Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • North Korea’s powerhouse women footballers are in Seoul to fight for title

    North Korea’s powerhouse women footballers are in Seoul to fight for title

    Despite torrential downpours and gusty winds that would have driven less dedicated fans indoors, more than 5,000 football supporters packed into Suwon World Cup Stadium, just south of Seoul, on Wednesday night. Clad in waterproof ponchos and clutching crumpled team flags, they roared, cheered, and jeered in equal measure as a nearly unprecedented matchup unfolded on the soaked pitch: a continental club semi-final pitting North Korea’s Naegohyang Women’s Football Club against South Korea’s home side Suwon FC Women. What made the occasion even more extraordinary was the crowd’s composition: hundreds of South Korean fans had organized through local non-governmental organizations to cheer for both teams, raising loud chants of the visiting club’s name, a small but striking act of goodwill amid decades of frosty cross-border tensions.

    Few expected the North Korean side to even travel to the match. Relations between Pyongyang and Seoul have deteriorated sharply in recent years, amid a record-breaking string of ballistic missile tests conducted by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and the regime’s unwavering pursuit of nuclear capabilities. In 2023, Kim formally abandoned Pyongyang’s decades-long official goal of peaceful reunification with the South, and re-designated Seoul as an outright hostile state. But against widespread skepticism, the Naegohyang squad crossed the border as planned, marking the first visit of North Korean athletes to the South since 2018. The team made their historic return count, clinching a 2-1 come-from-behind victory over Suwon FC, with second-half goals from Choe Kum Ok and Kim Kyong Yong earning them a spot in the Asian Women’s Champions League final, where they will face Japan’s Tokyo Verdy Beleza.

    For analysts and long-time football observers, the North Korean side’s win came as no surprise. North Korea has cultivated a formidable global reputation in women’s football for decades, currently sitting 11th in the official FIFA world rankings – the second-highest ranked Asian nation, outplaced only by Japan. Founded in Pyongyang in 2012, Naegohyang claimed the North Korean domestic league title in 2022, and its roster features multiple starters from the North Korean women’s national team, led by a former head coach of the national program.

    Experts attribute this consistent success to a decades-long, state-driven focus on athletic excellence, rooted in the leadership’s ambition to position North Korea as a global sporting powerhouse. When Kim Jong Un took power in 2011, he quickly reiterated his father’s long-held priority of building the country into a “sports stronghold,” investing in elite training infrastructure such as the Pyongyang International Football School, opened in 2013 on Pyongyang’s Rungna Island, which scours the country for promising young talent to train full-time. “Even back in the 1990s, when I was training in North Korea, there was already a fully developed system in place at the school level to nurture young athletic talent,” explained Kim Sang-yoon, a former North Korean national boxer who defected to the South in the 2000s. “At elite sports schools, talented athletes are typically selected and begin full-time training as early as elementary or middle school.”

    This state-led investment has delivered outsized results even against the backdrop of severe economic headwinds. Years of Western sanctions imposed over North Korea’s nuclear program have gutted the country’s economy, leaving it one of the poorest in the world, with most ordinary citizens earning very little in the state-controlled system. Yet the top-down focus on women’s football has paid enormous dividends, both for the regime and the athletes themselves. For the Pyongyang government, international football wins act as rare, high-profile propaganda victories on the global stage, highlighting the regime’s capabilities despite international isolation. For the players, standout performance offers a unique path to improved social standing in North Korea’s rigidly hierarchical society: top athletes have been reportedly rewarded with luxury apartments, high-end vehicles, and even coveted membership in the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea, a status that transforms social and economic prospects for recipients and their families. The sport’s popularity has also grown among ordinary North Koreans, boosted by the national team’s recent string of youth-level global titles: North Korea won the 2024 FIFA U-20 Women’s World Cup, the 2025 FIFA U-17 Women’s World Cup, and the 2026 AFC U-17 Women’s Asian Cup, a record of success that far outstrips the performance of the country’s men’s program.

    Analysts point to multiple factors behind the gender gap in North Korea’s international football results. For men’s football, the biggest barrier is a lack of resources for physical development: to compete with larger-bodied Western opponents, male athletes require high-nutrition, protein-heavy diets that remain out of reach for most programs in North Korea. For women’s football, by contrast, observers note that the global competitiveness gap was far wider when Pyongyang first prioritized expanding women’s programs in the 1990s and early 2000s, allowing the centralized North Korean system to build an early advantage. “North Korea cannot compete with major global powers in economics, science, or most other fields,” explained Brigitte Weich, a documentary filmmaker who spent five years following the North Korean women’s national team for a 2024 project. “But in a sport like this, a centralized system can focus all resources on training, with no other distractions – that gives them a clear edge.”

