US & Canada

The United States Department of Justice has acknowledged that the grand jury reviewing the case against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), did not receive a copy of the final indictment against him.

That revelation on Wednesday came as lawyers for Comey sought to have the indictment thrown out of court.

At a 90-minute hearing in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, Comey’s lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed outright, not only for the prosecutorial missteps but also due to the interventions of President Donald Trump.

Comey is one of three prominent Trump critics to be indicted between late September and mid-October.

The hearing took place before US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, and Comey’s defence team alleged that Trump was using the legal system as a tool for political retribution.

“This is an extraordinary case and it merits an extraordinary remedy,” defence lawyer Michael Dreeben said, calling the indictment “a blatant use of criminal justice to achieve political ends”.

The Justice Department, represented by prosecutor Tyler Lemons, maintained that the indictment met the legal threshold to be heard at trial.

But Lemons did admit, under questioning, that the grand jury that approved the indictment had not seen its final draft.

When Judge Nachmanoff asked Lemons if the grand jury had never seen the final version, the prosecutor conceded, “That is my understanding.”

It was the latest stumble in the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute Comey for allegedly obstructing a congressional investigation and lying to senators while under oath.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to the two charges, and his defence team has led a multipronged effort to see the case nixed over its multiple irregularities.

Scrutiny over grand jury proceedings

Questions over the indictment — and what the grand jury had or had not seen — had been brewing since last week.

On November 13, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie raised questions about a span of time when it appeared that there appeared to be “no court reporter present” during the grand jury proceedings.

Then, on Tuesday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick took the extraordinary step of calling for the grand jury materials to be released to the Comey defence team, citing “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps”.

They included misleading statements from prosecutors, the use of search warrants pertaining to a separate case, and the fact that the grand jury likely did not review the final indictment in full.

Separately, in Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Nachmanoff pressed acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan about who saw the final indictment.

After repeated questions, she, too, admitted that only the foreperson of the grand jury and a second grand juror were present for the returning of the indictment.

Halligan oversaw the three indictments against the Trump critics: Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

All three have denied wrongdoing, and all three have argued that their prosecution is part of a campaign of political vengeance.

Spotlight on Trump-Comey feud

Wednesday’s hearing focused primarily on establishing that argument, with Comey’s lawyers pointing to statements Trump made pushing for the indictments.

Comey’s defence team pointed to the tense relationship between their client and Trump, stretching back to the president’s decision to fire Comey from his job as FBI director in 2017.

Comey had faced bipartisan criticism for FBI investigations into the 2016 election, which Trump ultimately won.

Trump, for example, accused the ex-FBI leader of going easy on his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, calling him a “slime ball”, a “phony” and “a real nut job”.

“FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds,” Trump wrote on social media in May 2017.

Comey, meanwhile, quickly established himself as a prominent critic of the Trump administration.

“I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president,” Comey told ABC News in 2018.

He added that a president must “embody respect” and adhere to basic values like truth-telling. “This president is not able to do that,” Comey said.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Comey’s defence also pointed to the series of events leading up to the former FBI director’s indictment.

Last September, Trump posted on social media a message to Attorney General Pam Bondi, calling Comey and James “guilty as hell” and encouraging her not to “delay any longer” in seeking their indictments.

That message was “effectively an admission that this is a political prosecution”, according to Dreeben, Comey’s lawyer.

Shortly after the message was posted online, Halligan was appointed as acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

She replaced a prosecutor, Erik Siebert, who had reportedly declined to indict Comey and others for lack of evidence. Trump had denounced him as a “woke RINO”, an acronym that stands for “Republican in name only”.

Dreeben argued that switcheroo also signalled Trump’s vindictive intent and his spearheading of the Comey indictment.

But Lemons, representing the Justice Department, told Judge Nachmanoff that Comey “was not indicted at the direction of the president of the United States or any other government official”.

US President Donald Trump welcomed Saudi Arabia’s crown prince to the White House, declaring the Kingdom a major non-NATO ally and signaling a push to deepen US-Saudi ties. Here’s what we know about what they agreed on.

James began his 23rd NBA season in Lakers’ home win as Curry’s Warriors lost to Orlando Magic despite his 34 points.

LeBron James has broken the record for most NBA seasons after appearing for the Los Angeles Lakers in his 23rd after missing almost the first full month of the campaign due to sciatica.

The 40-year-old superstar, a four-time NBA champion and four-time NBA Most Valuable Player, missed the Lakers first 14 games before taking the court at home against Utah Jazz on Tuesday.

The Lakers rallied for a 140-126 victory over the visiting Jazz.

James, the NBA’s all-time scoring leader, practiced with the Lakers on Monday and had no pain or soreness after his first game-style workout with the club since last season’s playoffs.

That set the stage for him to start against the Jazz, breaking a tie with Vince Carter for the most career seasons in NBA history.

The home crowd cheered as James was introduced and moments later James made history when the game tipped off.

👑 SEASON 23 FOR THE KING 👑 pic.twitter.com/SF09U3pZxe

— NBA (@NBA) November 19, 2025

Meanwhile, the Detroit Pistons stretched their longest winning streak since 2008 to 11 games with a 120-112 victory in Atlanta, snapping the Hawks’ five-game win streak.

The Pistons, who lead the Eastern Conference at 13-2, got 25 points and 10 assists from Cade Cunningham and 24 points with eight rebounds from Jalen Duren.

Jalen Johnson sparked Atlanta (9-6) with 25 points, nine rebounds and eight assists.

At Brooklyn, Jaylen Brown scored 29 points and Payton Pritchard added 22 and 10 rebounds to spark the Boston Celtics in a 113-99 victory over the Nets.

Desmond Bane scored 23 points and reserve Anthony Black added 21 to lead the Orlando Magic over the visiting Golden State Warriors 121-113.

Stephen Curry led the Warriors (9-7) with 34 points while Jimmy Butler added 33 in a losing cause.

At San Antonio, De’Aaron Fox scored 20 of his 26 points in the second half and Harrison Barnes added 23 to spark the host Spurs over Memphis 111-101.

The Spurs (10-4) were without star big man Victor Wembanyama due to a left calf strain and guard Stephon Castle with a left hip flexor strain while Memphis star guard Ja Morant was sidelined by a right calf strain.

“We are trying to do this as a collective. There’s no replacing Vic,” Barnes said. “Were just trying to find ways to win, share the ball, move the ball, that’s how we’ll do that.”

Barnes scored the first seven points in an 11-0 game-closing run to secure the victory.

“Harrison Barnes carried us through this. That’s just what a vet does,” Fox said. “It felt great winning the game with all the guys we have out.

