US & Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Midterm vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump said these were “just minor details”.

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

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

China’s rare earth export controls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, he argues, this is a temporary fix.

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

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

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

Maher declined Al Jazeera’s request for an interview

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

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

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

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

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

Following global cuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looming threats to free expression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is another way to think about it.

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

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

Q: How long have vaccines contained aluminium?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Do aluminium adjuvants have any risks?

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

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

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

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

Q: Which vaccines contain aluminium adjuvants?

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

Q: Which vaccines do not contain aluminium adjuvants?

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

Q: Can we remove aluminium from vaccines?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McLaren has already sealed the constructors’ title.

Verstappen says the title chance is there

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Attempt to stoke civil conflict’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

De Ridder’s four-fight UFC winning streak was snapped after he was unable to continue against Brendan Allen.

Brendan Allen shook up the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) middleweight division in a big way, handing Reinier de Ridder his first promotional loss by securing a technical knockout (TKO) after the Dutchman’s corner deemed him unable to continue ahead of Round 5.

De Ridder was visibly exhausted in his neutral corner at UFC Fight Night in Vancouver on Saturday night, leading to the sudden ending in the main event of mixed martial arts (MMA).

Allen (26-7 MMA) avoided de Ridder’s (21-3 MMA) devastating kickboxing ability by utilising his wrestling and controlling de Ridder with strikes from the top position.

De Ridder had few answers for the American fighter, as Allen stepped in on short notice after replacing fellow contender Anthony Hernandez (15-2, 1 no-contest MMA).

“It feels good to do exactly what I said I would do,” Allen said. “This was me three and a half weeks off the couch. I told you I’m a different monster. When my head is clear and we’re on, I’m the best in the world.”

With the UFC’s middleweight logjam in full effect, Allen said post-fight he has done enough to earn a title shot opposite champion Khamzat Chimaev (15-0 MMA).

“Come get it, baby,” Allen said.

De Ridder had not lost in 19 months.

In the co-main event, welterweight Mike Malott (13-2-1 MMA) dodged a bullet by avoiding a no-contest against Kevin Holland (28-15 MMA) after Holland’s protective shorts cup was compromised from a Malott leg kick gone wrong early in the fight.

A Malott arm-triangle choke attempt in the third round was not enough to secure the win either. Malott was eventually awarded the highly competitive five-round fight via decision: 29-28, 29-28, 29-28.

Aiemann Zahabi won his bantamweight bout by decision against former title challenger Marlon Vera (23-11-1 MMA). The final score had Zahabi victorious by a judges’ score of 29-28, 28-29, 29-28.

In women’s flyweight action, former title challenger Manon Fiorot (13-2 MMA) delivered a devastating TKO over Canada’s Jasmine Jasudavicius (14-4 MMA), set up by a flurry of punches to secure the stoppage win at 1:14 of the opening round.

Thousands converged on New York’s Times Square Saturday for a ‘No Kings’ protest against President Donald Trump. It was part of a nationwide event that comes amid military crackdowns in US cities, deportations and revenge indictments of political foes and in the wake of the Gaza peace deal.

US leader says suspected drug traffickers to be sent to their home countries of Ecuador and Colombia.

President Donald Trump says two surviving “narcoterrorists” from a semi-submersible vessel destroyed by the US military in the Caribbean will be sent to their home countries of Ecuador and Colombia.

“It was my great honor to destroy a very large DRUG-CARRYING SUBMARINE that was navigating towards the United States on a well known narcotrafficking transit route,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

He said that US intelligence has confirmed the vessel was carrying fentanyl and other narcotics.

The vessel was targeted on Thursday in what Trump described as a strike aimed at disrupting a major drug trafficking route.

Two crew members were killed, he said, while two others survived and were airlifted by US forces in a helicopter rescue operation to a nearby US Navy warship.

The US military held the survivors on board at least until Friday evening.

The press office for Ecuador’s government said it was not aware of the plans for repatriation. There was no immediate comment from Colombian authorities.

At least six vessels, most of them speedboats, have been targeted by US strikes in the Caribbean since September, with Venezuela alleged to be the origin of some of them.

Washington says its campaign is dealing a decisive blow to drug trafficking, but it has provided no evidence that the people killed were drug smugglers.

With Trump’s confirmation of the death toll on his Truth Social platform, that means US military actions against vessels in the region have killed at least 29 people.

