United States

Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCIP) has obtained testimony from Palestinian American teenager Mohammed Ibrahim, whose case has become a symbol for the mistreatment of minors in Israeli jails.

In an interview with a DCIP lawyer, published on Tuesday, 16-year-old Mohammed described the harsh conditions he has faced since his detention began in February, including thin mattresses, cold cells and meagre meals.

“The meals we receive are extremely insufficient,” he is quoted as saying.

“For breakfast, we are served just three tiny pieces of bread, along with a mere spoonful of labneh. At lunch, our portion is minimal, consisting of only half a small cup of undercooked, dry rice, a single sausage, and three small pieces of bread. Dinner is not provided, and we receive no fruit whatsoever.”

According to DCIP, Mohammed has lost a “considerable amount of weight” since his detention started more than eight months ago. He was 15 years old at the time.

Mohammed’s family, rights groups and US lawmakers have been pleading with the administration of United States President Donald Trump to pressure Israel to release the teenager.

The US has provided Israel with more than $21bn over the past two years.

“Not even an American passport can protect Palestinian children,” Ayed Abu Eqtaish, the accountability programme director at DCIP, said in a statement.

“Despite his family’s advocacy in Congress and involvement of the US Embassy, Mohammad remains in Israeli prison. Israel is the only country in the world that systematically prosecutes children in military court.”

After Israeli soldiers raided Mohammed’s family home in the occupied West Bank in February, they took the teenager into custody. Mohammed recalled to DCIP that the soldiers beat him with the butts of rifles as they transported him.

The teenager was originally housed in the notorious Megiddo prison – which a recently released Palestinian detainee described as a “slaughterhouse” – before being transferred to Ofer, another detention facility.

“Each prisoner receives two blankets, yet we still feel cold at night,” Mohammed told DCIP.

“There is no heating or cooling system in the rooms. The only items present are mattresses, blankets, and a single copy of the Quran in each room.”

The teenager has been charged with throwing stones at Israeli settlers, an accusation that he denies. Legal experts say that Palestinians from the occupied West Bank almost never receive fair trials in Israel’s military courts.

The abuse that freed Palestinian captives have described after the recent prisoner exchange between Hamas and Israel, as part of the Gaza ceasefire deal, spurred renewed calls for releasing Mohammed.

“Right now, Mohammed Ibrahim, a US citizen, is being held in an Israeli prison. His health is deteriorating. The circumstances are desperate,” Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley wrote on X on Sunday.

“The United States must use every avenue available to secure the release of this Palestinian American child.”

Since the start of the war on Gaza in October 2023, at least 79 Palestinian detainees have died in Israeli jails amid a lack of medical care, restrictions on food and reports of violence and torture, according to the Palestinian Prisoner Club.

Medical officials in Gaza have described signs of torture and execution on the bodies of slain Palestinian captives handed over by Israel after the ceasefire over the past week.

Earlier this year, Mohammed’s relatives told Al Jazeera that they fear for his life.

His father, Zaher Ibrahim, said that the Trump administration could use its leverage to free his son with a single phone call. “But we’re nothing to them,” he told Al Jazeera.

Since 2022, Israeli forces and settlers have killed at least 10 US citizens, including two in the West Bank in July.

Relations between the United States and China are tense, once again, with experts saying that the administration of US President Donald Trump “doesn’t quite know how to deal with China”.

The latest flare-up took place when Beijing, on October 9, expanded its restrictions on the export of rare-earth metals, increasing the number of elements on the list.

China has the largest reserves and the majority of processing facilities of rare-earth metals that are used in a range of daily and critical industries like electric vehicles, smartphones, laptops and defence equipment.

In a first, it also required countries to have a licence to export rare-earth magnets and certain semiconductor materials that contain even trace amounts of minerals sourced from China or produced using Chinese technology.

China’s actions on rare-earths also came after the US expanded its Entity List, a trade restriction list that consists of certain foreign persons, entities or government, further limiting China’s access to the most advanced semiconductor chips, and added levies on China-linked ships both to boost the US shipbuilding industry and loosen China’s hold on the global shipping trade. China retaliated by applying its own charges on US-owned, operated, built or flagged vessels.

“For the US, its actions on chip exports and shipping industry fees were not related to the trade deal with China,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president for research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

Since then, the two countries have also been in an “information war”, said Nadjibulla, each blaming the other for holding the world hostage with its policies.

But beyond the rhetoric, the world is seeing China really up its game.

“For the first time, China is doing this extra-terrestrial action that applies to other countries as well [with its amped up export restrictions on rare-earths]. They are prepared to match every US escalation, and have the US back down,” Nadjibulla said. “This is a very different kind of a trade war than we were experiencing even three months ago.”

This was a “power play” by China in the run-up to a planned meeting later this month between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea because “China has decided that the leverage is on their side,” said Dexter Tiff Roberts, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Global China Hub, pointing out that after some initial noise with Trump saying there was no reason to meet Xi any longer, the meeting is back on.

“If you look at the approach of the Trump administration right now, they are all over the place,” said Roberts.

Roberts was referring not only to the multiple tariff threats that the US has issued both on China and on specific industries and the carve-outs that were soon announced on those, but also in its statements on the Trump-Xi meeting, with Trump saying it was not happening, only to reverse that two days later.

“The Trump administration doesn’t quite know how to deal with China,” said Roberts. “They don’t understand that China is willing to accept a lot of pain,” and will not be easily cowed by US threats.

Beijing, on the other hand, has realised that Trump is determined to get his big deal with China and wants his state visit to seal that, maybe because “he feels that is important to his credentials as a big deal maker,” added Roberts, but that he cannot get there without giving more to China.

“China saw that they could push harder in the lead-up to the meeting.”

Wei Liang, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies who specialises in international trade and Chinese economic foreign policy, agrees.

“Trump has a track record of TACO,” she said, referring to a term coined by a Financial Times columnist in May, which stands for “Trump always chickens out” in reference to his announcing tariffs and then carving out exemptions and pushing out implementation dates.

“He cares more than any other US president [about] stock market reactions, so definitely will be more flexible to making concessions. This is the inconsistency that has been captured by his negotiation partners,” Liang said.

China’s defiant stance also comes at a time of its own political concerns, Liang added.

While the domestic economy is “a black box” with no reliable data available on growth, employment and other criteria, the consensus among China experts is that the country has been hit by the tariffs, economic growth has slowed, and unemployment has ramped up.

As China started its four-day fourth plenary session on Monday where it plans to approve the draft of its next five-year national economic and social development plan, Xi can use the moment to tell his domestic audience that the country’s problems are stemming from Trump’s policies and the whole world is suffering because of those tariffs and it’s not related to Chinese policies, Liang said.

A possible decoupling

All of this also signals that Beijing seems to be prepared to “decouple” from the US more than ever, a significant change in mentality, as, in the past, the standard response to the idea was that it would be a “lose-lose” situation for both countries, Liang told Al Jazeera.

But in the last few years, China has diversified its exports to other countries, especially those in its Belt and Road Initiative, the ambitious infrastructure project that it launched in 2013 to link East Asia through Europe and has since expanded to Africa, Oceania and Latin America.

Even when it comes to things that it needs from the US – soya beans, aeroplanes and high-tech chip equipment – it can find other suppliers or has learned to work around that need, as is the case for the chip equipment, Liang pointed out.

In the meantime, especially in the years since the US-China trade war started under Trump as president in his first term, China has brought in a set of national security laws – including its version of the US Entity List, through which it is setting limits on those exports, Nadjibulla said.

“Everybody should have been preparing the way the Chinese have been preparing. We breathed a sigh of relief when there was a change in government [in the US after the first Trump administration], but China kept preparing,” she said.