“We have a team and we know that when one guy goes down we have a number of guys that can step up. No one guy will take up the slack for one being out.”

The vote represents a major step in the years-long effort to make government documents on the late sex offender public.

The United States Congress has approved a bill to release government documents related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, clearing the way for making the files public.

The House of Representatives adopted the measure in a 427-1 vote on Tuesday, sending it to the Senate, which swiftly agreed to pass it by unanimous consent even before it was formally transmitted to the chamber.

Once the bill is formally approved, it will go to the desk of President Donald Trump, who said he would sign it into law.

The case of Epstein – a financier who sexually abused girls and young women for years – has sparked intrigue in the US for years, given his connections to powerful people in the media, politics and academia, including ties to Trump.

Trump initially opposed releasing the files, calling the controversy around the late sex offender a “hoax” before reversing course this month.

The president and his Department of Justice do not need to wait for Congress to pass the legislation to release the files. They have the authority to make them public.

Before the vote on Tuesday, members of Congress who have been leading the bill – Democrat Ro Khanna and Republicans Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene – spoke alongside survivors of Epstein’s abuse outside the US Capitol.

“We fought the president, the attorney general, the FBI director, the speaker of the House and the vice president to get this win. They’re on our side today, so let’s give them some credit as well,” Massie told reporters.

Jena-Lisa Jones, one of the survivors, held up a photo of herself when she was 14 – the age when she met Epstein.

“I was a child. I was in ninth grade. I was hopeful for life and what the future had held for me. He stole a lot from me,” she said.

Epstein first pleaded guilty to charges of solicitation of prostitution with a minor in 2008. He served 13 months in a minimum-security prison and was allowed to leave for 12 hours a day to work. Critics said the punishment did not match the severity of the offence.

After the Miami Herald investigated the prosecution against Epstein, federal authorities reopened the case against him, arrested him and charged him with sex trafficking of minors in 2019.

Two months later, he was found dead in his jail cell in New York City. His death was ruled a suicide.

Epstein’s associates over the years included former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the United Kingdom’s Prince Andrew and former US President Bill Clinton.

Even after his first conviction, Epstein continued to have close personal relationships with influential figures, including former Harvard University President Larry Summers, who recently apologised for maintaining ties to the sex offender.

On Tuesday, Trump lashed out at an ABC News reporter who quizzed him about why he would not release the files on his own, stressing that Epstein was a major donor for Democratic politicians.

“You just keep going on the Epstein files. And what the Epstein is is a Democrat hoax,” the US president said.

Earlier in the day when asked why Trump would not make the documents public, Massie said Epstein’s connections were above partisan politics.

“I believe he’s trying to protect friends and donors. And by the way, these aren’t necessarily Republicans,” Massie said. “Once you get to a billion dollars, you see, you transcend parties.”

Paramount Skydance is reportedly preparing a bid to acquire Warner Bros Discovery.

Variety, an entertainment industry trade magazine in the United States, first reported the looming proposal on Tuesday, quoting sources familiar with the talks.

The publication said the company formed an investment consortium with the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi to submit a $71bn bid for Warner Bros Discovery.

The report said Paramount Skydance would contribute about $50bn towards the proposed acquisition with the remainder coming from the wealth funds.

Paramount Skydance has described the involvement of the sovereign wealth funds as “categorically inaccurate”.

Paramount Skydance is now led by David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison, cofounder of Oracle and a close ally of US President Donald Trump. Warner Bros Discovery previously rejected a bid from the Ellison family, which holds all board voting power at Paramount Skydance.

Neither Paramount nor Warner Bros Discovery responded to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Under the proposed structure, the wealth funds would take small minority stakes and each would receive “an IP, a movie premiere, a movie shoot”, the report said.

Warner Bros Discovery – home to the DC film universe and television studios, HBO, CNN, TNT and Warner Bros Games – is on the verge of breaking up, crippled by declines in its television business.

The company said in October that it has been considering a range of options, including a planned separation, a deal for the entire company or separate transactions for its Warner Bros or Discovery Global businesses.

Nonbinding, first-round bids are due on Thursday.

Paramount is the only company currently considering a full buyout according to the US news website Axios. Warner Bros Discovery also wants to have a deal by the end of the year, according to Axios’s reporting.

Political pressures

The looming deal is shaped in part by how the Trump administration views coverage by the news outlets owned by Warner Bros Discovery.

Netflix and Comcast are also reportedly exploring bids, but any Comcast-led effort would need regulatory approval.

Trump has also repeatedly attacked Comcast over its TV news coverage, saying the company “should be forced to pay vast sums of money for the damage they’ve done to our country”.

Comcast owns NBC News and its subsidiary Versant Media, the parent company of MS-Now – formerly MSNBC – and CNBC.

CBS, owned by Paramount Skydance, has taken a more conciliatory posture towards the administration, including hiring a Trump nominee as an ombudsman to investigate bias allegations after settling a Trump lawsuit claiming its flagship programme 60 Minutes deceptively edited an interview with 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who lost to Trump.

Paramount Skydance also recently tapped Bari Weiss, a right-leaning opinion journalist with no television background, to lead the CBS broadcast news division.

Any of the deals that are being discussed raise antitrust concerns. But if Paramount Skydance, which already owns CBS, now purchases CNN as part of Warner Bros Discovery, “that would create an added civic risk”, Rodney Benson, professor of media, culture and communication at New York University, told Al Jazeera.

“Such a deal would put two leading news outlets under the roof of the same large, multi-industry conglomerate with avowed close relations to the party in power – and that could lead to more conflicts of interest, less independent watchdog reporting and a narrowing of diverse voices and viewpoints in the public sphere,” Benson said.

Warner Bros Discovery remains the parent company of CNN.

On Wall Street, Paramount Skydance shares were up 1.7 percent in midday trading. Warner Bros Discovery was also up 2.8 percent from the market open. Comcast gained 0.5 percent, and Netflix climbed 3.5 percent.

The majority on a federal court in El Paso, Texas, found that the new map used race to redraw congressional districts.

A panel of federal judges has ruled that Texas’s newly redrawn congressional districts cannot be used in next year’s 2026 midterm elections, striking a blow to Republican efforts to tilt races in their favour.

On Tuesday, a two-to-one majority at the US District Court for western Texas blocked the map, on the basis that there was “substantial evidence” to show “that Texas racially gerrymandered” the districts.

Partisan gerrymandering has generally been considered legal under court precedent, but dividing congressional maps along racial lines is considered a violation of the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics,” the court’s majority wrote in the opening of its 160-page opinion.

The ruling marked a major setback to efforts to redraw congressional districts ahead of the critically important midterms, which decide the composition of the US Congress.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs in that election. With Republicans holding a narrow 219-seat majority, analysts speculate that control of the chamber could potentially switch parties.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, had kicked off a nationwide race to redesign congressional districts in favour of one party or the other.

