US airlines have begun cancelling flights because of a federal government shutdown. They are required to cut traffic 10 percent by November 14 due to inadequate air traffic controller staffing. Many controllers are working without pay during the shutdown.
Published On 7 Nov 20257 Nov 2025
Share
“If they’re able then to treat Sami in this way, it’s only a matter of time before they start to treat US citizens like that too.”
The wife of pro-Palestinian commentator and journalist Sami Hamdi told Al Jazeera that his detention by US immigration authorities poses a threat to every American citizen and visitor to the country.
Published On 7 Nov 20257 Nov 2025
Share
“It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years,” said United States Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in January 2007, upon becoming the speaker of the US House of Representatives.
“For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling,” she added, addressing an applauding audience at the House in Washington, DC.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Pelosi, 85, who has served as the Democratic representative for California’s 11th Congressional District since 1987, made history when she was elected as the 52nd speaker of the House of Representatives – as the first-ever woman – and served from 2007 to 2011. She later served again from 2019 to 2023.
On Thursday this week, she announced her retirement from Congress as of January next year.
Paying tribute to her home city of San Francisco, she announced her decision in a video message, telling and citizens of the city: “It was the faith that you had placed in me and the latitude that you have given me that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard.
“I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know I will not be seeking re-election to Congress,” Pelosi, 85, added.
“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative.”
Seen as one of the most powerful figures in the modern Democratic Party and one of the most powerful women in US politics, Pelosi was re-elected as speaker of the House in 2019 and served until 2023.
At the end of her second tenure, she stepped down from House leadership for the Democratic Party but retained the honorary title of speaker emerita of the House.
Here’s what we know:
Nancy Patricia Pelosi was born on March 26, 1940, in Baltimore, Maryland, and is the only daughter and youngest of six siblings.
She comes from a family with political lineage. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr, was a congressman who served as mayor of Baltimore for 12 years. Her older brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III, also served as mayor of Baltimore.
After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in political science from Trinity College in Washington, DC in the 1960s, Pelosi started an internship with the Maryland senator at the time, Daniel Brewster.
In 1963, she married Paul Pelosi, an American businessman and San Francisco native, and the couple moved to the city six years later, with their six children.
In the 1980s, Pelosi began working with the Democratic National Committee in the state of California. Starting as a fundraiser, she progressed to become the chair of both the California Democratic Party between 1981 and 1983 and the host committee for the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.
In 1987, Pelosi was elected to Congress as a Democratic representative – a seat she campaigned for, promising action against AIDS, which was badly affecting people, especially from the LGBTQ+ community, in her city of San Francisco.
A national law addressing the epidemic emerged in the 1990s in the form of the Ryan White Care Act, and Pelosi, who was in Congress at the time, celebrated the moment. That law provided the largest funding programme for people with AIDS.
As a congresswoman for nearly 40 years, Pelosi has climbed through the ranks and, in 2001, became the first woman to hold the post of the House minority whip for the Democratic Party. In this post, it was her duty to advance the policies of her party.
In 2002, she became the House minority leader and, in 2007, she was elected speaker of the House when Republican George W Bush was in power.
“In this House, we may be different parties, but we serve one country,” she told the House while accepting the post in January 2007.
According to the US Congress website, the Speaker of the House is elected either at the start of a Congress, which lasts for two years, or if there is a vacancy due to death or resignation.
The election takes place by “roll call vote, during which Members state aloud the name of their preferred candidate. If no candidate receives a majority of votes cast, balloting continues.” A speaker remains in office as long as he or she holds the House’s majority vote.
The speaker of the House symbolises “the power and authority of the House” and is tasked with maintaining decorum in the House, allowing members to speak, overseeing debates, and undertaking non-legislative tasks like controlling the Hall of the House.
The Speaker is also responsible for “defending the majority party’s legislative agenda” and also has a role of serving as a member of the House.
But the speaker cannot debate or vote on topics discussed in the House or sit on any standing committee in the House. These committees handle specific issues like overseeing government departments or analysing various financial issues.
As a congresswoman and speaker of the House twice during her tenure, Pelosi has pursued left-of-centre policies and has been instrumental in passing several important laws and policies.
When she first took the gavel in 2007 as speaker of the House, she focused on climate policies and set up the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which held many hearings.
In 2015, she supported former US President Barack Obama in joining the Paris Climate Agreement.
In 2017, President Donald Trump ceased US participation, but when President Joe Biden came to power in 2021, climate was once again on the agenda.
As speaker of the House, Pelosi oversaw the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which also included policies to address climate change.
As the first woman to hold the position of speaker of the House in the US, Pelosi has been seen as instrumental in advancing women’s rights.
When Obama came to power in 2008, with Pelosi as speaker, she ensured that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which addressed equal wages for men and women, was passed.
She also supported women’s reproductive rights, despite being a Catholic, and fought for Roe v Wade – a US law which established that women had a constitutional right to an abortion – when it was overturned during President Donald Trump’s first term.
During President Obama’s tenure, Pelosi was instrumental in ensuring his Affordable Care Act became a law in 2010.
The law lists guidelines to ensure federal subsidies to ensure every person in the US has access to medical care and services.
The law was initially unpopular in the House, but Pelosi held hearings and spoke to Democrats and Republicans to ensure the smooth passage of the bill.
Between 2021 and 2023, Pelosi was also able to help Democrats pass major bills to propel Biden’s agenda, which included a huge COVID-19 relief package.