The president has justified the strikes by asserting that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. He is relying on the same legal authority used by the administration of former President George W Bush when it declared a war on terrorism after the September 11 attacks on the US. This includes the ability to capture and detain combatants and use lethal force to take out their leadership. Trump is also treating the suspected traffickers as if they were enemy soldiers in a traditional war.

Previous similar strikes have raised concerns from Democratic lawmakers and legal experts who argue that such operations may exceed accepted wartime authority and risk violating international law.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump said the latest targeted vessel had been “built specifically for the transportation of massive amounts of drugs”.

US military buildup

The mission comes amid a sharp US military buildup across the Caribbean, involving guided missile destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, a nuclear-powered submarine and about 6,500 troops. The escalation has fuelled accusations that Washington is inching towards direct confrontation with Venezuela.

On Wednesday, Trump confirmed that he had authorised the CIA to carry out covert operations inside Venezuela, intensifying fears in Caracas that the US is attempting to topple President Nicolas Maduro.

Maduro has repeatedly denied involvement in drug trafficking and accused Washington of fabricating a narco-terrorism narrative as a pretext for trying to change the government. He condemned the recent maritime strikes as “a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and international law”.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, has formally requested the UN Security Council to issue a determination that the US strikes are illegal and to reaffirm Venezuela’s sovereign rights.

Bosnia’s Serb entity names an interim president after separatist Milorad Dodik is barred from politics by a state court.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Serb-majority entity has appointed Ana Trisic Babic as interim president, marking the first formal acknowledgement that Milorad Dodik is stepping aside after being barred from politics by a state court.

The Republika Srpska parliament confirmed Babic’s appointment on Saturday, saying she would serve until the early presidential elections scheduled for November 23.

Lawmakers also annulled several separatist laws passed under Dodik that had challenged the authority of an international envoy and Bosnia’s constitutional court.

Dodik, a pro-Russian nationalist who has pushed for Republika Srpska to break away and join Serbia, had refused to vacate office despite receiving a political ban. He has continued to travel abroad and claim presidential powers while appealing the court’s ruling.

The US Department of the Treasury announced on Friday that it had removed four Dodik allies from its sanctions list, a move he publicly welcomed as he campaigns to have sanctions against himself lifted.

Dodik is currently sanctioned by the United States, United Kingdom and several European governments for actions that undermine the Dayton peace agreement that ended Bosnia’s 1992–95 war.

Separatist moves

Bosnia’s electoral authorities stripped Dodik of his presidential mandate in August following an appeals court verdict that sentenced him to one year in prison and barred him from political office for six years.

The Central Electoral Commission acted under a rule that forces the removal of any elected official sentenced to more than six months in jail.

A Sarajevo court had convicted Dodik in February for refusing to comply with decisions issued by the international envoy, Christian Schmidt, who oversees implementation of the Dayton accords.

Dodik dismissed the ruling at the time, saying he would remain in power as long as he retained the backing of the Bosnian Serb parliament, which his allies control. The Republika Srpska government called the verdict “unconstitutional and politically motivated”.

Dodik maintains strong support from regional allies, including Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He has repeatedly threatened to separate Republika Srpska from Bosnia, raising fears among Bosniak communities and prompting previous US administrations to impose sanctions.

Bosnia remains governed by the US-brokered Dayton Accords, which ended a devastating war that killed about 100,000 people. The agreement created two largely autonomous entities – Republika Srpska and the Bosniak-Croat Federation – with shared national institutions, including the presidency, military, judiciary and taxation system.

Tensions have surged in recent years as Dodik openly rejects the authority of the international envoy, declaring Schmidt’s decisions invalid inside Republika Srpska.

Crowds packed the US capital on Saturday, part of nationwide ‘No Kings’ protests against President Donald Trump’s policies on immigration, education, and security. Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi reports from the scene.

The judge ruled NSO caused ‘irreparable harm’ to Meta, but said an earlier award of $168m in damages was ‘excessive’.

A United States judge has granted an injunction barring Israeli spyware maker the NSO Group from targeting WhatsApp users, saying the firm’s software causes “direct harm” but slashed an earlier damages award of $168m to just $4m.