In June, news reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had reached out to state officials to redraw the red state’s map, in order to gain five additional House seats for Republicans.

Despite hesitations and a walkout by state Democrats, the Texas legislature passed a new, gerrymandered map in August.

That inspired other right-leaning states, notably North Carolina and Missouri, to similarly redraw their districts. North Carolina and Missouri each passed a map that would gain Republicans one additional House seat.

Texas’s actions also sparked a Democratic backlash. California Governor Gavin Newsom spearheaded a ballot campaign in his heavily blue state to pass a proposition in November that would suspend an independent districting commission and instead pass a partisan map, skewed in favour of Democrats.

Voters passed the ballot initiative overwhelmingly in November, teeing up Democrats to gain five extra seats in California next year.

The state redistricting battle has sparked myriad legal challenges, including the one decided in Texas on Tuesday.

In that case, civil rights groups accused the Texas government of attempting to dilute the power of Black and Hispanic voters.

Judges David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Jeffrey V Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority decision in favour of the plaintiffs.

A third judge — Jerry Smith, appointed under Ronald Reagan — dissented from their decision.

Writing for the majority, Brown said that Trump official Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, made the “legally incorrect assertion” that four congressional districts in the state were “unconstitutional” because they had non-white majorities.

The letter Dhillon sent containing that assertion helped prompt the Texas redistricting fight, Brown argued.

The judge also pointed to statements Texas Governor Greg Abbott made, seeming to reference the racial composition of the districts. If the new map’s aims were purely partisan and not racial, Brown indicated that it was curious no majority-white districts were targeted.

Tuesday’s ruling restores the 2021 map of Texas congressional districts. Currently, the state is represented by 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the US House.

Already, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has pledged to appeal the ruling before the US Supreme Court.

“The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas,” Paxton wrote in a statement posted to social media.

He expressed optimism about his odds before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. “I fully expect the Court to uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

California’s new congressional map likewise faces a legal challenge, with the Trump administration suing alongside state Republicans.

The US House of Representatives voted 427 to 1 to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which if enacted will require the Department of Justice to release documents related to sexual offender Jeffrey Epstein. It still needs to pass the Senate and be signed by President Trump into law.

During a White House visit, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman promised to invest almost a trillion dollars in new partnerships with the US, including in technology and AI.

The dip comes amid doubts about future US interest rate cuts and a risk-averse mood in broader markets.

Bitcoin fell below $90,000 for the first time in seven months in the latest sign that investor appetite for risk is drying up across financial markets.

The cryptocurrency began to rebound as United States markets opened on Tuesday. However, Monday’s steep drop in the risk-sensitive asset had already wiped out all of its gains for the year.

It is now nearly 30 percent below its peak of $126,000 in October.

It was down 0.5 percent at $91,338.47 during European trading hours, after slipping as low as $89,286.75.

About $1.2 trillion has been wiped off the total market value of all cryptocurrencies in the past six weeks, according to market tracker CoinGecko.

Market participants said that a combination of doubts around future interest rate cuts by the US Federal Reserve and the risk-averse mood in broader markets, which have wobbled after a long rally, was dragging down crypto.

“The cascading selloff is amplified by listed companies and institutions exiting their positions after piling in during the rally, compounding contagion risks across the market,” said Joshua Chu, co-chair of the Hong Kong Web3 Association.

“When support thins and macro uncertainty rises, confidence can erode with remarkable speed.”

Speculators who had put money into crypto in the hopes of supportive US regulation have started to pull back, causing steady outflows from exchange traded funds (ETFs) and similar instruments in recent weeks, said Joseph Edwards at Enigma Securities.

“The sell pressure here isn’t extraordinary, but it’s coming at a relative weak point on the buy side … a lot of retail buyers were stung during the flash crash last month,” he said, referring to an October crash in which there were $19bn in liquidations across leveraged positions.

Crypto stockpilers such as Strategy, miners such Riot Platforms and Mara Holdings, and exchange Coinbase have all slid with the souring mood.

‘Underwater’

There has been a boom in public crypto treasury companies this year, with small companies in unrelated sectors becoming crypto proxies by announcing plans to buy and hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheets.

But Standard Chartered has estimated that a drop below $90,000 for Bitcoin could leave half of these companies’ Bitcoin holdings “underwater” – a term that typically refers to assets worth less than what was paid for them.

Listed companies collectively hold 4 percent of all the Bitcoin in circulation, and 3.1 percent of the ether, Standard Chartered said.

The cryptocurrency Ethereum (ETH) has also been under pressure for months, and has lost nearly 40 percent of its value from an August peak above $4,955.

“All in all, sentiment is pretty low in crypto and has been since the leverage wipeout of October,” said Matthew Dibb, chief investment officer at Astronaut Capital.

The announcement underscores AI industry’s insatiable appetite for computing power as companies race to build systems that can rival or surpass human intelligence.

Microsoft and Nvidia plan to invest in Anthropic under a new tie-up that includes a $30bn commitment by the Claude maker to use Microsoft’s cloud services, the latest high-profile deal binding together major players in the AI industry.

Nvidia will commit up to $10bn to Anthropic and Microsoft up to $5bn, the companies said on Tuesday, without sharing more details.

A person familiar with the matter said both the companies have committed to investing in Anthropic’s next funding round.

The announcement underscores the AI industry’s insatiable appetite for computing power as companies race to build systems that can rival or surpass human intelligence. It also ties major OpenAI-backer Microsoft, as well as key AI chip supplier Nvidia, closer to one of the ChatGPT maker’s biggest rivals.

“We’re increasingly going to be customers of each other. We will use Anthropic models, they will use our infrastructure and we’ll go to market together,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said in a video. He added that OpenAI “remains a critical partner”.

The move comes weeks after OpenAI unveiled a sweeping restructuring that moved it further away from its non-profit roots, giving it greater operational and financial freedom.

The startup has since then announced a $38bn deal to buy cloud services from Amazon.com as it reduces reliance on Microsoft. Its CEO, Sam Altman, has said OpenAI is committed to spending $1.4 trillion to develop 30 gigawatts of computing resources – enough to roughly power 25 million US homes.

Still, three years after ChatGPT’s debut, investors are increasingly uneasy that the AI boom has outrun fundamentals. Some business leaders have noted that circular deals – in which one partner props up another’s revenue – add to the bubble risk.

“The main feature of the partnership is to reduce the AI economy’s reliance on OpenAI,” D A Davidson analyst Gil Luria said of Tuesday’s announcement.