As a Congress member in 2003, she opposed the US’s war in Iraq. She has also voiced strong opposition to Russia’s war in Ukraine.
However, when it comes to Israel’s war in Gaza, Pelosi is a staunch supporter of Israel and has defended the US stance towards the war.
In 2024, however, she called on Biden to halt the transfer of arms to Israel.
Pelosi has also been hawkish towards China and triggered a controversy when she visited Taiwan in 2022.
She currently serves as the Representative for California’s 11th Congressional District, which includes San Francisco, from where she focuses on employment rights.
After her second tenure as Speaker of the House ended in November 2023, Pelosi announced she would step down from the House’s leadership to make way for young members to take up the role.
The end of her tenure made headlines, and interviews with her focusing on her diet – which involved having “her daily hot dog” – also caught the media’s attention. Pelosi has often told reporters that she enjoys a hot dog with mustard for lunch every day, plenty of Ghirardelli chocolates, and a breakfast that generally includes ice cream.
After stepping down as speaker, Pelosi retained the title of Speaker Emerita of the House.
She is also renowned as a brilliant fundraiser for political campaigns. “I had to raise like a million dollars a day – well, at least five days a week,” she once told reporters.
Pelosi has not given the precise reason for her decision to retire now. But, according to US media reports, it was widely expected after close to 38 years of service.
“I say to my colleagues in the House all of the time, no matter what title they had bestowed upon me – speaker, leader, whip – there has been no greater honour for me than to stand on the House floor and say, ‘I speak for the people of San Francisco,’” she said in her video message announcing her retirement on Thursday.
President Trump, who has clashed with Pelosi on numerous occasions, called her an “evil woman” following the news.
“I think she did the country a great service by retiring. I think she was a tremendous liability for the country,” he told reporters.
Pelosi and Trump are often referred to as adversaries by political commentators and US media outlets, due to their disagreements over policy.
In 2019, during Trump’s first term, Pelosi, Democrat Chuck Schumer – who is currently minority leader of the Senate – and Trump got into a heated argument over building a wall along the US border with Mexico. Trump threatened to shut down the government during the squabble, which was broadcast on television channels around the world.
That same year, Trump and Pelosi discussed the war in Syria, but their disagreements were made public by Trump himself, who tweeted a picture of Pelosi pointing a finger at him.
“Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown!” he said.
Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown! pic.twitter.com/RDeUI7sfe7
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2019
In 2020, their rocky relationship once again made headlines when Pelosi tore up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union speech, calling it a “lie”. Trump said her actions were illegal since it was a government document, but, in fact, it was her own copy of the speech – not the official document.
Trump supporters who stormed into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to protest the 2020 presidential election results that Biden won, barged into Pelosi’s office looking for her but couldn’t find her.
In 2022, an assailant broke into Pelosi’s home in San Francisco and assaulted her husband with a hammer, fracturing his skull. The former House speaker was not at the house during the attack. Prosecutors believe the act was politically motivated.
In January 2023, Trump mocked her husband’s attack while addressing a California Republican party convention as he prepared to stand for the presidential race for a second time.
“We’ll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco – how’s her husband doing, anybody know?” Trump said.
“And she’s against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house – which obviously didn’t do a very good job,” he added.
Many American politicians paid tribute to Pelosi on social media platforms this week.
Former Representative Democrat Gabby Giffords (Democrat-Arizona), who was shot in the head in 2011 by a gunman who also killed six others during a constituent event in Tucson in 2011, said in a press statement: “As the first woman Speaker of the House, she inspired me and and at my bedside following the shooting that turned my life upside-down, she uplifted me.”
Former President Obama said on X: “For almost four decades, Nancy Pelosi has served the American people and worked to make our country better. No one was more skilled at bringing people together and getting legislation passed – and I will always be grateful for her support of the Affordable Care Act.”
Former President Biden called Pelosi “the best Speaker of the House in American history” and said it was the reason why he awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the US’s highest honour, in 2024.
“When I was President, we worked together to grow our economy, create millions of jobs, and make historic investments in our nation’s future. She has devoted much of her life to this country, and America will always be grateful,” he said on X.
Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene also lauded Pelosi’s leadership. “She had an incredible career. I served under her speakership in my first term of Congress. And I’m very impressed at her ability to get things done. I wish we could get things done for our party,” she told CNN.
According to the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, while Pelosi has been lauded for her political achievements, she has also been mocked.
Some posts on the internet said she was removed from the House for being drunk many times. This is untrue.
A few other posts said she associated with Mexican drug lord El Chapo in 2016, when in reality she was at a meeting to discuss US-Mexico trade and security in the Pacific with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Representative Henry Cuellar from Texas, who internet users mistakenly identified as El Chapo.
Polls find large majorities of people in the US oppose military action against Venezuela, where Trump has ramped up military pressure.
Republicans in the United States Senate have voted down legislation that would have required US President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for any military attacks on Venezuela.
Two Republicans had crossed the political aisle and joined Democrats to vote in favour of the legislation on Thursday, but their support was not enough to secure passage, and the bill failed to pass by 51 to 49 votes.
list of 3 itemsend of list
“We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a speech.
The vote comes amid a US military build-up off South America and a series of military strikes targeting vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia that have killed at least 65 people.