In a ruling on Friday granting WhatsApp owner Meta an injunction to stop NSO’s spyware from being used in the messaging service, district judge Phyllis Hamilton said the Israeli firm’s “conduct causes irreparable harm”, adding that there was “no dispute that the conduct is ongoing”.

Hamilton said NSO’s conduct “serves to defeat” one of the key purposes of the service offered by WhatsApp: privacy.

“Part of what companies such as WhatsApp are ‘selling’ is informational privacy, and any unauthorised access is an interference with that sale,” she said.

In her ruling, Hamilton said that evidence at trial showed that NSO reverse-engineered WhatsApp code to stealthily install its spyware Pegasus on users’ phones, and repeatedly redesigned it to escape detection and bypass security fixes.

NSO was founded in 2010 and is based in the Israeli seaside tech hub of Herzliya, near Tel Aviv.

Pegasus – a highly invasive software marketed as a tool for law enforcement to fight crime and terrorism – allows operators to remotely embed spyware in devices.

NSO says it only sells the spyware to vetted and legitimate government law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But Meta, which owns WhatsApp, filed a lawsuit in California federal court in late 2019, accusing NSO of exploiting its encrypted messaging service to target journalists, lawyers and human rights activists with its spyware.

Independent experts have also said NSO’s software has been used by nation states, some with poor human rights records, to target critics.

Judge Hamilton said her broad injunction was appropriate given NSO’s “multiple design-arounds” to infect WhatsApp users – including missed phone calls and “zero-click” attacks – as well as the “covert nature” of the firm’s work more generally.

Will Cathcart, the head of WhatsApp, said in a statement that the “ruling bans spyware maker NSO from ever targeting WhatsApp and our global users again”.

“We applaud this decision that comes after six years of litigation to hold NSO accountable for targeting members of civil society. It sets an important precedent that there are serious consequences to attacking an American company,” he said.

Meta had asked Hamilton to extend the injunction to its other products – including Facebook, Instagram and Threads – but the judge ruled there was no way for her to determine if similar harms were being done on the other platforms without more evidence.

Hamilton also ruled that an initial award of $168m against NSO for damages to Meta in May this year was excessive, determining that the court did not have “sufficient basis” to support the jury’s initial calculation.

“There have simply not yet been enough cases involving unlawful electronic surveillance in the smartphone era for the court to be able to conclude that defendants’ conduct was ‘particularly egregious’,” Hamilton wrote.

The judge ruled that the punitive damages ratio should therefore be “capped at 9/1”, reducing the initial sum by about $164m to just $4m.

More than 2,600 rallies are planned in cities large and small, organised by hundreds of coalition partners.

Protesters have gathered in several United States cities for “No Kings” demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s policies on immigration, education and security, with organisers saying they expect more than 2,600 events across the country.

Saturday’s rally is the third mass mobilisation since Trump’s return to the White House and comes against the backdrop of a government shutdown that not only has closed federal programmes and services, but is testing the core balance of power as an aggressive executive confronts Congress and the courts in ways that organisers warn are a slide towards US authoritarianism.

The rallies started outside the US, with a couple of hundred protesters gathering outside the US embassy in London, and hundreds more holding demonstrations in Madrid and Barcelona.

By Saturday morning in Northern Virginia, many protesters were walking on overpasses across roads heading into Washington, DC.

Many protesters are especially angered by attacks on their motivations for taking to the streets. In Bethesda, Maryland, one held up a sign that said: “Nothing is more patriotic than protesting.”

Trump himself is away from Washington at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida.

“They say they’re referring to me as a king. I’m not a king,” Trump said in a Fox News interview broadcast on Friday.

More than 2,600 rallies are planned on Saturday in cities large and small, organised by hundreds of coalition partners.

A growing opposition movement

While the earlier protests this year – against Elon Musk’s cuts in spring, then to counter Trump’s military parade in June – drew crowds, organisers say this one is building a more unified opposition movement.

Top Democrats such as Senate Leader Chuck Schumer and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders are joining in what organisers view as an antidote to Trump’s actions, from the administration’s clampdown on free speech to its military-style immigration raids.

“There is no greater threat to an authoritarian regime than patriotic people-power,” said Ezra Levin, a cofounder of Indivisible, among the key organisers.

Before noon, several thousand people had gathered in New York City’s Times Square, chanting “Trump must go now”.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it has given legal training to tens of thousands of people who will act as marshals at the various marches, and those people were also trained in de-escalation.