“Microsoft has decided not to rely on one frontier model company. Nvidia was also somewhat dependent on OpenAI’s success and is now helping generating broader demand.

AI industry consolidating

Founded in 2021 by former OpenAI staff, Anthropic was recently valued at $183bn and has become a major rival to the ChatGPT maker, driven by the strong adoption of its services by enterprise customers.

The Reuters news agency reported last month that Anthropic was projecting to more than double and potentially nearly triple its annualised revenue run rate to around $26bn next year. It has more than 300,000 business and enterprise customers.

As part of Tuesday’s move, Anthropic will work with Nvidia on chips and models to improve performance and commit up to 1 gigawatt of compute using Nvidia’s Grace Blackwell and Vera Rubin hardware. Industry executives estimate that one gigawatt of AI computing can cost between $20bn and $25bn.

Microsoft will also give Azure AI Foundry customers access to the latest Claude models, making Claude the only frontier model offered across all three major cloud providers.

“These investments reflect how the AI industry is consolidating around a few key players,” eMarketer analyst Jacob Bourne said.

Despite the looming deal, Microsoft shares are down 3.2 percent in midday trading. Nvidia is also trading 1.9 percent lower than at the market open, and Amazon has fallen 4 percent. Tech stocks remain under pressure after a cloud services outage earlier on Tuesday. Neither OpenAI nor Anthropic is publicly traded.

US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse sharply criticised President Donald Trump for previously attempting to block a House vote on the release of files related to Epstein. Trump on Sunday dropped his opposition and the measure now is expected to overwhelmingly pass.

Vote on release of Justice Department files on late sex offender is expected to pass in the Republican-controlled House.

When US President Donald Trump declared that South Africa “should not even be” in the G20 and then took to Truth Social on November 7 to announce that no American official would attend this year’s summit in Johannesburg on account of a so-called “genocide” of white farmers in the country, I was not surprised. His outburst was not an exception but the latest expression of a long Western tradition of disciplining African sovereignty. Western leaders have long tried to shut down African agency through mischaracterisations, from branding Congolese nationalist Patrice Lumumba a “Soviet puppet” to calling anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela a “terrorist”, and Trump’s assault on South Africa falls squarely into that pattern.

As Africa pushes for a stronger voice in global governance, the Trump administration has intensified efforts to isolate Pretoria. South Africa’s growing diplomatic assertiveness, from BRICS expansion to climate finance negotiations, has challenged conservative assumptions that global leadership belongs exclusively to the West.

On February 7, Trump signed an executive order halting US aid to South Africa. He alleged that the government’s land expropriation policy discriminates against white farmers and amounts to uncompensated confiscation. Nothing could be further from the truth. South African law permits expropriation only through due process and compensation, with limited exceptions set out in the Constitution. Trump’s claims ignore this legal reality, revealing a deliberate preference for distortion over fact.

Soon after, the administration amplified its rollout of a refugee admissions policy that privileged Afrikaners, citing once again discredited claims of government persecution. What is clear is that Washington has deliberately heightened tensions with Pretoria, searching for any pretext to cast South Africa as an adversary. This selective compassion, extended only to white South Africans, exposes a racialised hierarchy of concern that has long shaped conservative engagement with the continent.

Yet, for months, South African officials have firmly rejected these claims, pointing to judicial rulings, official statistics, and constitutional safeguards that show no evidence of systematic persecution, let alone a “genocide” of white farmers. Indeed, as independent experts repeatedly confirmed, there is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the claim that white farmers in South Africa are being systematically targeted as part of a campaign of genocide. Their rebuttals highlight a basic imbalance: Pretoria is operating through verifiable data and institutional process, while Washington relies on exaggeration and ideological grievance.

At the same time, as host of this year’s G20 Summit, Pretoria is using the platform to champion a more cooperative and equitable global order. For South Africa, chairing the G20 is not only symbolic, but strategic, an attempt to expand the influence of countries long excluded from shaping the rules of global governance.

Trump’s G20 boycott embodies a transnational crusade shaped by Christian righteousness. Trump’s rhetoric reduces South Africa to a moral backdrop for American authority rather than recognising it as a sovereign partner with legitimate aspirations. The boycott also mirrors a wider effort to discredit multilateral institutions that dilute American exceptionalism.

This stance is rooted in a long evangelical-imperial tradition, one that fused theology with empire and cast Western dominance as divinely sanctioned. The belief that Africa required Western moral rescue emerged in the nineteenth century, when European missionaries declared it a Christian duty to civilise and redeem the continent. The wording has changed, but the logic endures, recasting African political agency as a civilisational error rather than a legitimate expression of sovereignty. This moralised paternalism did not disappear with decolonisation. It simply adapted, resurfacing whenever African nations assert themselves on the world stage.

American evangelical and conservative Christian networks wield significant influence inside the Republican Party. Their political and media ecosystem, featuring Fox News and the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), routinely frames multilateral institutions, global aid, and international law as subordinate to American sovereignty and Christian civilisation. These networks shape not only rhetoric but policy, turning fringe narratives into foreign policy priorities.

They also amplify unproven claims of Christian persecution abroad, particularly in countries such as Nigeria and Ethiopia, to legitimise American political and military interference. Trump’s fixation with South Africa follows the same script: a fabricated crisis crafted to thrill, galvanise, and reassure a conservative Christian base. South Africa becomes another stage for this performance.

In this distorted narrative, South Africa is not a constitutional democracy acting through strong, independent courts and institutions. Instead, Africa’s most developed country is stripped of its standing and portrayed as a flawed civilisation in need of Western correction. For conservative Christian nationalists, African decision-making is not autonomous agency but a supervised privilege granted only when African decisions align with Western priorities.

By casting South Africa as illegitimate in the G20, invoking false claims of genocide and land seizures, and penalising Pretoria’s ICJ case with aid cuts, Trump asserts that only the West can define global legitimacy and moral authority, a worldview anchored in Christian-nationalist authority. Trump’s crusade is punishment, not principle, and it seeks to deter African autonomy itself.

On many occasions, I have walked the streets of Alexandra, a Johannesburg township shaped by apartheid’s spatial design, where inequality remains brutally vivid. Alexandra squeezes more than one million residents into barely 800 hectares (about 2,000 acres). A significant portion of its informal housing sits on the floodplain of the Jukskei River, where settlements crowd narrow pathways and fragile infrastructure. Here, the consequences of structural inequality are unmistakable, yet they vanish entirely within Trump’s constructed crisis.

These communities sit only a few kilometres from Sandton, a spacious, leafy, and affluent suburb that is home to some of the country’s most expensive properties. The vast and entrenched gulf between these adjacent lands is essentially a living symbol of the profound inequality Trump is willing to overlook and legitimise as a global norm, built on selective moral outrage and racialised indifference.