The US has alleged, without presenting evidence, that the boats it bombed were transporting drugs, but Latin American leaders, some members of Congress, international law experts and family members of the deceased have described the US attacks as extrajudicial killings, claiming most of those killed were fishermen.
Fears are now growing that Trump will use the military deployment in the region – which includes thousands of US troops, a nuclear submarine and a group of warships accompanying the USS Gerald R Ford, the US Navy’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier – to launch an attack on Venezuela in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro.
Washington has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, and Trump has hinted at carrying out attacks on Venezuelan soil.
Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, referencing Trump’s military posturing towards Venezuela, said on Thursday: “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change.”
“If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking – involvement in a war – then Congress needs to be heard on this,” he said.
Earlier on Thursday, a pair of US B-52 bombers flew over the Caribbean Sea along the coast of Venezuela, flight tracking data showed.
Data from tracking website Flightradar24 showed the two bombers flying parallel to the Venezuelan coast, then circling northeast of Caracas before heading back along the coast and turning north and flying further out to sea.
The presence of the US bombers off Venezuela was at least the fourth time that US military aircraft have flown near the country’s borders since mid-October, with B-52s having done so on one previous occasion, and B-1B bombers on two other occasions.
A recent poll found that only 18 percent of people in the US support even limited use of military force to overthrow Maduro’s government.
Research by YouGov also found that 74 percent of people in the US believe that the president should not be able to carry out military strikes abroad without congressional approval, in line with the requirements of the US Constitution.
Republican lawmakers, however, have embraced the recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, adopting the Trump administration’s framing of its efforts to cut off the flow of narcotics to the US.
Questions of the legality of such attacks, either under US or international law, do not appear to be of great concern to many Republicans.
“President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in remarks declaring his support for the strikes.
While only two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski – defected to join Democrats in supporting the legislation to limit Trump’s ability to wage war unilaterally on Thursday, some conservatives have expressed frustration with a possible war on Venezuela.
Trump had campaigned for president on the promise of withdrawing the US from foreign military entanglements.
In recent years, Congress has made occasional efforts to reassert itself and impose restraints on foreign military engagements through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which reaffirmed that Congress alone has the power to declare war.
United States lawmakers have written to Andrew, Britain’s disgraced former prince, requesting that he sit for a formal interview about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a day after King Charles III formally stripped his younger brother of his royal titles.
Separately, a secluded desert ranch where Epstein once entertained guests is coming under renewed scrutiny in the US state of New Mexico, with two state legislators proposing a “truth commission” to uncover the full extent of the financier’s crimes there.
list of 3 itemsend of list
On Thursday, 16 Democratic Party members of Congress signed a letter addressed to “Mr Mountbatten Windsor”, as Andrew is now known, to participate in a “transcribed interview” with the US House of Representatives oversight committee’s investigation into Epstein.
“The committee is seeking to uncover the identities of Mr Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers and to understand the full extent of his criminal operations,” the letter read.
“Well-documented allegations against you, along with your longstanding friendship with Mr Epstein, indicate that you may possess knowledge of his activities relevant to our investigation,” it added.
The letter asked Andrew to respond by November 20.
The US Congress has no power to compel testimony from foreigners, making it unlikely Andrew will give evidence.
The letter will be another unwelcome development for the disgraced former prince after a turbulent few weeks.
On October 30, Buckingham Palace said King Charles had “initiated a formal process” to revoke Andrew’s royal status after weeks of pressure to act over his relationship with Epstein – who took his own life in prison in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges.
The rare move to strip a British prince or princess of their title – last taken in 1919 after Prince Ernest Augustus sided with Germany during World War I – also meant that Andrew was evicted from his lavish Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor and moved into “private accommodation”.
King Charles formally made the changes with an announcement published on Wednesday in The Gazette – the United Kingdom’s official public record – saying Andrew “shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of ‘Royal Highness’ and the titular dignity of ‘Prince’”.
Andrew surrendered his use of the title Duke of York earlier in October following new abuse allegations from his accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, in her posthumous memoir, which hit shelves last month.
The Democrat lawmakers referenced Giuffre’s memoir in their letter, specifically claims that she feared “retaliation if she made allegations against” Andrew, and that he had asked his personal protection officer to “dig up dirt” on his accuser for a smear campaign in 2011.
“This fear of retaliation has been a persistent obstacle to many of those who were victimised in their fight for justice,” the letter said. “In addition to Mr. Epstein’s crimes, we are investigating any such efforts to silence, intimidate, or threaten victims.”
Giuffre, who alleges that Epstein trafficked her to have sex with Andrew on three occasions, twice when she was just 17, took her own life in Australia in April.
In 2022, Andrew paid Giuffre a multimillion-pound settlement to resolve a civil lawsuit she had levelled against him. Andrew denied the allegations, and he has not been charged with any crime.
On Thursday, Democratic lawmakers also turned the spotlight on Zorro Ranch, proposing to the House of Representatives’ Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee that a commission be created to investigate alleged crimes against young girls at the New Mexico property, which Epstein purchased in 1993.
State Representative Andrea Romero said several survivors of Epstein’s abuse have signalled that sex trafficking activity extended to the secluded desert ranch with a hilltop mansion and private runway in Stanley, about 56 kilometres (35 miles) south of the state capital, Santa Fe.
“This commission will specifically seek the truth about what officials knew, how crimes were unreported or reported, and how the state can ensure that this essentially never happens again,” Romero told a panel of legislators.