“This should be a wake-up call for all countries to find other sources for its needs. Everyone should be redoubling their efforts to diversify, because we have now seen the Chinese playbook.”

Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and US resident, appeared before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia as Trump administration lawyers push to deport him. His case, tied to campus activism at Columbia University, has become a test of free speech and political dissent rights.

US Vice President JD Vance says, one week into the Gaza ceasefire, he has “great optimism” the peace deal will hold. He declined to set a deadline for Hamas to disarm. Vance was speaking at a newly established centre in Israel for civilian and military cooperation.

A major outage at Amazon Web Services (AWS) on Monday disrupted a large portion of the internet, taking down apps, websites and online tools used by millions of people around the world, before services were eventually restored.

From banking apps and airlines to smart home devices and gaming platforms, the hours-long breakdown revealed how much of modern life depends on cloud’s infrastructure.

Here is what we know:

What happened and what caused the AWS outage?

At about 07:11 GMT, Amazon’s cloud service experienced a major outage, meaning some of its systems stopped working, which disrupted many popular apps and websites, including banks, gaming platforms and entertainment services.

The problem started in one of AWS’s main data centres in Virginia, its oldest and biggest site, after a technical update to the API – a connection between different computer programmes – of DynamoDB, a key cloud database service that stores user information and other important data for many online platforms.

The root cause appears to have been an error in the update that affected the Domain Name System (DNS), which helps apps find the correct server addresses. A DNS works like the internet’s phone book, turning website names into the numeric IP addresses that computers use to connect to servers.

Because of the DNS issue, apps could not find the IP address for DynamoDB’s API and were unable to connect.

As DynamoDB went down, other AWS services also began to fail. In total, 113 services were affected by the outage. By 10:11 GMT, Amazon said that all AWS returned to normal operations, but there was a backlog “of messages that they will finish processing over the next few hours”.

At the time of publication, Downdetector, a website that tracks internet outages based on user reports, was still showing problems with platforms such as OpenAI, ESPN and Apple Music.

Updated look at the total impact of the AWS Outage up to this point!https://t.co/Bgpm1fFGtf pic.twitter.com/TAAxjagNl6

— Downdetector (@downdetector) October 20, 2025

What is a cloud and what exactly is AWS?

A cloud is a way of storing and using data or programmes over the internet instead of on your computer or other physical storage devices.

When people say something is “in the cloud”, it means the files, apps or systems are running on powerful computers (called servers) in data centres owned by companies like Amazon (AWS), Google or Microsoft, not on your personal device.

In this case, AWS allows companies to rent computing power and storage. It supplies the technology that runs websites, apps and many online services behind the scenes.

One of AWS’s core services is DynamoDB, a database that stores important information for companies, such as customer records. On Monday, Amazon reported that customers were unable to access their DynamoDB data.

AWS is the biggest cloud service provider in the world.

Cloud outages are not rare, but they have become more noticeable as more companies rely on these services every day.

“The fallout impacted people across a number of different spheres,” Joshua Mahony, the chief market analyst at Scope Markets, told Al Jazeera. [But] of course this kind of comes with the territory with tech companies; the key is they can resolve it quickly, and it doesn’t cost them a lot of money.”

He said Amazon would likely weather the storm from the incident.

“You’re looking at something that is relatively contained,” he said. “Amazon Web Services has cornered 30 percent of the market alone. Their users are not going to suddenly jump ship. Their businesses are deeply ingrained.”

Which services and apps went down?

The outage affected dozens of websites, including Snapchat, Pinterest and Apple TV, according to Downdetector.

Other communication apps were also affected including: WhatsApp, Signal, Zoom and Slack; gaming services such as Roblox, Fortnite and Xbox; and places like Starbucks. Etsy also experienced issues.

In the United States, people were having issues with financial apps too, including Venmo.

Some users said their Ring doorbells and Alexa speakers stopped working, while others could not access the Amazon website or download books on their Kindles.

The language app Duolingo and creative tool Canva were among those reporting errors on their websites, and several media organisations were hit, including the Associated Press news agency, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Banks, the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, and AI firm Perplexity also reported issues, along with US airlines Delta and United.

Why did so many major apps go offline at once?

When AWS had its outage, it was not just Amazon’s tools that were affected. Thousands of other companies that use AWS for storage, databases or web hosting were also hit. These companies include many major apps that rely on AWS to run key parts of their systems.

“Whenever we see these headlines, the first thought that goes through everybody’s mind, that sends a shiver up the spine, is, ‘Is this one of those cyberattacks? Is this a military or intelligence-led thing that has led to this disruption?’ And in this case, it’s not,” Bryson Bort chief executive of the cybersecurity company Scythe told Al Jazeera.

“In fact, most of the time, it isn’t. It’s usually human error.”

How did Amazon respond?

AWS acknowledged the outage and said engineers were “immediately engaged” to fix the problem.

AWS said it worked on “multiple parallel paths to accelerate recovery”. It also reported that the main issue had been fully resolved, though some users continued to face minor delays as systems recovered.

The company also said it would publish a detailed post-event summary explaining what happened.

Dissenting justice says decision ‘erodes core constitutional principles’ and risks violating freedom of expression.

A United States court of appeals has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can move forward with plans to deploy soldiers to Portland, Oregon, despite the absence of any serious emergency and the objections of state and local officials.

The Monday ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court will allow the Trump administration to send 200 National Guard members to the Democrat-run city.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” when he federalised the state’s National Guard, the three-judge panel stated.

The Trump administration has deployed armed forces to Democrat-run cities across the country, along with aggressive immigration raids in which heavily-armed federal agents wearing masks have pulled people off the streets, demanding that they prove their legal status.

Many US citizens have also been swept up in those raids, during which civil liberty groups have accused immigration agents of operating based on racial profiling, and detaining people without cause.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed disappointment in the court’s decision.

“As the founders emphasised, domestic deployment of troops should be reserved for rare, extreme emergencies as a last resort, but that is far from what the Trump administration is doing in Portland, Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC,” Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement.

“The presence of troops in otherwise beautiful vibrant American cities erodes a sense of safety and undermines the core freedoms to assemble and voice dissent.”

The Trump administration has claimed that Portland is “war-ravaged” by protesters, who it says are blocking immigration enforcement measures, despite the absence of any serious crisis conditions in the city. Trump and his allies have often employed vague allegations of emergency conditions as a pretext for wielding extraordinary powers both at home and abroad.

Demonstrators have worn costumes while protesting outside of immigration facilities, sometimes donning dinosaur and frog outfits and blasting music. Federal agents have faced criticism of using excessive force against peaceful demonstrators.

“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd,” Circuit Judge Susan Graber wrote after casting the dissenting vote on the panel’s ruling.

“But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions.”

The central bank said deal was part of a comprehensive strategy to help it respond to forex and capital markets volatility.

The Central Bank of the Argentinian Republic (BCRA) said it has signed a $20bn exchange rate stabilisation agreement with the United States Treasury Department, six days ahead of a key midterm election.

The central bank’s statement on Monday said the agreement sets forth terms for bilateral currency swap operations between the US and Argentina, but it provided no technical details.

The central bank said: “Such operations will allow the BCRA to expand its set of monetary and exchange rate policy instruments, including the liquidity of its international reserves”.

The Argentinian peso closed at a record low, down 1.7 percent on the day to end at 1,475 per dollar.

The BCRA said the pact was part of a comprehensive strategy to enhance its ability to respond to foreign exchange and capital markets volatility.

The US Treasury did not immediately respond to a request for details on the new swap line and has not issued its own statement about the arrangement.

US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said last week that the arrangement would be backed by International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights held in the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund that will be converted to dollars.

