temptations”.

“Brazil is nobody’s back yard,” Lula said.