“There’s no complete record of what occurred,” she said.
Representative Marianna Anaya, presenting to the committee alongside Romero, said state authorities missed several opportunities over decades to stop Epstein.
“Even after all these years, you know, there are still questions of New Mexico’s role as a state, our roles in terms of oversight and accountability for the survivors who are harmed,” she said.
New Mexico laws allowed Epstein to avoid registering locally as a sex offender long after he was required to register in Florida, where he was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008.
Republican Representative Andrea Reeb said she believed New Mexicans “have a right to know what happened at this ranch” and she didn’t feel the commission was going to be a “big political thing”.
To move forward, approval will be needed from the state House when the legislature convenes in January.
Abby Zwerner, 28, was shot in 2023 as she sat in a first-grade classroom and sustained life-threatening injuries.
Published On 7 Nov 20257 Nov 2025
Share
A jury in the state of Virginia in the United States has awarded $10m to a former teacher who was shot by a six-year-old student.
The jury on Thursday sided with former teacher Abby Zwerner’s claim, made in a civil lawsuit, that an ex-administrator at the school had ignored repeated warnings that the six-year-old child had a gun in class.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Zwerner, 28, was shot in January 2023 as she sat at a reading table in her first-grade classroom and spent nearly two weeks in the hospital, required six surgeries and still does not have the full use of her left hand.
The bullet fired by the six-year-old narrowly missed her heart and remains in her chest.
Zwerner, who did not address reporters outside the court after the decision was announced, had sought $40m in damages against Ebony Parker, a former assistant principal at Richneck Elementary School in the city of Newport News, Virginia.
One of her lawyers, Diane Toscano, said the verdict sent a message that what happened at the school “was wrong and is not going to be tolerated, that safety has to be the first concern at school”.
Zwerner’s lawyers had claimed that Parker, the assistant principal at the time, had failed to act in the hours before the shooting after several school staff members told her that the student had a gun in his backpack.
“Who would think a six-year-old would bring a gun to school and shoot their teacher?” Toscano had asked the jury earlier.
“It’s Dr Parker’s job to believe that is possible. It’s her job to investigate it and get to the very bottom of it.”
Parker did not testify in the lawsuit.
The mother of the student who shot Zwerner was sentenced to four years in prison after being convicted of child neglect and firearms charges.
No charges were brought against the child, who told authorities he got his mother’s handgun by climbing onto a drawer to reach the top of a dresser, where the firearm was in his mother’s purse.
Newtown Action Alliance, an advocacy organisation that supports reforms aimed at addressing gun violence, said that the case points to the need for greater regulations over the storage of firearms in homes with children.
“Abby Zwerner was shot by her 6-year-old student using a gun from home,” the group said in a social media post, adding that “76 percent of school shooters get their guns from their homes or relatives”.
Abby Zwerner was shot by her 6-year-old student using a gun from home.
76% of school shooters get their guns from their homes or relatives.
Urge your Members of Congress to cosponsor Ethan’s Law.
Congressional Switchboard: (202) 224-3121#SafeStorageSavesLives #EndGunViolence pic.twitter.com/YZyuo0KxXj
— Newtown Action Alliance (@NewtownAction) November 6, 2025
Zwerner no longer works for the school district and has said she has no plans to teach again. She has since become a licensed cosmetologist.
While accidents involving young children accessing unsecured firearms in their homes are common in the US, school shootings perpetrated by those under 10 years old are rare.
A database compiled by US researcher David Riedman has registered about 15 such incidents since the 1970s.
New York’s new Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani won amid Islamophobic attacks, and is set to become the city’s first Muslim mayor. He pledged to serve all communities and to challenge United States President Trump’s policies. His win is being compared to that of London’s Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan, a counterweight to then-United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Are city mayors the new resistance to right-wing governments?
Published On 7 Nov 20257 Nov 2025
Share
Shareholders approved the pay package with as much as 75 percent support on Thursday.
Published On 6 Nov 20256 Nov 2025
Share
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has scored a resounding victory as shareholders have approved a pay package of as much as $878bn over the next decade, endorsing his vision of morphing the electric vehicle (EV) maker into an AI and robotics juggernaut.
Shares of Tesla rose more than 3 percent in after-hours trading after the shareholders voted on Thursday. The proposal was approved with more than 75 percent support.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Musk took to the stage in Austin, Texas, along with dancing robots. “What we are about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla, but a whole new book,” he said. “This really is going to be quite the story.”
He added: “Other shareholder meetings are like snooze fests, but ours are bangers. I mean, look at this. This is sick.”
Shareholders also re-elected three directors on Tesla’s board and voted in favour of a replacement pay plan for Musk’s services because a legal challenge has held up a previous package.
The vote, analysts have said, is a positive for Tesla’s stock, whose valuation hangs on Musk’s vision of making vehicles drive themselves, expanding robotaxis across the United States and selling humanoid robots, even though his far-right political rhetoric has hurt the Tesla brand this year.
A win for Musk was widely expected as the billionaire was allowed to exercise the full voting rights of his roughly 15 percent stake after the carmaker moved to Texas from Delaware, where a legal challenge has held up a previous pay rise.
The approval comes even after opposition from some major investors, including Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.
Tesla’s board had said Musk could quit if the pay package was not approved.
The vote will also allay investor concerns that Musk’s focus has been diluted with his work in politics as well as in running his other companies, including rocket maker SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup xAI.