Bessent has said that the US would not put additional conditions on Argentina beyond President Javier Milei’s government continuing to pursue its fiscal austerity and economic reform programmes to foster more private-sector growth.

He has announced several US purchases of pesos in recent weeks, but has declined to disclose details.

Midterm vote

Argentinian Minister of Economy Luis Caputo said last week that he hoped the swap deal framework would be finalised before the October 26 midterm parliamentary vote, in which Milei’s party will seek to grow its minority presence in the legislature.

Milei, who has sought to solve Argentina’s economic woes through fiscal spending cuts and dramatically shrinking the size of government, has been handed a string of recent political defeats.

US President Donald Trump said last week that the US would not “waste our time” with Argentina if Milei’s party loses in the midterm vote. The comment briefly shocked local markets until Bessent clarified that continued US support depended on “good policies”, not necessarily the vote result.

He added that a positive result for Milei’s party would help block any policy repeal efforts.

The French bank will pay more than $20m to three plaintiffs amid allegations of human rights abuses.

BNP Paribas shares have tumbled as much as 10 percent after a United States jury found the French bank helped Sudan’s government commit genocide by providing banking services that violated American sanctions, raising questions about whether the lender will be exposed to further legal claims.

The bank’s shares were down on Monday morning in New York.

The federal jury in Manhattan on Friday ordered BNP Paribas to pay a combined $20.5m to three Sudanese plaintiffs who testified about human rights abuses perpetrated under former President Omar al-Bashir’s rule.

The Paris, France-based bank said it will appeal the verdict.

“This result is clearly wrong and ignores important evidence the bank was not permitted to introduce,” the company said in a statement on Monday.

Uncertainty about whether BNP Paribas could face further claims or penalties weighed on the bank’s shares on Monday, and would likely continue to do so, traders and analysts said.

The shares dropped as much as 10 percent at one point, and were last down 8.7 percent – set for their biggest daily fall since March 2023.

Lawyers for the three plaintiffs, who now reside in the US, said the verdict opens the door for more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees in the US to seek billions of dollars in damages from the French bank.

BNP said, “this verdict is specific to these three plaintiffs and should not have broader application. Any attempt to extrapolate is necessarily wrong as is any speculation regarding a potential settlement.”

Nonetheless, analysts say the news will likely drag on the bank’s shares in the coming months.

“A combination of a lack of visibility on the potential financial impact and next legal steps, a reminder of 2014 share price performance as well as a capital path that leaves relatively little room for error, is likely to hang over the shares until more visibility is provided,” analysts at RBC Capital Markets said in a note.

BNP Paribas in 2014 agreed to plead guilty and pay an $8.97bn penalty to settle US charges that it transferred billions of dollars for Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities subject to economic sanctions.

RBC said the bank’s shares underperformed the sector by 10 percent from the first litigation provision booked in early 2014 to the settlement in June 2014.

US President Donald Trump said the deal had been negotiated over the last four to five months.

United States President Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have signed an agreement on rare earth and critical minerals as China tightens control over global supply.

The two leaders signed the deal on Monday at the White House.

Trump said the agreement had been negotiated over four or five months. The two leaders will also discuss trade, submarines and military equipment, Trump said.

Albanese described it as an $8.5bn pipeline “that we have ready to go”.

The full terms of the agreement were not immediately available. The two leaders said part of the agreement had to do with processing of the minerals. Albanese said both countries will contribute $1bn over the next six months for joint projects.

China has the world’s largest rare earths reserves, according to the US Geological Survey data, but Australia also has significant reserves.

The two leaders also planned to discuss the $239.4bn agreement, reached in 2023 under then-US President Joe Biden, in which Australia is to buy US nuclear-powered submarines in 2032 before building a new submarine class with Britain.

US Navy Secretary John Phelan told the meeting the US and Australia were working very closely to improve the original framework for all three parties “and clarify some of the ambiguity that was in the prior agreement”.

Trump said these were “just minor details”.

“There shouldn’t be any more clarifications, because we’re just, we’re just going now full steam ahead, building,” Trump said.

Australian officials have said they are confident it will proceed, with Defence Minister Richard Marles last week saying he knew when the review would conclude.

China’s rare earth export controls

Ahead of Monday’s meeting between the two leaders, Australian officials have emphasised Canberra is paying its way under AUKUS — a trilateral military partnership between the US, Australia and the United Kingdom, contributing $2bn this year to boost production rates at US submarine shipyards, and preparing to maintain US Virginia-class submarines at its Indian Ocean naval base from 2027.

The delay of 10 months in an official meeting since Trump took office has caused some anxiety in Australia as the Pentagon urged Canberra to lift defence spending. The two leaders met briefly on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month.

Australia is willing to sell shares in its planned strategic reserve of critical minerals to allies including Britain, as Western governments scramble to end their reliance on China for rare earths and minor metals.

Top US officials last week condemned Beijing’s expansion of rare earth export controls as a threat to global supply chains. China is the world’s biggest producer of the materials, which are vital for products ranging from electric vehicles to aircraft engines and military radars.

Resource-rich Australia, wanting to extract and process rare earths, put preferential access to its strategic reserve on the table in US trade negotiations in April.

For Scott Smith, the cuts to the Corporation For Public Broadcasting are existential.

He is the general manager of Allegheny Mountain Radio, which he runs alongside programme manager Heather Nidly. The funds were slashed as part of United States President Donald Trump’s vast tax cut and spending bill that was signed into law in July. As a result, the station, which has been on air for more than four decades, lost 65 percent of its funding.

“We are here to serve our communities and to fulfill our mission of giving them news, giving them entertainment, giving them emergency alerts and giving them school closings. We do lost and found pet notices. We do funeral announcements. We have a listing of community events that is read multiple times a day. We do weather forecasts. We’re a critical part of the community,” Smith told Al Jazeera.

The rescissions bill that Trump signed allows the US Congress to claw back funding that had been approved and pulls back $9bn in funding, including $1bn from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CFB). At the end of September, those funds officially dried up.

The money had already been allocated by the previous Congress to fund public media for 2026 and 2027. Now stations are scrambling to find ways to fill the holes.

The Trump administration has gone after news organisations that have presented any critical coverage of him, including the Wall Street Journal, after its coverage of a suggestive letter purportedly written by Trump to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for his birthday. In September, he tried to sue The New York Times for allegedly being a “virtual mouthpiece” for the Democratic Party.

His leverage over public media is significant because that is partially funded by federal tax dollars. The White House first signed an executive order to defund public media in May. That was quickly blocked because funding decisions are made by Congress, not the White House.

Next, Trump pressured Congressional Republicans to put forth the rescissions bill that fulfilled the mission of his previous executive order. To justify his call for cuts, in May, the White House released a list of segments from NPR and PBS programmes that it says had liberal bias, as it included many segments about the experience of the trans community.

The White House also cited a report alleging PBS favoured Democrats. That report was from the openly partisan Media Research Center, which has a stated goal to promote conservative values.

A key, but overlooked, problem with the cuts is that they overwhelmingly harm stations that do not even cover the White House or much national politics at all.

Allegheny Mountain Radio (AMR) is one of those stations. Comprising three affiliates for three counties straddling the West Virginia and Virginia border, on their airwaves, listeners will find gospel, folk and country music, as well as coverage of local football games and town hall meetings.

AMR carries NPR’s national newscast and, more importantly, serves as the on-the-ground voice when severe weather hits.

Unlike in other regions of the county, there is no other alternative to get real-time local news. The nearest local news station is several hours away, separated by winding country roads. When there’s severe weather, AMR is the only way locals get vital information like road closure announcements because of floodwaters.