In Alexandra, the struggle for dignity, equality, and inclusion is not a religious American fantasy, but a practical quest for the rights that apartheid and wider global injustice sought to deny. Their struggle mirrors the wider global fight against structures that concentrate wealth and power in a few hands. They, too, deserve better.

This is the human condition Trump’s pseudo-morality refuses to acknowledge. This is why South Africa’s global leadership matters.

Earlier this year, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa commissioned a landmark G20 Global Inequality Report, chaired by Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. It found that the world’s richest 1 percent have captured more than 40 percent of new wealth since 2000 and that more than 80 percent of humanity now lives in conditions the World Bank classifies as high inequality.

The Johannesburg G20 Summit seeks to reform multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank, to confront a global financial system that sidelines developing countries and perpetuates economic injustice. While South Africa turns to recognised multilateral tools such as the ICJ and G20 reform, the US has moved in the opposite direction.

Under Trump, Washington has sanctioned the International Criminal Court, abandoned key UN bodies, and rejected scrutiny from UN human rights experts, reflecting a Christian-nationalist doctrine that treats American power as inherently absolute and answerable to no one.

South Africa offers an alternative vision rooted in global cooperation, shared responsibility, equality, and adherence to international law, a vision that unsettles those invested in unilateral power. The US recasts decolonisation as sin, African equality as disruption, and American dominance as divinely ordained. Trump’s attacks reveal how deeply this worldview still shapes American foreign policy.

Yet the world has moved beyond colonial binaries. African self-determination can no longer be framed as immoral. Human rights are universal, and dignity belongs to us all.

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

In recent days, as the United States House of Representatives approached a potential vote about releasing the Epstein files, President Donald Trump pivoted on the hot-button topic.

Trump and members of his administration had sought to undermine efforts to release the files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. And Trump has been dismissive of the push to make the files public, calling the case “pretty boring stuff” in July and repeatedly referring to it as a Democratic “hoax.”

Then, on November 16, he told House Republicans to vote in favour of the release.

His shift came after lawmakers cleared a significant hurdle on November 12, netting 218 signatures on a petition to force a vote on a bill to release the files within 30 days. The House is expected to vote on that bill this week. Previously, it was considered unlikely the legislation would pass in the Senate; it remains to be seen whether Trump’s latest statement will cause senators to reconsider.

Epstein moved in the same social circles as Trump in the 1990s, including attending parties at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private Palm Beach, Florida, club. The two were photographed together in social settings multiple times. They later had a falling out, a rift that some reporters dated to late 2007.

Palm Beach County prosecutors investigated Epstein after reports that a 14-year-old girl was molested at his mansion. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges related to soliciting prostitution from someone under 18. He received preferential treatment during the criminal investigation and served about a year in jail, largely on work release.

In 2018, The Miami Herald published an extensive investigation into the case, and the next year, Epstein was arrested on federal charges for recruiting dozens of underage girls to his New York City mansion and Palm Beach estate from 2002 to 2005 to engage in sex acts for money. He was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell on August 10, 2019, and investigators concluded he died by suicide.

We asked the White House why Trump changed his stance on releasing the files. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement, “President Trump has been consistently calling for transparency related to the Epstein files for years – by releasing tens of thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request” and calling for investigations into “Epstein’s Democrat friends”.

Here’s what Trump has said in 2024 and 2025 about releasing the Epstein files.

While campaigning in 2024, Trump said he would release the files

In June 2024, Fox and Friends co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy asked Trump if he would declassify various files, including those related to 9/11 and former President John F Kennedy.

“Would you declassify the Epstein files?” Campos-Duffy said.

“Yeah, yeah, I would,” Trump said.

The clip spread on social media, and Trump’s campaign account also shared it.

🚨 President Trump says he will DECLASSIFY the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files pic.twitter.com/JalLWFkRDZ

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) June 3, 2024

During the same interview, Trump also said, “I guess I would.” He added, “You don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phoney stuff in there because there is a lot of phoney stuff with that whole world, but I think I would.”

On a September 2024 episode of the Lex Fridman podcast, during a discussion about releasing some of the Epstein documents, Trump said, “Yeah, I’d certainly take a look at it.” He added that he’d be “inclined” to do it and said, “I’d have no problem with it.”

In 2025, Trump was dismissive of the Epstein files

Early in the second Trump administration, Trump officials –  including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, who became the FBI director – said they supported releasing the files.

In late February at a White House event, Bondi released what she called the “first phase” of “declassified Epstein files” to conservative influencers. It largely consisted of documents that had already been made public.

In a July 12 Truth Social post, Trump expressed frustration about the Epstein files. Speaking to reporters on July 15 on the White House lawn, Trump said the files “were made up by Comey. They were made up by Obama. They were made up by Biden.” We rated that claim Pants on Fire.

Trump said the FBI should focus on investigating other issues, such as voter fraud, and that his administration should “not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about”.

In a July 16 interview with Real America’s Voice, a conservative outlet, Trump said, “I think in the case of Epstein, they’ve already looked at it and they are looking at it and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible. But you know, that was run by the Biden administration for four years.”

On August 22, a reporter asked Trump if he was in favour of releasing the files.

“I’m in support of keeping it open,” he said. “Innocent people shouldn’t be hurt, but I’m in support of keeping it totally open. I couldn’t care less. You got a lot of people that could be mentioned in those files that don’t deserve to be, people – because he knew everybody in Palm Beach. I don’t know anything about that, but I have said to Pam (Bondi) and everybody else, give them everything you can give them because it’s a Democrat hoax.”

On September 3, a reporter asked Trump a question about efforts to release the Epstein files and if the Justice Department was protecting any friends or donors.

Trump said it was a “Democrat hoax that never ends” and “we’ve given thousands of pages of files”.

This month, Trump called for releasing the files

Trump came out in support of releasing the files after it became clear the House was headed in that direction.

The House Oversight Committee, on November 12, released about 20,000 pages of documents from Epstein’s estate.

Trump directed prosecutors to investigate Democrats and told Republicans to vote in favour of releasing the files.

Trump has often noted Epstein’s ties to former President Bill Clinton. In a November 14 Truth Social post, Trump asked the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s involvement with Clinton.

Typically, prosecutors do not release files during an ongoing investigation, so Trump’s announcement raised questions about whether the Justice Department will withhold certain files even if Congress votes to release them.

When a reporter asked Trump on November 14 about releasing the files, he said, “I don’t care about it, released or not.”

Two days later, in a November 16 post, Trump said, “House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown.’’

More than 130 people suspected of being in the United States illegally have been detained in Charlotte, North Carolina, authorities said, as President Donald Trump’s nationwide deportation push intensifies. The raids took place over just two days.