The board and many investors who lent their endorsement have said the nearly $1 trillion package benefits shareholders in the longer run, as Musk must ensure Tesla achieves a series of milestones to get paid.
Goals for Musk over the next decade include the company delivering 20 million vehicles, having one million robotaxis in operation, selling one million robots and earning as much as $400bn in core profit. But in order for him to get paid, Tesla’s stock value has to rise in tandem, first to $2 trillion from the current $1.5 trillion, and all the way to $8.5 trillion.
Under the new plan, Musk could earn as much as $878bn in Tesla stock over 10 years. Musk would be given as much as $1 trillion in stock but would have to make some payments back to Tesla.
The DOJ argued that the federal judge did not have the authority to make the decision.
Published On 6 Nov 20256 Nov 2025
Share
A United States judge in Texas has approved the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss a criminal case against Boeing despite his objections to the decision.
On Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court in Fort Worth dismissed the case, which will allow the plane maker to avoid prosecution over charges related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes: the 2018 Lion Air crash in Indonesia and the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crash.
list of 4 itemsend of list
O’Connor said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s argument that ending the case served the public interest, noting that he lacked the authority to overrule it.
The government argued Boeing has improved, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is providing enhanced oversight. Boeing and the government argued O’Connor had no choice but to dismiss the case.
He said the deal with the aerospace giant “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public”.
In September, O’Connor held a three-hour hearing to consider objections to the deal, questioning the government’s decision to drop a requirement that Boeing face oversight from an independent monitor for three years and instead hire a compliance consultant.
O’Connor said the government’s position is “Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecution, failed to remedy its fraudulent behaviour on its own during the [deferred prosecution agreement], which justified a guilty plea and the imposition of an independent monitor, but now Boeing will remedy that dangerous culture by retaining a consultant of its own choosing”.
The DOJ first criminally charged Boeing for the crashes in January 2021, but also agreed to deferred prosecution in the case.
The plane maker was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the US. Courts found that Boeing deceived the FAA about what is called the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, which affects flight control systems on the aircraft.
“Boeing’s employees chose the path of profit over candor by concealing material information from the FAA concerning the operation of its 737 Max airplane and engaging in an effort to cover up their deception,” acting Assistant Attorney General David P Burns of the DOJ’s criminal division said in a statement at the time.
O’Connor said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history”.
Under the non-prosecution deal, Boeing agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund to be divided evenly per victim of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, on top of a new $243.6m fine and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes.
On Wall Street, Boeing’s stock was up by 0.2 percent as of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT).
The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.
In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.
But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.
In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.
Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.
In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.
“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.
What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?
Here’s what we know:
During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.
Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.
In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.
Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.
He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.
But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”
The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?
“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.
Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”
According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.
During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.
The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.
Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.
In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”
“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.
Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.
“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.
According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.
“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.
After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.
But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.
Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.
“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.
Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.
Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.
“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.
However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.
“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.
Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.
Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.
“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.
“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.
In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.
Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.
The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.
According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.
In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.
But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.
Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.
Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.
In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.
“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.
However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.
“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.
US President Donald Trump labelled New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani ‘a communist’ and claimed New Yorkers would flee the city when he becomes mayor. In his election victory speech, Mamdani called Trump ‘a despot’ and said he had ‘betrayed the country’.
Published On 6 Nov 20256 Nov 2025
Share
US Treasury accuses Pyongyang of stealing $3bn in digital assets to finance its nuclear weapons programme over three years.
Published On 6 Nov 20256 Nov 2025
Share
North Korea has denounced the latest United States sanctions targeting cybercrimes that the US says help finance its nuclear weapons programme, accusing Washington of harbouring “wicked” hostility towards Pyongyang and promising unspecified countermeasures.
The statement on Thursday by a North Korean vice foreign minister came two days after the US Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on eight people and two firms, including North Korean bankers, for allegedly laundering money from cybercrime schemes.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The US Treasury accused North Korea of operating state-sponsored hacking schemes that have stolen more than $3bn in mostly digital assets over the past three years, an amount unmatched by any other foreign actor. The Treasury Department said the illicit funds helped finance the country’s nuclear weapons programme.
The department said North Korea relies on a network of banking representatives, financial institutions and shell companies in North Korea, China, Russia and elsewhere to launder funds obtained through IT worker fraud, cryptocurrency heists and sanctions evasion.
The sanctions were rolled out even as US President Donald Trump continues to express interest in reviving talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Their nuclear discussions during Trump’s first term collapsed in 2019 amid disagreements over trading relief from US-led sanctions on North Korea for steps to dismantle its nuclear programme.
“Now that the present US administration has clarified its stand to be hostile towards the DPRK to the last, we will also take proper measures to counter it with patience for any length of time,” the North Korean vice minister, Kim Un Chol, said in a statement.
He said US sanctions and pressure tactics will never change the “present strategic situation” between the countries or alter North Korea’s “thinking and viewpoint”.
Kim Jong Un has shunned any form of talks with Washington and Seoul since his fallout with Trump in 2019. He has since made Russia the focus of his foreign policy, sending thousands of soldiers, many of whom have died on the battlefield, and large amounts of military equipment for President Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine while pursuing an increasingly assertive strategy aimed at securing a larger role for North Korea in a united front against the US-led West.