“Just a few years ago, we had a deluge of rain coming down and flooding parts of the county. At that point, when something like that happens, the radio station really is the only way to get that information out quickly to our listeners and let them know where it’s happening,” AMR programme manager Nidly told Al Jazeera.

AMR is in a part of the country where cellphone signal and wireless access are sparse because of its proximity to what is called the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) near the Green Bank Observatory, which limits the use of radio frequency and other signal methods so that they do not interfere with their equipment. This requires special equipment to point radio signals away from the observatory.

With the region’s low population density, there’s a limited business case for a station. But there is a case for public service. The community depends on AMR for emergency alerts – even on a personal level. During major storms, Smith said, people have shown up at their stations when their phones stopped working, asking if AMR could broadcast a message to let their family and friends know they were safe.

Despite their strong community focus, these stations may not benefit from the same level of donor support seen by larger public stations across the country, due to limited local enterprise and resources.

It is trying. In order to stay afloat, the station is actively soliciting donations on its website.

While small community stations – like those serving Bath and Pocahontas Counties in West Virginia, and Highland County, Virginia, through AMR – don’t produce national newscasts or air segments that ruffle feathers in Washington, they are still the ones that are most at risk of being hit hardest.

“Small stations like ours are the ones who will suffer because of these cuts. We feel like we are the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater because there’s so much emphasis on the talking points around NPR and PBS. It’s like the rest of us, the small community stations, have absolutely been forgotten in this equation,” Smith told Al Jazeera.

The cuts, however, hit stations across the US in big markets too. WNYC in New York City lost 4 percent of its funding. WBUR in Boston, San Francisco’s KLAW, and KERA in Dallas, Texas, all saw 5 percent cuts.

Stations like these have large donor bases or “listeners like you”, as their hosts say during pledge drives. Big market stations might be able to make up the difference, says Alex Curley, a former product manager at NPR who recently launched a platform called Adopt A Station, which shows which public media stations are at most risk of losing funding.

“When you think about stations that rely on federal funding for 50 percent or more of their revenue, it’s not because they’re asking for a handout. It’s a literal public service for those stations,” Curley told Al Jazeera.

But in counties where the population is sparse and industry is limited, that donor base is not as plentiful. That’s the case with AMR.

“We are in a very rural area. We are an area where there are not a whole lot of businesses. So that amount of income simply cannot be made up through extra donations or extra underwriting,” Smith added.

In a July Substack post, Curley, who was involved in NPR station finances until he left the network in 2024 amid layoffs, said that 15 percent of stations are at risk of closure. His website has provided some reprieve.

“I only expected maybe a few dozen people to visit the site. My biggest hope was to get a couple of donations that went towards a station at risk. It’s [the website] been shared thousands of times. I’ve even heard from stations that were identified as being at risk of closing. They told me they’re getting an influx of donations from out of state through the site. It’s been an incredible response,” Curley said.

However, he argues, this is a temporary fix.

“The real danger will be in six months, a year, two years, when people have forgotten about public media. These stations basically are losing federal funding forever. Donations in the short term are really great, but in the long term, they’re going to have to figure out ways to keep donors engaged and to keep donations flowing to them, or they might close,” Curley added.

“Public radio is also a lifeline, connecting rural communities to the rest of the nation, and providing life-saving emergency broadcasting and weather alerts. Nearly 3-in-4 Americans say they rely on their public radio stations for alerts and news for their public safety,” NPR’s Katherine Maher said in a statement on July 18 following the Senate vote.

“In fact, while the Senate considered amendments, a 7.3 earthquake struck off the coast of Alaska, prompting three coastal stations to start broadcasting live tsunami warnings, urging their communities to head to high ground,” Maher said.

Maher declined Al Jazeera’s request for an interview

PBS faces similar pressures, and many of its stations are also at risk of closure, according to Adopt A Station’s data.

“These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas. Many of our stations, which provide access to free, unique local programming and emergency alerts, will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,” PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger said in a statement after the Senate vote.

Kerger did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for additional comment.

The push to defund public media isn’t a new one for the GOP. Republicans have long argued that the media is not a core function of government. In 2012, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he would eliminate subsidies to PBS – during a debate moderated, ironically, by then PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer.

In the 1990s, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised to “zero out” funding for CPB, arguing it should be privatised. And in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan attempted to slash $80m from public media – roughly $283m today – though Congress blocked the move.

Following global cuts

Cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are the latest wave of the White House cutting back on government-funded media arms, including reductions to the US Agency for Global Media, led in part by senior adviser Kari Lake.

Lake is a former Phoenix, Arizona, news anchor known for denying the 2020 election results in which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden for the presidency. She is also known for promoting baseless conspiracy theories and for refusing to accept her own defeat for governor and senator bids in Arizona in 2022 and 2024, respectively.

She has been behind the agency effectively shuttering Voice of America (VOA), which has not published any new stories or uploaded new videos to its YouTube page since mid-March.

Last month, a federal judge in Washington blocked the firing of workers at VOA, which affected more than 500 staffers. The Trump administration called the decision “outrageous” and vowed to appeal.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which broadcasts in 27 languages across 23 countries, faced challenges similar to VOA. However, the European Union has helped keep the network up and running with $6.2m in emergency funding.

Representatives for the US Agency for Global Media did not respond to our request for comment.

Looming threats to free expression

These cuts come alongside other threats to freedom of expression in the private sector. Soon after the funding cuts were signed into law, Paramount announced the cancellation of The Late Show. The host, comedian Stephen Colbert – a longtime critic of the president – had only days earlier called out Paramount, the show’s parent company, for settling a lawsuit with Trump.

The suit stemmed from Trump’s claim that an interview with his 2024 presidential rival Kamala Harris was doctored. Although the network had initially called the lawsuit meritless, it ultimately settled for $16m. Colbert called the settlement a “big fat bribe”, noting that Paramount had a then-pending merger with Skydance Media – owned by David Ellison, son of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, a key Trump ally. The merger has since been approved. Paramount has said that the decision is purely financial in nature.

Months later, following stand-up comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on Charlie Kirk’s death, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on a right-wing podcast to criticise the remarks and urged Disney – the parent company of ABC, where Jimmy Kimmel Live airs – to cancel the show.

Nexstar Media Group – one of the largest TV station operators in the US, and which is waiting on an FCC approval of its merger with Tegna – announced it would no longer carry the programme. Disney subsequently suspended the show, though the decision was short-lived, as it returned to the airwaves within a week.

The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Colombia announced the move after US President Donald Trump called President Gustavo Petro an ‘illegal drug leader’.

Colombia has said it has recalled its ambassador to the United States, after US President Donald Trump threatened to cut off aid and made disparaging remarks about the Colombian president over the weekend.

The South American country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday that Ambassador Daniel Garcia-Pena had already arrived in Bogota to meet with President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump called an “illegal drug leader” on Sunday.

The growing feud between the two countries has centred on US strikes in the Caribbean on vessels that the Trump administration alleges are transporting drugs, mostly from Venezuela. Those strikes, which have killed dozens of people and are widely viewed as a violation of US and international law, have drawn strong criticism from Petro.

In a social media post on Sunday, Trump said aid to Colombia would be cut off and threatened that if Petro did not take more steps to combat the drug trafficking in the country, the US would do the task itself, “and it won’t be done nicely”.

Colombian Interior Minister Armando Benedetti said on Monday that he viewed those remarks as “a threat of invasion or military action against Colombia”.

“I can’t imagine closing down some hectares [of drug production sites] unless it’s in that way, unless it’s by invading,” he added.

The US also announced over the weekend that it had struck a vessel from Colombia on Friday, alleging that it was helmed by a left-wing rebel group involved in the transport of drugs. The Trump administration has not provided evidence regarding those claims.