Here is what we know:

What happened in Charlotte?

Federal agents swept into Charlotte, North Carolina, on Saturday, escalating Trump’s widening immigration crackdown and turning the city into the latest focal point for large-scale arrests in Democratic-led areas. Charlotte is a Democratic-leaning city of about 950,000 people and a financial services hub.

Officers were seen outside churches, around apartment complexes, and along busy shopping corridors as the operation unfolded.

“We are increasing the presence of DHS law enforcement in Charlotte to keep Americans safe and remove threats to public safety,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said on Saturday.

According to Homeland Security officials, 44 of the detainees have criminal records, including two described as gang members. The alleged offences include driving while intoxicated, assault, trespassing, larceny and hit-and-run. One arrested person, according to the commander leading the raids, is a registered sex offender.

President Trump and Secretary Noem will not back down from their mission to make America safe again.

North Carolina sanctuary politicians are protecting the nearly 1,400 criminal illegal aliens in Charlotte’s jails by REFUSING to turn them over to ICE, ultimately releasing these… pic.twitter.com/rM2kt3gLuB

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) November 17, 2025

What exactly is Operation Charlotte’s Web?

The DHS has labelled the raids Operation Charlotte’s Web, playing on the title of the famous children’s book, which is not about North Carolina.

The book, Charlotte’s Web, follows a pig named Wilbur and his friendship with a spider named Charlotte. When Wilbur is in danger of being killed, Charlotte writes messages in her web to try to save him.

But in Charlotte, the city, the web is not a saviour — it is the dragnet to catch immigrants.

“Wherever the wind takes us. High, low. Near, far. East, west. North, south. We take to the breeze, we go as we please,” Gregory Bovino, the DHS commander leading the raids, said on X on Saturday, quoting from the iconic book.

“This time, the breeze hit Charlotte like a storm. From border towns to the Queen City, our agents go where the mission calls.”

‘Wherever the wind takes us. High, low. Near, far. East, west. North, south. We take to the breeze, we go as we please.’ — Charlotte’s Web

This time, the breeze hit Charlotte like a storm. From border towns to the Queen City, our agents go where the mission calls.#DHS #CBP… pic.twitter.com/de0nqHn3vR

— Commander Op At Large CA Gregory K. Bovino (@CMDROpAtLargeCA) November 16, 2025

Yet the DHS decision to use a popular children’s book title for a campaign that is expected to break up several families has also faced criticism, including from the granddaughter of EB White, the author of Charlotte’s Web.

“He believed in the rule of law and due process,” Martha White said in a statement, referring to her grandfather. “He certainly didn’t believe in masked men, in unmarked cars, raiding people’s homes and workplaces without IDs or summons.”

What is driving the immigration raid?

Officials insist the surge is aimed at tackling crime, arguing — as the Trump administration has in other cities that have been targeted in similar raids — that local authorities have failed to ensure law and order.

However, local leaders have objected to the raids and pointed to police data, which shows that crime has been declining.

According to data released by the city, crime has dropped 8 percent from last year, with violent crimes down 20 percent.

However, Charlotte nevertheless grabbed national and global attention this summer when Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was fatally stabbed on a light-rail train, in an attack captured on video. The suspect is a US citizen, but the Trump administration repeatedly emphasised that he had been arrested more than a dozen times before.

The DHS also said the Charlotte raids happened because local officials did not honour nearly 1,400 requests to hold people for up to 48 hours after their release, which would have allowed immigration agents to take them into custody.

“I made it clear that I do not want to stop ICE from doing their job, but I do want them to do it safely, responsibly, and with proper coordination by notifying our agency ahead of time,” Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden said in a statement, referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a part of the DHS that has been leading anti-immigrant raids in multiple urban areas across the country. Charlotte falls in Mecklenburg County.

Tensions remain high. “Democrats at all levels are choosing to protect criminal illegals over North Carolina citizens,” state Republican chairman Jason Simmons said on Monday, even though ICE agents have also arrested several visa holders and permanent residents — all living legally in the US — during the raids.

Who is Gregory Bovino?

Gregory Bovino is a senior US Border Patrol official who has become a central figure in Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdowns in big cities. He has led the high-profile enforcement campaign in Chicago since September and has also been involved in operations in Los Angeles and now Charlotte.

Bovino has frequently served as the public face of these efforts — holding press briefings, giving interviews, and promoting arrest numbers as signs of success.

His approach has drawn controversy. Civil rights groups, local officials, and legal experts have criticised tactics used under his command, including aggressive arrests, the use of chemical agents against detainees, and the use of Border Patrol troops far from the US border. Several operations have faced legal challenges, and judges as well as local leaders have questioned whether federal agents are acting within their jurisdiction.

Regarding the use of chemical agents, Bovino told The Associated Press news agency that using chemical agents is “far less lethal” than what his agents encounter. “We use the least amount of force necessary to effect the arrest,” he said. “If I had more CS gas, I would have deployed it.” CS gas is a tear gas commonly used by federal agents.

What do we know about the communities affected?

Local reporting shows that Charlotte’s immigrant neighbourhoods felt the impact immediately. The Charlotte Observer described how a baker, Manuel “Manolo” Betancur, shut down his bakery on Saturday afternoon — the first closure in its 28-year history — after learning that Border Patrol agents had arrived in the city.

He said he has no idea when he will reopen.

“The amount of fear that we have right now is no good,” Betancur said, outside Manolo’s Bakery on Central Avenue, a major hub for the city’s immigrant community.

“It’s not worth it to take that risk,” he said. “We need to protect our families and [prevent] family separation.”

The bakery was not the only one. Businesses along Central Avenue shut their doors as masked federal agents conducted arrests, prompting anger and anxiety in the community.

Pisco Peruvian Gastrolounge posted on Saturday that it would be temporarily closing. “We cannot wait for the moment we can safely welcome you back and continue sharing our culture, our food, and our vibes,” the restaurant shared on Instagram.

What’s next?

Federal immigration officials are preparing to widen their activities in North Carolina, with Raleigh expected to be included in the enforcement effort as soon as Tuesday, the city’s mayor said.

Raleigh Mayor Janet Cowell noted on Monday that she had received no details about how large the operation would be or how long it might last, and immigration authorities have yet to make any public statements.

“I ask Raleigh to remember our values and maintain peace and respect through any upcoming challenges,” Cowell said in a statement.

Raleigh, with a population of more than 460,000, is North Carolina’s second-largest city after Charlotte, and is part of a region known as the Research Triangle that is home to several leading universities, including Duke and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The possible expansion of immigration raids comes as nationwide detention figures reach historic levels. ICE held 59,762 people in custody as of September 21, 2025, according to TRAC Reports, a nonpartisan data-gathering platform. This is the highest number of ICE arrests ever recorded. Roughly 71.5 percent of those detained had no criminal conviction, and many of those with convictions had only minor offences, such as traffic violations.