In a recent speech, Kim Jong Un urged Washington to drop its demand for the North to surrender its nuclear weapons as a condition for resuming diplomacy. He ignored Trump’s proposal to meet while the US president was in South Korea last week for meetings with world leaders attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has told top Kremlin officials to draft proposals for the possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing, as Moscow responds to President Donald Trump’s order that the United States “immediately” resume its own testing after a decades-long hiatus.
The Russian leader told his Security Council on Wednesday that should the US or any signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) conduct nuclear weapons tests, “Russia would be under obligation to take reciprocal measures”, according to a transcript of the meeting published by the Kremlin.
list of 3 itemsend of list
“In this regard, I instruct the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the special services, and the corresponding civilian agencies to do everything possible to gather additional information on this matter, have it analysed by the Security Council, and submit coordinated proposals on the possible first steps focusing on preparations for nuclear weapons tests,” Putin said.
Moscow has not carried out nuclear weapons tests since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But tensions between the two countries with the world’s largest nuclear arsenals have spiked in recent weeks as Trump’s frustration with Putin grows over Russia’s failure to end its war in Ukraine.
The US leader cancelled a planned summit with Putin in Hungary in October, before imposing sanctions on two major Russian oil firms a day later – the first such measures since Trump returned to the White House in January.
Trump then said on October 30 that he had ordered the Department of Defense to “immediately” resume nuclear weapons testing on an “equal basis” with other nuclear-armed powers.
Trump’s decision came days after he criticised Moscow for testing its new Burevestnik missile, which is nuclear-powered and designed to carry a nuclear warhead.
According to the Kremlin transcript, Putin spoke with several senior officials in what appeared to be a semi-choreographed advisory session.
Defence Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin that Washington’s recent actions significantly raise “the level of military threat to Russia”, as he said that it was “imperative to maintain our nuclear forces at a level of readiness sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage”.
Belousov added that Russia’s Arctic testing site at Novaya Zemlya could host nuclear tests at short notice.
Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, also cautioned that if Russia does not “take appropriate measures now, time and opportunities for a timely response to the actions of the United States will be lost”.
Following the meeting, state news agency TASS quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying that Putin had set no specific deadline for officials to draft the requested proposals.
“In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America,” Peskov said.
Russia and the US are by far the biggest nuclear powers globally in terms of the number of warheads they possess.
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CACNP) estimates that Moscow currently has 5,459 nuclear warheads, of which 1,600 are actively deployed.
The US has about 5,550 nuclear warheads, according to the CACNP, with about 3,800 of those active. At its peak in the mid-1960s during the Cold War, the US stockpile consisted of more than 31,000 active and inactive nuclear warheads.
China currently lags far behind, but has rapidly expanded its nuclear warhead stockpile to about 600 in recent years, adding about 100 per year since 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea comprise the remaining nuclear-armed countries.
The US last exploded a nuclear device in 1992, after former Republican President George HW Bush issued a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing following the collapse of the Soviet Union a year earlier.
Since 1996, the year the CTBT was opened for signatures, only three countries have detonated nuclear devices.
India and Pakistan conducted tests in 1998. North Korea has carried out five explosive tests since 2006 – most recently in 2017 – making it the only country to do so in the 21st century.
Such blasts, regularly staged by nuclear powers during the Cold War, have devastating environmental consequences.
Trump has yet to clarify whether the resumption he ordered last week refers to nuclear-explosive testing or to flight testing of nuclear-capable missiles, which would see the National Nuclear Safety Administration test delivery systems without requiring explosions.
Security analysts say a resumption of nuclear-explosive testing by any of the world’s nuclear powers would be destabilising, as it would likely trigger a similar response by the others.
Andrey Baklitskiy, senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, said that the Kremlin’s response was a prime example of the “action-reaction cycle”, in which a new nuclear arms race could be triggered.
“No one needs this, but we might get there regardless,” he posted on X.
Russian MOD Belousov suggests Russia should start to prepare for a full-scale nuclear test in response to the US statements. Action-reaction cycle at its best. No one needs this, but we might get there regardless
— Andrey Baklitskiy (@baklitskiy) November 5, 2025
Mayor-elect of New York says he will not mince words on Trump, but ‘door open’ to dialogue.
United States President Donald Trump has suggested that he is open to assisting New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, but warned that the trailblazing democratic socialist will need to be “respectful” of Washington to succeed.
Trump made the comments on Wednesday as Mamdani announced his transition team following his historic election as the first Muslim and first South Asian mayor of the US’s largest city.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Responding to Mamdani’s victory night remarks pledging to stand up to Trump, the US president described the mayor-elect’s comments as a “dangerous statement”.
“He has to be a little bit respectful of Washington, because if he’s not, he doesn’t have a chance of succeeding,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier.
“And I want to make him succeed. I want to make the city succeed,” Trump added, before quickly clarifying that he wanted New York City, not Mamdani, to succeed.
Earlier on Wednesday, Trump suggested that his administration would “help” the new mayor, even as he branded him a “communist”.
“The communists, Marxists, and globalists had their chance, and they delivered nothing but disaster, and now let’s see how a communist does in New York. We’re going to see how that works out,” Trump said in a speech to the American Business Forum in Miami, Florida.
“We’ll help him, we’ll help him. We want New York to be successful. We’ll help him a little bit, maybe.”
Trump railed against Mamdani in the run-up to Tuesday’s mayoral election in New York, describing him as a “communist lunatic” and threatening to cut off federal funding to the city if he won the race.