Petro responded in a series of social media posts, stating that one of those killed in the attack was a Colombian fisherman named Alejandro Carranza, who did not have any ties to drug trafficking.

“US government officials have committed murder and violated our sovereignty in territorial waters,” he wrote.

Health officials in the United States are reviewing whether to remove aluminium from some common vaccines, as part of the Trump administration’s escalating attacks on vaccines.

The Department of Health and Human Services has reduced some vaccine access. The agency scaled back COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, approved COVID-19 vaccines for fewer people and aimed to remove the preservative thimerosal from US vaccines. Experts told PolitiFact scientific research did not support its removal.

During a September 22 news conference, in which US President Donald Trump told people not to take Tylenol during pregnancy, he also mentioned another objective. “We want no aluminium in the vaccine,” he said. The administration was already in the process of removing aluminium from vaccines, he added.

About two weeks later, on October 8, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, announced a new working group focused on the childhood vaccine schedule. Its discussion topics include vaccine ingredient safety and aluminium adjuvants.

Robert Malone, an ACIP member who has opposed COVID-19 vaccines, told Axios he expected the ACIP would determine there was “a lot of evidence” of “issues” with aluminium in vaccines. The committee would likely vote to re-categorise vaccines containing aluminium adjuvants so that people would have to discuss with their doctor before getting them, Malone told Axios.

That could have far-reaching ramifications. Here’s what to know about aluminium in vaccines.

A: Small amounts of aluminium are sometimes included in vaccines as adjuvants, or substances that boost the body’s immune response to the vaccine to ensure protection from infection.

That boost means people can get fewer vaccine doses in smaller quantities.

Q: When used, how much aluminium is in a vaccine?

A: Vaccines with aluminium adjuvants usually contain less than 1mg aluminium per dose, according to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

That is a pretty abstract number. To help make it more concrete: a milligram is one-thousandth (1/1,000th) of 1g. One gram is about the weight of a raisin or a stick of gum. Imagine cutting one of those items into 1,000 equal pieces. One of the pieces would be about 1mg.

Here is another way to think about it.

People come in contact with and consume aluminium all of the time. It is one of the most abundant metal elements in the Earth’s crust, according to the US Geological Survey. It is naturally occurring in soil, air and water. Food is the main way people are exposed to aluminium. The average adult eats 7mg to 9mg of aluminium per day, according to the CDC.

A baby in its first six months might receive a total of about 4.4mg of aluminium from recommended vaccines. In the same period of time, a breastfed infant would ingest about 7mg of aluminium from breastmilk, and a formula-fed baby would ingest about 38mg from formula.

Q: How long have vaccines contained aluminium?

A: Aluminium adjuvants have been used in vaccines for more than 70 years, the CDC said.

“Aluminium is one of our oldest adjuvants; it’s been used in vaccines since the 1920s,” said Dr Peter Hotez, a Baylor College of Medicine professor and codirector of Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

Q: How do we know it’s safe to include small amounts of aluminium in vaccines?

A: Every vaccine’s safety and efficacy are tested in animal studies and human clinical trials before the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licenses it for public use. Every vaccine containing adjuvants has been tested, and health agencies continuously monitor their safety, the CDC said.

Over several decades of use, vaccines with aluminium adjuvants have been proven safe, the FDA said.

Vaccines containing aluminium have been “given to billions of people worldwide now”, said Dr Kawsar Talaat, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

A growing body of research has also found that aluminium adjuvants do not cause aluminium toxicity or other adverse outcomes.

Q: Do aluminium adjuvants have any risks?

A: Rarely, some people have allergic reactions to aluminium in the same way they might have allergic reactions to other substances, Talaat said.

In 2022, researchers published a retrospective, observational study on more than 325,000 children that found an association between vaccine-related aluminium exposure and persistent asthma. Association is not the same as causation, meaning the study did not prove a link between aluminium in vaccines and asthma.

Experts from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics encouraged more research on the subject because the backwards-looking observational study did not prove causation and also had limitations, including that it excluded many children who developed asthma before they turned two years old.

A 2025 study found no increased risk of asthma associated with childhood exposure to aluminium-absorbed vaccines.

Q: Which vaccines contain aluminium adjuvants?

A: At least 25 vaccines approved for use in the US have aluminium adjuvants, the CDC says. That includes vaccines that protect against HPV, hepatitis A and B and diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (whooping cough).

Q: Which vaccines do not contain aluminium adjuvants?

The CDC’s list of vaccines without adjuvants includes vaccines against COVID-19, Ebola, meningococcal, polio and rabies. Additionally, most seasonal flu shots and the vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella do not contain aluminium adjuvants.

Q: Can we remove aluminium from vaccines?

A: Not quickly. If it could be done at all, it would take years to develop, test and license new, aluminium-free vaccines. Many of the vaccines with aluminium adjuvants do not have aluminium-free formulas.

“A vaccine is licensed based on all of its ingredients and the exact manufacturing process,” Talaat said. “If you were to take an ingredient out of a vaccine, you would have to start all over with the clinical trials and the manufacturing, and it is highly possible that some of these vaccines wouldn’t work without the aluminium in there.”

Although other adjuvants exist, they are newer and often more scarce than aluminium, which is abundant.

An immediate ban on aluminium in vaccines would drastically reduce people’s ability to protect themselves and others against numerous diseases.

“I think we’d see outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Talaat said.

Q: Why do people think aluminium in vaccines is causing autism?

A: A 2011 study said vaccines with aluminium adjuvants “may be a significant” contributing factor to the rising number of autism diagnoses in kids, Nature reported.

A year later, a World Health Organization vaccine safety committee called the 2011 study “seriously flawed”. The 2011 study and another by the same authors compared vaccines’ aluminium content and autism rates in several countries, the WHO group said, but that cannot be used to establish a causal relationship.

“We studied aluminium, and have no link between aluminium and autism,” Talaat said.

In recent months, a new baseline idea has taken hold in European and United States debates on Ukraine: “Article 5‑like” guarantees. In March, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was the first to suggest a mechanism inspired by Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which provides for collective action in the event of an attack on a member. US President Donald Trump’s team then promoted a US “Article 5‑type” guarantee outside NATO in August. In September, French President Emmanuel Macron capped this shift by gathering 26 European partners in Paris to pledge a post-war “reassurance force”.

These proposals may sound reassuring, but they should not. In a world where we face nightly drone raids, blurred lines at sea, and constant pressure on critical infrastructure, replicating NATO’s words without NATO’s machinery would leave Ukraine exposed and Europe no safer.

Russia’s activity inside NATO territory has moved from rare to routine. On September 10, two dozen Russian-made drones crossed into Polish airspace during a wider strike on Ukraine; NATO jets shot down those that posed a threat, and Poland activated Article 4 of the NATO Charter, which allows for consultations in the event of a threat.

In the following weeks, Denmark temporarily shut down several airports after repeated drone sightings. Days later, French sailors boarded a tanker suspected of being part of a Russia-linked “shadow fleet” and of taking part in the drone disruptions.

Germany also reported coordinated drone flights over a refinery, a shipyard, a university hospital, and the Kiel Canal. Meanwhile, across the Baltic Sea, months of damage to undersea cables and energy links have deepened concern.

Each of these episodes is serious. Yet, none of them clearly crossed the legal threshold that would have triggered collective defence under Article 5.

That is the core problem with “NATO‑style” guarantees. Article 5 is powerful because it establishes that an attack on one is an attack on all, but it still needs a political process that begins with consultations and leaves each ally free to decide how to respond. It was written for visible aggression: Columns of troops on a border; ships firing across a line; fighter jets attacking territory.