Republicans have sought to portray participants in Saturday’s rallies as far outside the mainstream of US politics, and a main reason for the prolonged government shutdown, now in its 18th day.

From the White House to Capitol Hill, GOP leaders disparaged the rallygoers as “communists” and “Marxists”.

They say Democratic leaders, including Schumer, are beholden to the far-left flank and willing to keep the government shut down to appease those liberal forces.

“I encourage you to watch – we call it the Hate America rally – that will happen Saturday,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson.

“Let’s see who shows up for that,” Johnson said, listing groups including “antifa types”, people who “hate capitalism”, and “Marxists in full display”.

In a Facebook post, former presidential contender Sanders said, “It’s a love America rally”.

Dana Fisher, a professor at American University in Washington, DC, and the author of several books on US activism, forecast that Saturday could see the largest protest turnout in modern US history – she expected that more than 3 million people would participate, based on registrations and participation in the June events.

“The main point of this day of action is to create a sense of collective identity amongst all the people who are feeling like they are being persecuted or are anxious due to the Trump administration and its policies,” Fisher said. “It’s not going to change Trump’s policies. But it might embolden elected officials at all levels who are in opposition to Trump.”

A New York jury has found that French banking giant BNP Paribas’s work in Sudan helped to prop up the regime of former ruler Omar al-Bashir, making it liable for atrocities that took place under his rule.

The eight-member jury on Friday sided with three plaintiffs originally from Sudan, awarding a total of $20.75m in damages, after hearing testimony describing horrors committed by Sudanese soldiers and the Popular Defence Forces, the government-linked militia known as the Janjaweed.

The plaintiffs – two men and one woman, all now American citizens – told the federal court in Manhattan that they had been tortured, burned with cigarettes, slashed with a knife, and, in the case of the woman, sexually assaulted.

“I have no relatives left,” Entesar Osman Kasher told the court.

The trial focused on whether BNP Paribas’s financial services were a “natural and adequate cause” of the harm suffered by survivors of ethnic cleansing and mass violence in Sudan.

A spokesperson for BNP Paribas said in a statement to the AFP news agency that the ruling “is clearly wrong and there are very strong grounds to appeal the verdict”.

Bobby DiCello, who represented the plaintiffs, called the verdict “a victory for justice and accountability”.

“The jury recognised that financial institutions cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions,” DiCello said.

“Our clients lost everything to a campaign of destruction fuelled by US dollars, that BNP Paribas facilitated and that should have been stopped,” he said.

BNP Paribas “has supported the ethnic cleansing and ruined the lives of these three survivors”, DiCello said during closing remarks on Thursday.

The French bank, which did business in Sudan from the late 1990s until 2009, provided letters of credit that allowed Sudan to honour import and export commitments.

The plaintiffs argued that these assurances enabled the regime to keep exporting cotton, oil and other commodities, enabling it to receive billions of dollars from buyers that helped finance its operations.

Defence lawyer Dani James argued, “There’s just no connection between the bank’s conduct and what happened to these three plaintiffs.”

The lawyer for BNP Paribas also said the French bank’s operations in Sudan were legal in Europe and that global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) partnered with the Sudanese government during the same period.

Defence lawyers also claimed that the bank had no knowledge of human rights violations occurring at that time.

The plaintiffs would have “had their injuries without BNP Paribas”, said lawyer Barry Berke.

“Sudan would and did commit human rights crimes without oil or BNP Paribas,” Berke said.

The verdict followed a five-week jury trial conducted by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who last year denied a request by BNP Paribas to get the case thrown out ahead of trial.

Hellerstein wrote in his decision last year that there were facts showing a relationship between BNP Paribas’s banking services and abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese government.

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

The US government recognised the Sudanese conflict as a genocide in 2004. The war claimed some 300,000 lives between 2002 and 2008 and displaced 2.5 million people, according to the United Nations.

Al-Bashir, who led Sudan for three decades, was ousted and detained in April 2019 following months of protests in Sudan.

He is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on genocide charges.

In the months that followed al-Bashir’s ousting in 2019, army generals agreed to share power with civilians, but that ended in October 2021, when the leader of the army, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) commander, Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, seized control in a coup.

In April 2023, fighting broke out between the two sides, and forces on both sides have been accused of committing war crimes.