Mamdani, whose platform includes free universal childcare, free buses, and government-run grocery stores, has rejected the communist label, describing himself as a democratic socialist.
While Mamdani will be responsible for governing a city of about 8.5 million people, his election has been widely seen as having implications nationwide amid the Democratic Party’s struggles to reconcile its centrist and progressive factions and effectively counter Trump.
In his victory speech, Mamdani cast his election as a model for how to defeat Trump, addressing the TV-loving president directly by telling him to “turn the volume up”.
In a speech laying out his priorities on Wednesday, Mamdani, who is set to take office on January 1, reiterated his determination to oppose Trump, while also indicating his willingness to engage with the administration.
“I will not mince my words when it comes to President Trump,” the mayor-elect said.
“I will continue to describe his actions as they are, and I will also always do so while leaving a door open to have that conversation.”
Here are the key events from day 1,351 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.
Published On 6 Nov 20256 Nov 2025
Share
Here is how things stand on Thursday, November 6:
The agency made the announcement as it confronts staffing shortages caused by air traffic controllers who are working unpaid.
Published On 5 Nov 20255 Nov 2025
Share
The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will reduce air traffic by 10 percent across 40 “high-volume” markets beginning Friday morning to maintain safety during the ongoing government shutdown, it has said.
The agency made the announcement on Wednesday as it confronts staffing shortages caused by air traffic controllers, who are working unpaid, with some calling out of work during the shutdown, resulting in delays across the country.
list of 4 itemsend of list
FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said the agency is not going to wait for a problem to act, saying the shutdown is causing staffing pressures and “we can’t ignore it”.
Bedford and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said they will meet later Wednesday with airline leaders to figure out how to safely implement the reduction.
The shutdown, now in its 36th day, has forced 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 Transportation Security Administration officers to work without pay. This has worsened staff shortages, caused widespread flight delays and extended lines at airport security screening.
The move is aimed at taking pressure off air traffic controllers. The FAA also warned that it could add more flight restrictions after Friday if further air traffic issues emerge.
Duffy had warned on Tuesday that if the federal government shutdown continued another week, it could lead to “mass chaos” and force him to close some of the national airspace to air traffic, a drastic move that could upend American aviation.
Airlines have repeatedly urged an end to the shutdown, citing aviation safety risks.
Shares of major airlines, including United Airlines and American Airlines, were down about 1 percent in extended trading.
An airline industry group estimated that more than 3.2 million passengers have been affected by flight delays or cancellations due to rising air traffic controller absences since the shutdown began on October 1. Airlines have been raising concerns with lawmakers about the impact on operations.
Airlines said the shutdown has not significantly affected their business, but have warned bookings could drop if it drags on. More than 2,100 flights were delayed on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, FAA’s Bedford said that 20 percent to 40 percent of controllers at the agency’s 30 largest airports were failing to show up for work.
The federal government has mostly closed as Republicans and Democrats are locked in a standoff in Congress over a funding bill. Democrats have insisted they would not approve a plan that does not extend health insurance subsidies, while Republicans have rejected that.
“You have to deliver on addressing that crisis.” New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani criticised President Donald Trump for not fixing the affordability crisis he campaigned on, adding that Republicans are scared the new mayor may actually deliver.
Published On 5 Nov 20255 Nov 2025
Share
Zohran Mamdani’s stunning victory in New York City’s mayoral race was built on a promise of hope and political change, a message that is resonating loudly with the people in Uganda, where he was born.
The 34-year-old leftist’s decisive win in the United States’ largest metropolis on Wednesday was celebrated by many in Uganda’s capital Kampala, the city where Mamdani was born in 1991.
list of 4 itemsend of list
For many Ugandans, the unlikely rise of Mamdani – a young Muslim with roots in Africa and South Asia – in the world’s most powerful democracy carries an inspirational message in a country where an authoritarian leader has been ruling since even before Mamdani was born.
Uganda’s 81-year-old President Yoweri Museveni is seeking a seventh term in January elections as he looks to extend his nearly 40-year rule. He has rejected calls to retire, leading to fears of a volatile political transition.
“It’s a big encouragement even to us here in Uganda that it’s possible,” Joel Ssenyonyi, a 38-year-old opposition leader in the Parliament of Uganda, told The Associated Press.
He said that while Ugandans, who are facing repressive political conditions, had “a long way to get there”, Mamdani’s success “inspires us”.
Mamdani left Uganda when he was five to follow his father, political theorist Mahmood Mamdani, to South Africa, and later moved to the US. He kept his Ugandan citizenship even after he became a naturalised US citizen in 2018, according to AP.
The family maintains a home in Kampala, to which they regularly return and visited earlier this year to celebrate Mamdani’s marriage.
While Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, has vowed to tackle inequality and push back against the xenophobic rhetoric of US President Donald Trump, opposition politicians in Uganda face different challenges.
Museveni has been cracking down on his opponents ahead of next year’s elections, as he has in the lead-up to previous polls.
In November last year, veteran opposition figure Kizza Besigye, who has stood against Museveni in four elections, and his aide, Obeid Lutale, were abducted in Nairobi, Kenya, before being arraigned in a military court in Kampala on treason charges. The pair have since repeatedly been denied bail, despite concerns raised by the United Nations’ human rights officials.
Other opposition figures have also faced crackdowns.
Tens of supporters of the National Unity Platform (NUP) party, led by 43-year-old entertainer Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, have been convicted by Uganda’s military courts for various offences.