Today’s reality is different. Drones launched from outside Ukrainian territory, one-night incursions over allied infrastructure, or cable cuts by vessels are meant to sit just under formal thresholds. A copy of Article 5 outside NATO’s integrated command, without a standing allied presence or pre-agreed rules for Ukraine, would be even slower and weaker than the original.

When mulling a security mechanism for Kyiv, allies need to recognise that it is no longer a security consumer; it is a security contributor. After Poland’s incident, allies began asking for Ukrainian counter-drone know-how. Ukrainian specialists have deployed to Denmark to share tactics for fusing sensors, jamming, and using low‑cost interceptors.

NATO leaders now say openly that Europe must learn how to defeat cheap drones without firing missiles that cost hundreds of thousands of euros. This is a notable shift: Ukraine is not just receiving protection; it is helping to build it.

Ukraine’s allies also need to remember what happened in 1994. Under the Budapest Memorandum, Kyiv gave up the world’s third‑largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for political “security assurances” from several countries, including Russia and the US. Those assurances were not legally binding.

In 2014, Russia seized Crimea and fuelled war in Donbas while denying its troops were there, using soldiers without insignia to keep the situation ambiguous. Even if Ukraine had been in NATO then, that ambiguity would have raised doubts about whether Article 5 applied. In 2022, Russia invaded openly.

Clearly, non-enforceable promises and debates over thresholds do not stop a determined aggressor. This is why we need guarantees that trigger action automatically, not statements that can be argued over in the moment.

What would work is a package that is tougher than Article 5 on the issues that matter against a sub‑threshold attacker: Time, automaticity, presence, intelligence, and production.

First, there needs to be automatic triggers. A legally ratified “if‑then” mechanism should activate within hours when clear markers are met: State‑origin drones or missiles entering Ukrainian airspace from outside; mass drone incursions into border regions; destructive cyberattacks or sabotage against defined critical infrastructure. The initial package would include both military steps and heavy sanctions. Consultations would adjust the response, not decide whether there will be one.

Second, there needs to be a joint aerial and maritime shield that treats Ukrainian skies and nearby seas as one operating picture. Allies need to keep persistent airborne radar and maritime patrol coverage; fuse sensors from low to high altitude; delegate rules for downing drones along agreed corridors; combine electronic warfare, directed‑energy and radio‑frequency tools, and low‑cost interceptors with classic surface‑to‑air missiles. The test is economic: Europe must make Russian drone raids expensive for Moscow, not for itself.

Third, there must be visible presence and ready logistics. Before a ceasefire is concluded, allies need to build forward logistics: ammunition, spare parts, and maintenance hubs in Poland and Romania with a standing air bridge into Ukraine. Following an agreed ceasefire, they can rotate multinational detachments, air defence crews, maritime patrol teams, and engineers through Ukrainian ports and airfields. The aim would be not to establish permanent bases, but to ensure any renewed attack instantly draws in several capitals.

Fourth, there needs to be an intelligence compact. Allies need to move from ad hoc sharing to an institutional arrangement with Ukraine that integrates satellite, signals, open‑source, and battlefield sensors into common, near‑real‑time products. Fast attribution is central: The right to defend yourself relies on what you can prove, and deterrence relies on an adversary knowing you can prove it quickly.

Fifth, there needs to be a production deal. Multi‑year funding should anchor co‑production in Ukraine of drones, air‑defence components, and artillery rounds, alongside European and US plants making the high‑end systems Ukraine and Europe still lack. Allies should commit to buy Ukrainian systems at scale and tie guarantees to contracted output, not to communiques. Empty magazines make empty promises.

These measures would not copy the letter of Article 5. They would meet a different threat with tools that can counter it. Europe’s recent experience, in Poland’s skies, at German shipyards, at Danish airports, and in the Baltic Sea shows how an adversary can apply steady pressure without triggering classic definitions of “armed attack”.

If Ukraine receives only “NATO‑style” language, it will inherit those same gaps outside the alliance. If instead Ukraine and its partners lock in automatic responses, a shared air picture, visible presence, real‑time intelligence, and an industrial base that keeps pace, they will build something stronger: A guarantee that works in the world as it is, not the world at it was.

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

Internet users have reported difficulties accessing popular websites and apps including Signal, Coinbase and Robinhood.

Major websites including popular gaming, financial and social media platforms have been facing serious connectivity issues after Amazon’s cloud services unit AWS was hit by an outage.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) confirmed the issue in an update on its status page on Monday, after web users reported difficulties accessing websites.

“We can confirm significant error rates for requests made to the DynamoDB endpoint in the US-EAST-1 Region,” said the AWS status update.

In a subsequent update it said it had “identified a potential root cause for [the] error rates” and was “working on multiple parallel paths to accelerate recovery”.

Major platforms including AI startup Perplexity, trading app Robinhood, messaging app Signal and crypto exchange Coinbase all said their issues were due to the AWS outage.

“Perplexity is down right now. The root cause is an AWS issue. We’re working on resolving it,” Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas said in a post on X.

AWS is one of the giant cloud computing service providers, competing with Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud services to offer on-demand computing power, data storage and other digital services to companies and institutions.

Issues with its servers can wreak havoc on the web, with so many companies relying on its infrastructure to function.

Downdetector, a site where web users report outages, carried a roll call of popular sites where users had experienced access difficulties amid the outage.

Names on the list included Zoom, Roblox, Fortnite, Duolingo, Canva, Wordle and more.

Amazon’s shopping website, PrimeVideo and Alexa were also facing issues, according to the site.

The Reuters news agency reported that Uber rival Lyft’s app was also down for thousands of users in the US, while many UK bank customers were also reporting outages.

Verstappen’s wire-to-wire victory in Austin narrows the drivers’ championship gap to 40 points behind Oscar Piastri, with six races remaining.

Red Bull’s Max Verstappen dominated the US Grand Prix from pole position on Sunday, leading every lap to take another significant chunk out of Oscar Piastri’s Formula One championship lead on a perfect weekend in Texas.

McLaren’s Piastri finished fifth with his teammate and closest rival, Lando Norris, seconds after passing Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc, last year’s winner, five laps from the chequered flag.

Piastri now leads Britain’s Norris by 14 points, with five rounds and two sprints remaining, while Verstappen has slashed his gap to the Australian to 40 after being 104 behind at the end of August.

Verstappen also won the Saturday sprint from pole position at Austin’s Circuit of the Americas, while the McLarens collided and retired, on a weekend of maximum points for the four-time world champion.

McLaren has already sealed the constructors’ title.

Verstappen says the title chance is there

“For sure, the chance is there,” Verstappen said of the title battle. “We just need to try and deliver these weekends until the end.

“We will try whatever we can. It’s exciting,” he added after his third win in the last four races and 68th of his career.

Piastri said he still had full confidence in his ability to become Australia’s first champion since Alan Jones in 1980.

“I’d still rather be where I am than the other two,” added the 24-year-old.

Norris lost out to Leclerc at the start and then took 21 laps to find a way back past as the Monegasque, on the faster but less durable soft tyres, held a defensive masterclass.

Leclerc then battled with Lewis Hamilton, who started on mediums, before pitting on lap 23 and coming back out in ninth place, with his teammate moving up to third and Piastri to fourth.

Verstappen, by then, was 10 seconds down the road from his closest rival.

Once the rest of the frontrunners had made their pitstops, Leclerc was again second on the road – but more than six seconds behind Verstappen – with Norris third and having to overtake all over again with a track limits warning hanging over him.

Job done, Norris pulled away and finished 7.9 seconds behind Verstappen and 7.4 ahead of the Ferrari.