The UN Security Council has adopted the US’s 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan, approving an international stabilisation force and a ‘board of peace’ with extensive powers to oversee Gaza’s governance and reconstruction.

Summers says he will be taking a step back from engagements after his emails discussing personal and political matters with Epstein made public.

Former Harvard president Larry Summers has apologised and says he will be stepping back from public life after his email exchanges with the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were made public.

“I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognise the pain they have caused. I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein,” Summers said in a statement published by CBS News on Monday.

“While continuing to fulfil my teaching obligations, I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me,” he said.

The emails were among the 20,000 pages of documents obtained from Epstein’s estate and released last week by the United States House Committee on Oversight amid ongoing questions about the ex-financier’s relationship with President Donald Trump.

Epstein died by suicide in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He was previously convicted in 2008 for soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor, but he served a light 13-month sentence. Before his downfall in 2019, Epstein was in constant contact with world leaders, celebrities, and high-profile figures like Summers.

The emails between Epstein and Summers span from at least 2017 to 2019 and cover a range of topics, including US foreign policy to Trump’s first presidency, as well as personal matters.

In one email from 2017, Summers advises Epstein that his “pal”, billionaire Thomas Barrack Jr, should stay out of the press following a Washington Post story about Barrack Jr’s relationship with both Trump and political lobbyist Paul Manafort.

“Public link to manafort will be a disaster,” he wrote. “This is a staggering [expletive] show.”

In another December 2018 email, Summers asks Epstein for help securing an invitation to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which Epstein appears to turn down.

Summers previously served as Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and as an adviser to President Barack Obama. He also served as the president of Harvard from 2001 to 2006, when he was forced to resign over remarks suggesting that women were less adept at maths and science than men due to biological differences.

His recent posts include board member at OpenAI and distinguished senior fellow at the Centre for American Progress, according to NBC News. He remained a tenured professor at Harvard after stepping down.

In his emails with Epstein, Summers appears to have held on to his beliefs about women more than 10 years later. In one October 2017 email to Epstein about an event that included “lots of slathering to Saudis”, he wrote that he “yipped about inclusion”.

“I observed that half the IQ in world was possessed by women without mentioning they are more than 51 percent of the population …,” he wrote in the email to Epstein.

In another email the same month, written at the height of the #MeToo movement, Summers appeared disenchanted with the wave of resignations over sexual and personal misconduct by US public figures.

“I’m trying to figure why American elite think if u murder your baby by beating and abandonment it must be irrelevant to your admission to Harvard, but hit on a few women 10 years ago and can’t work at a network or think tank,” he said in the email to Epstein.

In another email exchange between late November and early December 2018, he and Epstein discuss his relationship with a female colleague at length and how Summers – who was then in his mid-60s – should handle the situation.

“Think for now I’m going nowhere with her except economics mentor. I think I’m right now in the seen very warmly in rearview mirror category. She did not want to have a drink cuz she was ‘tired.’ I left the hotel lobby somewhat abruptly. When I’m reflective, I think I’m dodging a bullet,” Summers wrote to Epstein.

“Smart. Assertive and clear. Gorgeous. I’m [ expletive],” Summers wrote in a follow-up email describing the woman, before later concluding a “cooling off” period was needed.

A handful of opposition abstentions allowed Carney and minority Liberals to advance a deficit-boosting budget aimed at countering US tariffs.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s minority government narrowly survived a confidence vote on Monday as Canadian lawmakers endorsed a motion to begin debating his first federal budget – a result that avoids the prospect of a second election in less than a year.

The House of Commons voted 170-168 to advance study of the fiscal plan. While further votes are expected in the coming months, the slim victory signals that the budget is likely to be approved eventually.

Tonight, the House of Commons has voted to pass Budget 2025.

It’s time to work together to deliver on this plan — to protect our communities, empower Canadians with new opportunities, and build Canada strong.

— Mark Carney (@MarkJCarney) November 18, 2025

“It’s time to work together to deliver on this plan – to protect our communities, empower Canadians with new opportunities, and build Canada strong,” Carney said on X, arguing that his spending blueprint would help fortify the economy against escalating United States tariffs.

Carney has repeatedly cast the budget as a “generational” chance to reinforce Canada’s economic resilience and to reduce reliance on trade with the US.

The proposal includes a near doubling of Canada’s deficit to 78.3 billion Canadian dollars ($55.5bn) with major outlays aimed at countering US trade measures and supporting defence and housing initiatives. The prime minister has insisted that higher deficit spending is essential to cushion the impact of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs. While most bilateral trade remains tariff-free under an existing North American trade agreement, US levies on automobiles, steel and aluminium have struck significant sectors of the Canadian economy.

According to Carney, a former central banker, internal forecasts show that “US tariffs and the associated uncertainty will cost Canadians around 1.8 percent of our GDP [gross domestic product]”.

The Liberals, a few seats short of a majority in the 343-seat House of Commons, relied on abstentions from several opposition members who were reluctant to trigger early elections. Recent polling suggested Carney’s Liberals would remain in power if Canadians were sent back to the polls.

Carney was elected to a full term in April after campaigning on a promise to challenge Washington’s protectionist turn. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party, the official opposition, has been wrestling with internal divisions since its defeat, and leader Pierre Poilievre faces a formal review of his performance early next year.

Poilievre has sharply criticised the government’s spending plans, branding the fiscal package a “credit card budget”.

The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) has also expressed concerns, arguing that the proposal fails to adequately address unemployment, the housing crisis and the cost-of-living pressures faced by many Canadian families.

NDP interim leader Don Davies said the party accepted that blocking the budget would push the country back into an unwanted election cycle, explaining why two of its MPs ultimately abstained.

It was “clear that Canadians do not want an election right now … while we still face an existential threat from the Trump administration”, he said.

“Parliamentarians decided to put Canada first”, Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said.

Polling before Monday’s vote suggested Canadians broadly shared this view. A November survey by the analytics firm Leger found that one in five respondents supported immediate elections while half said they were satisfied with Carney’s leadership.

US president defends economic policies as polls show growing angst among voters over prices.

United States President Donald Trump has defended his administration’s record on lowering prices as he faces growing discontent from Americans over the cost of living.

In a speech to McDonald’s franchise owners and suppliers on Monday, Trump claimed credit for bringing inflation back to “normal” levels while pledging to bring price growth lower still.

“We have it down to a low level, but we’re going to get it a little bit lower,” Trump said.