“From Uganda, we celebrate and draw strength from your example as we work to build a country where every citizen can realise their grandest dreams regardless of means and background,” Wine wrote on X as he sent his “hearty congratulations” to Mamdani.
Robert Kabushenga, a retired Ugandan media executive who is friendly with the Mamdani family, told AP that Mamdani’s win was “a beacon of hope” for those fighting for change in Uganda, especially the younger generations.
Describing the new mayor-elect as belonging to “a tradition of very honest and clear thinkers who are willing to reimagine … politics”, Kabushenga said Mamdani’s victory underlined that “we should allow young people the opportunity to shape, and participate in, politics in a meaningful way”.
Okello Ogwang, an academic who once worked with Mamdani’s father at Kampala’s Makerere University, said his son’s success was an instructive reminder to Uganda “that we should invest in the youth”.
“He’s coming from here,” he said. “If we don’t invest in our youth, we are wasting our time.”
Anthony Kirabo, a 22-year-old psychology student at Makerere University, said Mamdani’s win “makes me feel good and proud of my country because it shows that Uganda can produce some good leaders”.
“Seeing Zohran up there, I feel like I can also make it,” he said.
US President Donald Trump admitted that the federal government shutdown hurt Republicans in Tuesday’s elections, saying it was time for his party to eliminate the Senate filibuster to prevent further losses.
Published On 5 Nov 20255 Nov 2025
Share
And so another member of the old “war on terror” team has left the world. Dick Cheney, who served as the most powerful vice president in the history of the United States during the two-term administration of George W Bush (2001-2009), died on Monday at the age of 84.
According to a memorial statement issued by his family, Cheney was “a great and good man who taught his children and grandchildren to love our country, and to live lives of courage, honor, love, kindness, and fly fishing”.
And yet many inhabitants of the Earth will remember the late VP for rather less warm and fuzzy things than love and fly fishing. As the chief architect of the “global war on terror” – which was launched in 2001 and enabled the US to terrorise various locations worldwide under the guise of fighting “terrorists” – Cheney died with untold quantities of blood on his hands, particularly in Iraq.
In the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Cheney swore that the “Iraqi regime” had been “very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents” and that the country had continued “to pursue the nuclear programme they began so many years ago”. Per the vice president’s hallucinations, this pursuit of weaponry was “for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale”.
As Foreign Policy magazine charmingly noted in its 2012 compilation of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers”, which included Cheney as well as numerous other characters with objectively dubious credentials in terms of thinking: “If scaring us silly were a religion, Dick Cheney would be its high priest.”
But Cheney’s fearmongering – and repeated lies concerning Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction – worked like a charm in paving the way for the infliction of “death on a massive scale” in the country. It also paved the way for the lining of certain pockets, such as those associated with the US oil and engineering firm Halliburton, where Cheney himself served as CEO from 1995 until 2000 and which just happened to win $7bn in no-bid contracts in post-invasion Iraq.
Anyway, it was business as usual in the land of conflicts of interest and revolving doors.
Until his dying day, Cheney espoused a no-regrets approach to the illegal perpetration of mass slaughter and attendant suffering, telling CNN 12 years after the effective pulverisation of Iraq: “It was the right thing to do then. I believed it then, and I believe it now.” Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, the forcible displacement of millions, and the dousing of the country in toxic and radioactive munitions that will continue to impact Iraqi health basically for eternity.
Escalating cancer rates among the population have been attributed in part to the US military’s use of depleted uranium weapons, the traces of which “represent a formidable long-term environmental hazard as they will remain radioactive for more than 4.5 billion years”, as Al Jazeera has observed.
But, hey, I hear the fly fishing is great in Baghdad.
And the Iraq war is hardly Cheney’s only nonregret. In response to the 2014 CIA torture report on the US use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as rectal rehydration and waterboarding to extract information, Cheney stuck by his guns: “I would do it again in a minute.”
Nor is the “war on terror” the sole defining sadistic episode in the legacy of a man who was a fixture on the American political scene for decades. In December 1989, for example, the US military unleashed hell on the impoverished neighbourhood of El Chorrillo in Panama City, Panama, killing potentially several thousand civilians and earning El Chorrillo the nickname “Little Hiroshima”.
The US defence secretary presiding over the operation was none other than Cheney, this time under the leadership of George HW Bush, whose administration was eager to cure the American public of its post-Vietnam War aversion to military combat abroad with an excessive display of high-tech firepower and an easy “victory”. After the bout of devastation, during which many of El Chorrillo’s wooden shacks went up in flames along with their inhabitants, Cheney boasted that the deadly spectacle had “been the most surgical military operation of its size ever conducted”.
The “surgical” stunt in Panama was a test run for Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991, which was also overseen by Cheney in his own sort of test run for the future infliction of mass death in the country.
Now Cheney is no more, joining his former comrades in war crimes Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell in the great beyond. In the wake of his demise, US news agencies and media outlets have restricted themselves to memorialising him as a “polarising” and “controversial” figure who, as The Associated Press diplomatically put it, “was proved wrong on point after point in the Iraq War, without losing the conviction he was essentially right”.
As usual, the corporate media can never bring themselves to call a spade a spade – or a war criminal a war criminal. But against the current backdrop of Israel’s US-backed genocide in the Gaza Strip and other global calamities, the loss of another mass murderer can hardly be considered bad news.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.