“It was tough. We did everything we could,” he said of a battle that gave the fans some excitement as Verstappen completed lap after lap largely absent from the global television feed.

“I expected a slightly easier second attempt to get through, but it wasn’t the case. Charles drove a very good race. It was good fun, good battles. So we have to take second. Not a lot more we could’ve done today.”

McLaren team boss Andrea Stella said, however, that Norris could have fought for the win had he not been held up by the Ferrari.

Hamilton was fourth, with Piastri just 1.1 seconds behind, and George Russell – the winner last time out in Singapore – taking the chequered flag in sixth for Mercedes.

Red Bull’s Yuki Tsunoda finished seventh, ahead of Sauber’s Nico Hulkenberg and Haas’s Oliver Bearman. Fernando Alonso took the final point for Aston Martin.

The virtual safety car was deployed on lap seven when Mercedes’ Italian rookie Kimi Antonelli and Williams’ Carlos Sainz collided, with the Spaniard retiring after trying to overtake on the inside for seventh place.

Stewards handed Sainz a five-place grid penalty at next weekend’s Mexican Grand Prix, plus two penalty points, for causing the collision.

Sainz’s teammate Alex Albon had also been caught up in a first corner collision with Sauber’s Brazilian rookie Gabriel Bortoleto.

The weekend was declared a heat hazard, although the air temperature during the race was lower than feared at about 28.6 degrees Celsius (83.5 Fahrenheit).

In the opening moments of a new film called “Diamond Diplomacy,” Shohei Ohtani holds the ball and Mike Trout holds a bat. These are the dramatic final moments of the 2023 World Baseball Classic.

The film puts those moments on pause to share the long and complex relationship between the United States and Japan through the prism of baseball, and through the stories of four Japanese players — Ohtani included — and their journeys to the major leagues.

Baseball has been a national pastime in both nations for more than a century. A Japanese publishing magnate sponsored a 1934 barnstorming tour led by Babe Ruth. Under former owners Walter and Peter O’Malley, the Dodgers were at the forefront of tours to Japan and elsewhere.

In 1946, however, amid the aftermath of World War II, the United States government funded a tour by the San Francisco Seals of the Pacific Coast League. Director Yuriko Gamo Romer features archival footage from that tour prominently in her film.

“I thought it was remarkable,” she said, “that the U.S. government decided, ‘Oh, we should send a baseball team to Japan to help repair relations and for goodwill.’ ”

On the home front, Romer shows how Ruth barnstormed Central California in 1927, a decade and a half before the U.S. government forced citizens of Japanese ancestry into internment camps there. Teams and leagues sprouted within the camps, an arrangement described by one player as “baseball behind barbed wire.”

The film also relates how, even after World War II ended, Japanese Americans were often unwelcome in their old neighborhoods, and Japanese baseball leagues sprung up like the Negro Leagues.

In 1964, the San Francisco Giants made pitcher Masanori Murakami the first Japanese player in Major League Baseball, but he yielded to pressure to return to his homeland two years later.

San Francisco Giants pitcher Masanori Murakami, shown on the a pro baseball field in 1964, was the first Japanese athlete to play in Major League Baseball.

(Associated Press)

In 1995, when pitcher Hideo Nomo signed with the Dodgers, he had to retire from Japanese baseball to do so. (The film contains footage of legendary Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda teaching Nomo to say, “I bleed Dodger blue.”)

Now, star Japanese players regularly join the majors. In that 2023 WBC, as the film shows at its end, Ohtani left his first big imprint on the international game by striking out Trout to deliver victory to Japan over the United States.

On Friday, Ohtani powered the Dodgers into the World Series with perhaps the greatest game by any player in major league history.

In previous generations, author Robert Whiting says in the film, hardly any American could name a prominent Japanese figure, in baseball or otherwise. Today, Ohtani’s jersey is baseball’s best seller, and he is a cultural icon on and off the field, here and in Japan.

Fans cheer as Dodgers pitcher Shohei Ohtani hits his third home run during Game 4 of the NLCS against the Milwaukee Brewers on Friday at Dodger Stadium.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

“Suddenly, a Japanese face is the face of Major League Baseball in the United States,” Romer said. “People here can buy bottles of cold Japanese tea that have Shohei’s face on it.

“I know people who don’t care about baseball one iota and they’re like, ‘oh, yeah, I know who that is.’”

“Diamond Diplomacy” will show on Tuesday at 5 p.m. at the Newport Beach Film Festival. For more information, visit newportbeachfilmfest.com.

‘They are torn to pieces, I don’t know if I’m saying goodbye to my son or my daughter.’ Palestinians are grieving 11 members of a family killed by Israeli forces in Gaza City, the deadliest single violation of the shaky ceasefire, just days after it came into effect.

Maria worked cleaning schools in Florida for $13 an hour. Every two weeks, she’d get a $900 paycheck from her employer, a contractor. Not much — but enough to cover rent in the house that she and her 11-year-old son share with five families, plus electricity, a cellphone and groceries.

In August, it all ended.

When she showed up at the job one morning, her boss told her that she couldn’t work there anymore. The Trump administration had terminated the Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program, which provided legal work permits for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans like Maria.

“I feel desperate,’’ said Maria, 48, who requested anonymity to talk about her ordeal because she fears being detained and deported. “I don’t have any money to buy anything. I have $5 in my account. I’m left with nothing.’’

President Trump’s sweeping crackdown on immigration is throwing foreigners like Maria out of work and shaking the American economy and job market. And it’s happening at a time when hiring is already deteriorating amid uncertainty over Trump’s tariffs and other trade policies.

Immigrants do jobs — cleaning houses, picking tomatoes, painting fences — that most native-born Americans won’t, and for less money. But they also bring the technical skills and entrepreneurial energy that have helped make the United States the world’s economic superpower.

Trump is attacking immigration at both ends of the spectrum, deporting low-wage laborers and discouraging skilled foreigners from bringing their talents to the United States.

And he is targeting an influx of foreign workers that eased labor shortages and upward pressure on wages and prices at a time when most economists thought that taming inflation would require sky-high interest rates and a recession — a fate the United States escaped in 2023 and 2024.

“Immigrants are good for the economy,’’ said Lee Branstetter, an economist at Carnegie-Mellon University. “Because we had a lot of immigration over the past five years, an inflationary surge was not as bad as many people expected.”

More workers filling more jobs and spending more money has also helped drive economic growth and create still more job openings. Economists worry that Trump’s deportations and limits on even legal immigration will do the reverse.

In a July report, researchers Wendy Edelberg and Tara Watson of the centrist Brookings Institution and Stan Veuger of the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute calculated that the loss of foreign workers will mean that monthly U.S. job growth “could be near zero or negative in the next few years.’’

Hiring has already slowed significantly, averaging a meager 29,000 a month from June through August. (The September jobs report has been delayed by the ongoing shutdown of the federal government.) During the post-pandemic hiring boom of 2021-23, by contrast, employers added a stunning 400,000 jobs a month.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, citing fallout from Trump’s immigration and trade policies, downgraded its forecast for U.S. economic growth this year to 1.4% from the 1.9% it had previously expected and from 2.5% in 2024.

‘We need these people’

Goodwin Living, an Alexandria, Va., nonprofit that provides senior housing, healthcare and hospice services, had to lay off four employees from Haiti after the Trump administration terminated their work permits. The Haitians had been allowed to work under a humanitarian parole program and had earned promotions at Goodwin.

“That was a very, very difficult day for us,” Chief Executive Rob Liebreich said. “It was really unfortunate to have to say goodbye to them, and we’re still struggling to fill those roles.’’

Liebreich is worried that 60 additional immigrant workers could lose their temporary legal right to live and work in the United States. “We need all those hands,’’ he said. “We need all these people.”