“We want perfection.”

Returning to his regular talking point that Democrats had mismanaged the economy, the Republican president blamed cost pressures on former US President Joe Biden and insisted Americans were “so damn lucky” he won the 2024 election.

“Nobody has done what we’ve done in terms of pricing. We took over a mess,” Trump said.

Trump, whose 2024 presidential campaign focused heavily on the cost of living, has struggled to win over Americans with his protectionist economic message amid persistent affordability concerns.

In an NBC News poll released this month, 66 percent of respondents said Trump had fallen short of their expectations on affordability, while 63 percent answered the same for the economy in general.

Voter angst over prices has been widely identified as a key reason Republicans suffered a shellacking in off-year elections held early this month in multiple states, including New Jersey and Virginia.

Despite repeatedly playing down the effects of his tariffs on prices, Trump on Friday signed an executive order lowering duties on 200 food products, including beef, bananas, coffee and orange juice.

Trump has also floated tariff-funded $2,000 rebate cheques and the introduction of 50-year mortgages as part of a push to address affordability concerns.

While inflation has markedly declined since hitting a four-decade high of 9.1 percent under Biden, it remains significantly above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target.

The inflation rate rose to 3 percent in October, the first time it hit the 3 percent mark since January, although many analysts had expected a higher figure due to Trump’s trade salvoes.

Trump, who is well known for his love of McDonald’s, spent a considerable portion of Monday’s speech praising the fast-food chain and casting the company as emblematic of his economic agenda.

“Together we are fighting for an economy where everybody can win, from the cashier starting her first job to a franchisee opening their first location to the young family in a drive-through line,” he said.

Trump also offered “special thanks” to the fast-food giant for rolling out more affordable menu options, including the reintroduction of extra value meals, which were phased out in 2018 and are priced at $5 or $8.

“We’re getting prices down for this country, and there’s no better leader or advocate than McDonald’s,” he said.

A magistrate judge in the United States has issued a stern rebuke to the administration of President Donald Trump, criticising its handling of the indictment against a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), James Comey.

On Monday, Judge William Fitzpatrick of Alexandria, Virginia, made the unusual decision to order the release of all grand jury materials related to the indictment.

Normally, grand jury materials are kept secret to protect witnesses, defendants and jurors in cases of grave federal crimes.

But in Comey’s case, Fitzpatrick ruled there was “a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law”, and that greater transparency was therefore required.

He cited several irregularities in the case, ranging from how evidence was obtained to alleged misstatements from prosecutors that could have swayed the grand jury.

“The procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct,” Fitzpatrick wrote in his 24-page decision.

Fitzpatrick clarified that his decision does not render the grand jury materials public. But they will be provided to Comey’s defence team, as the former FBI director seeks to have the indictment tossed.

“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote, underscoring the unusual nature of the proceedings.

“However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.”

Scrutiny of US Attorney Halligan

The decision is the latest stumble for interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Trump whom he then appointed as a top federal prosecutor.

A specialist in insurance law with no prosecutorial background, Halligan was tapped earlier this year to replace acting US Attorney Erik Siebert in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Trump has indicated he fired Siebert over disagreements about Justice Department investigations.

According to media reports, Siebert had refrained from seeking indictments against prominent Trump critics, such as Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing insufficient evidence.

But that appears to have frustrated the president. Trump went so far as to call for Comey’s and James’s prosecutions on social media, as well as that of Democratic Senator Adam Schiff.

“They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote in a post addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”

Halligan took up her post as acting US attorney on September 22. By September 25, she had filed her first major indictment, against Comey.

It charged Comey with making a “false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” to the US Senate, thereby obstructing a congressional inquiry.

A second indictment, against James, was issued on October 9. And a third came on October 16, targeting former national security adviser John Bolton, another prominent Trump critic.

All three individuals have denied wrongdoing and have sought to have their cases dismissed. Each has also accused President Trump of using the legal system for political retribution against perceived adversaries.

Monday’s court ruling is not the first time Halligan’s indictments have come under scrutiny, though.

Just last week, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie heard petitions from James and Comey questioning whether Halligan’s appointment as US attorney was legal.

As she weighed the petitions last Thursday, she questioned why there was a gap in the grand jury record for Comey’s indictment, where no court reporter appeared to be present.

Inside Fitzpatrick’s ruling

Fitzpatrick raised the same issue in his ruling on Monday. He questioned whether the transcript and audio recording of the grand jury deliberations were, in fact, complete.

He pointed out that the grand jury in Comey’s case was originally presented with a three-count indictment, which it rejected. Those deliberations started at about 4:28pm local time.

But by 6:40pm, the grand jury had allegedly weighed a second indictment and found that there was probable cause for two of the three counts.

Fitzpatrick said that the span of time between those two points was not “sufficient” to “draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate”.

Either the court record was incomplete, Fitzpatrick said, or the grand jury weighed an indictment that had not been fully presented in court.

The judge also acknowledged questions about how evidence had been obtained in the Comey case.

The Trump administration was facing a five-year statute of limitations in the Comey case, expiring on September 30. The indictment pertains to statements Comey made before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020.

To quickly find evidence for the indictment, Fitzpatrick said that federal prosecutors appear to have used warrants that were issued for a different case.

Those warrants, however, were limited to an investigation into Daniel Richman, an associate of Comey who was probed for the alleged theft of government property and the unlawful gathering of national security information.

No charges were filed in the Richman case, and the investigation was closed in 2021.

“The Richman materials sat dormant with the FBI until the summer of 2025, when the Bureau chose to rummage through them again,” Fitzpatrick said.

He said the federal government’s use of the warrants could violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits the unreasonable search and seizure of evidence. He described the Justice Department’s actions as “cavalier” and asserted that no precautions were taken to protect privileged information.

“Inexplicably, the government elected not to seek a new warrant for the 2025 search, even though the 2025 investigation was focused on a different person, was exploring a fundamentally different legal theory, and was predicated on an entirely different set of criminal offenses,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

He speculated that prosecutors may not have sought a new warrant because the delay would have allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the Comey case.

“The Court recognizes that a failure to seek a new warrant under these circumstances is highly unusual,” he said.

Fitzpatrick also raised concerns that statements federal prosecutors made to the grand jury may have been misleading.

Many of those statements were redacted in Fitzpatrick’s ruling. But he described them as “fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the grand jury process”.

One statement, he said, “may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jury that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government’s evidence”.

Another appeared to suggest that the grand jury “did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause” — and that more evidence would be presented later on.

Calling for the release of the grand jury records on Monday was an “extraordinary remedy” for these issues, Fitzpatrick conceded.

But it was necessary, given “the prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings”, he ultimately decided.