Goodwin Living has 1,500 employees, 60% of them from foreign countries. It has struggled to find enough nurses, therapists and maintenance staff. Trump’s immigration crackdown, Liebreich said, is “making it harder.’’

The ICE crackdown

Trump’s immigration ambitions, intended to turn back what he calls an “invasion’’ at America’s southern border and secure jobs for U.S.-born workers, were once viewed with skepticism because of the money and economic disruption required to reach his goal of deporting 1 million people a year. But legislation that Trump signed into law July 4 — and which Republicans named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — suddenly made his plans plausible.

The law pours $150 billion into immigration enforcement, setting aside $46.5 billion to hire 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and $45 billion to increase the capacity of immigrant detention centers.

And his empowered ICE agents have shown a willingness to move fast and break things — even when their aggression conflicts with other administration goals.

Last month, immigration authorities raided a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia, detained 300 South Korean workers and showed video of some of them shackled in chains. They’d been working to get the plant up and running, bringing expertise in battery technology and Hyundai procedures that local American workers didn’t have.

The incident enraged the South Koreans and ran counter to Trump’s push to lure foreign manufacturers to invest in America. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung warned that the country’s other companies might be reluctant about betting on America if their workers couldn’t get visas promptly and risked getting detained.

Sending Medicaid recipients to the fields

America’s farmers are among the president’s most dependable supporters.

But John Boyd Jr., who farms 1,300 acres of soybeans, wheat and corn in southern Virginia, said that the immigration raids — and the threat of them — are hurting farmers already contending with low crop prices, high costs and fallout from Trump’s trade war with China, which has stopped buying U.S. soybeans and sorghum.

“You’ve got ICE out here, herding these people up,’’ said Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Assn. “[Trump] says they’re murderers and thieves and drug dealers, all this stuff. But these are people who are in this country doing hard work that many Americans don’t want to do.’’

Boyd scoffed at Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ suggestion in July that U.S.-born Medicaid recipients could head to the fields to meet work requirements imposed as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. “People in the city aren’t coming back to the farm to do this kind of work,’’ he said. “It takes a certain type of person to bend over in 100-degree heat.’’

The Trump administration admits that the immigration crackdown is causing labor shortages on the farm that could translate into higher prices at the supermarket.

“The near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens combined with the lack of an available legal workforce results in significant disruptions to production costs and [threatens] the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers,’’ the Labor Department said in an Oct. 2 filing to the Federal Register.

‘You’re not welcome here’

Jed Kolko of the Peterson Institute for International Economics said that job growth is slowing in businesses that rely on immigrants. Construction companies, for instance, have shed 10,000 jobs since May.

“Those are the short-term effects,’’ said Kolko, a Commerce Department official in the Biden administration. “The longer-term effects are more serious because immigrants traditionally have contributed more than their share of patents, innovation, productivity.’’

Especially worrisome to many economists was Trump’s sudden announcement last month that he was raising the fee on H-1B visas, meant to lure hard-to-find skilled foreign workers to the United States, from as little as $215 to $100,000.

“A $100,000 visa fee is not just a bureaucratic cost — it’s a signal,” said Dany Bahar, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. “It tells global talent: You are not welcome here.”

Some are already packing up.

In Washington, D.C., one H-1B visa holder, a Harvard graduate from India who works for a nonprofit helping Africa’s poor, said Trump’s signal to employers is clear: Think twice about hiring H-1B visa holders.

The man, who requested anonymity, is already preparing paperwork to move to the United Kingdom.

“The damage is already done, unfortunately,’’ he said.

Associated Press writers Wiseman and Salomon reported from Washington and Miami, respectively. AP writers Fu Ting and Christopher Rugaber in Washington contributed to this report.

Mouin Rabbani from the Center For Conflict & Humanitarian Studies talks about the violence in Gaza since the ceasefire began and how he believes it’s being fuelled by Israel.

Hamas has rejected a statement from the United States State Department in which it cited “credible reports” indicating the Palestinian group would imminently violate the ceasefire deal with Israel.

In a statement on Sunday, Hamas said the US allegations were false and “fully align with the misleading Israeli propaganda and provide cover for the continuation of the occupation’s crimes and organised aggression against our people”.

The US State Department had claimed that Hamas is planning an attack against civilians in Gaza “in grave violation of the ceasefire” and called on mediators to demand that the group uphold its obligations under the US-backed peace deal.

In a statement late on Saturday, the State Department said it had obtained “credible reports indicating an imminent ceasefire violation by Hamas against the people of Gaza”.

“Should Hamas proceed with this attack, measures will be taken to protect the people of Gaza and preserve the integrity of the ceasefire,” it said, without giving specific details on the planned attack.

The United States has informed the guarantor nations of the Gaza peace agreement of credible reports indicating an imminent ceasefire violation by Hamas against the people of Gaza.  

This planned attack against Palestinian civilians would constitute a direct and grave violation…

— Department of State (@StateDept) October 18, 2025

Hamas called on the US to “stop repeating the [Israeli] occupation’s misleading narrative and to focus on curbing its repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement”.

“The facts on the ground reveal the exact opposite, as the occupation authorities are the ones who formed, armed, and funded criminal gangs that carried out killings, kidnappings, theft of aid trucks, and assaults against Palestinian civilians. They have openly admitted their crimes through media and video clips, confirming the occupation’s involvement in spreading chaos and disrupting security,” it said.

Hamas said its police forces in Gaza, “with broad popular and community support, are fulfilling their national duty in pursuing these gangs and holding them accountable according to clear legal mechanisms, to protect citizens and preserve public and private property”.

‘Attempt to stoke civil conflict’

Palestine scholar and Middle East analyst Mouin Rabbani described the US State Department warning as mind-boggling.

“I think this is really an attempt to stoke civil conflict within the Gaza Strip … to achieve what so far Israel has failed to achieve,” Rabbani said.

The Dutch-Palestinian analyst pointed out that Israel has already attempted to “wreak havoc” in Gaza by joining forces with “armed gangs and collaborator militias” who act as Israeli proxies in the war-torn enclave.

“To suggest that this is in any way the United States coming to the defence of those whose genocide it has unconditionally supported for two entire years just boggles the mind and defies the imagination,” Rabbani said.

Hamas and Israel have been trading blame over violations of the US-mediated ceasefire since it came into force last week, threatening the success of the week-old deal.

Gershon Baskin, an American-Israeli analyst, told Al Jazeera that throughout the history of agreements between Palestinians and Israelis, all of them have been “breached” one way or another.

“If the Americans are serious that they want this to work, they have to be engaged every single day and several times a day” to make sure the steps agreed on are carried out on the ground, he said.

The Gaza Government Media Office said on Saturday that it had counted almost 50 Israeli violations of the peace deal, resulting in 38 Palestinian deaths and 143 injuries since the ceasefire took hold.

It called Israel’s actions “flagrant and clear violations of the ceasefire decision and the rules of international humanitarian law”.

According to the office, Israeli forces in Gaza fired directly at and bombed civilians, attacks that reflected Israel’s “continued aggressive approach despite the declaration of a ceasefire”.

Israel has also been accused of failing to comply with the ceasefire deal by continuing to block efforts to reopen the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

The opening of Rafah has been called for in order to increase the flow of humanitarian aid into the Strip and to allow Palestinians to travel abroad.

Amid growing frustration with Israel’s refusal to open the Rafah crossing, Rawhi Fattouh, the president of the Palestinian National Council – the Palestine Liberation Organization’s legislative body – urged the international community on Saturday to deploy international forces in Gaza to protect Palestinians and ensure the ceasefire deal is implemented.