    It remains unclear how the win has been received by ordinary North Koreans, as most citizens have limited access to unfiltered international media and the open internet. But the match has already sparked heated discussion and cautious optimism in South Korea. The South Korean Unification Ministry has provided funding for a cross-partisan cheering squad for the final on Saturday, a decision that has drawn criticism from hardline opponents of engagement with Pyongyang. Still, many South Koreans remain hopeful that this small sports exchange could open the door to wider, more productive dialogue, and begin to rebuild trust after years of escalating tensions. For Choi Jong-dae, a 91-year-old who was separated from his mother and four siblings in North Korea during the Korean War, the match was a deeply personal moment of connection. “I see these North Korean players as my own granddaughters,” he said from his seat in the stands on Wednesday. “Who knows? One of them could be the daughter of one of my siblings or relatives. I just hope they do well.”

  • US Fed chair says will be ‘reform-oriented’ at glitzy White House swearing-in

    US Fed chair says will be ‘reform-oriented’ at glitzy White House swearing-in

    In a highly unusual high-profile ceremony held at the White House on Friday, Kevin Warsh officially took office as the new Chair of the United States Federal Reserve, marking a fresh chapter for the world’s most influential central bank amid simmering tensions over institutional independence and competing economic priorities.

    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, one of two sitting Supreme Court justices in attendance alongside Brett Kavanaugh, administered the oath of office to Warsh in the White House East Room, an event that drew a who’s who of American political and economic elite, including former Vice President Dan Quayle, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and sitting Central Intelligence Agency director. The warm, smiling entrance of Warsh and former President Donald Trump stood in stark contrast to Trump’s only nationally televised second-term meeting with Warsh’s predecessor, Jerome Powell, during which Trump publicly berated the departing Fed leader.

    In his first remarks after taking the oath, Warsh struck a deliberate, reform-focused tone, promising to steer the Fed with a commitment to adaptive policy and unwavering integrity. “I will lead a reform-oriented Federal Reserve, learning from past successes and mistakes both, escaping static frameworks and models, and upholding clear standards of integrity and performance,” Warsh said. He emphasized that central bankers must pursue their core mandates “with wisdom and clarity, independence and resolve,” arguing that effective policy could deliver lower inflation, stronger growth, higher take-home wages, and broader shared prosperity for the American public. During his Senate confirmation process, Warsh firmly pushed back against suggestions he would align with Trump’s political preferences, telling lawmakers he would “absolutely not” be a puppet for the White House.

    For his part, Trump used the ceremony to praise his nominee, insisting the new Fed chief would operate with full institutional autonomy, a statement that comes in the wake of the former president’s unprecedented public and private pressure on the central bank to cut interest rates. “Kevin understands that when the economy is booming, that’s a good thing. We want to stop inflation, but we don’t want to stop greatness,” Trump said. Hours after the inauguration, the former president doubled down on his priorities, telling attendees at a separate event he expected interest rates to fall “very quickly.”

    It is extremely rare for a sitting Federal Reserve chair to be sworn in at the White House; the last time a Fed leader took the oath at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was Alan Greenspan’s 1987 inauguration, nearly four decades ago. The ceremony also unfolded as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on Trump’s bid to oust sitting Fed Governor Lisa Cook, a case that could have far-reaching implications for the central bank’s institutional structure.

    Warsh, who has supported interest rate cuts in the past even as inflation remains above the Fed’s long-term target, inherits a divided central bank navigating an extraordinarily tricky economic landscape. Inflation hit 3.8% in April, a three-year high, leaving American households still reeling from years of above-target price hikes that began in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current inflation surge has been fueled in large part by energy price volatility tied to Trump’s ongoing conflict with Iran. On the labor side, unemployment has held steady around 4.3% over the past year, but monthly job growth has seesawed between expansion and contraction, signaling inconsistent momentum in the broader economy.

    The Fed’s statutory dual mandate requires policymakers to balance 2% long-term inflation with maximum employment, a target that has put the central bank in a bind amid current conditions: bringing inflation down to target typically requires tighter monetary policy, which risks further weakening job growth. Just last month, a majority of sitting Fed policymakers signaled that additional rate hikes could be necessary if inflation stays above target, putting the central bank’s existing outlook at odds with the White House’s demand for rapid cuts.

    Warsh has pushed back on the idea that strong growth necessarily stokes inflation, arguing that productivity gains from artificial intelligence-driven innovation will allow the U.S. economy to expand rapidly without reigniting price growth. Even so, policy analysts warn a clash between the new Fed chair and the White House may be inevitable. “Kevin Warsh will not be able to deliver the rate cuts that the president wants,” said David Wessel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “At some point, the president may grow impatient and will begin attacking Mr. Warsh as he did Jerome Powell.”

    Adding another layer of complexity to Warsh’s tenure is the unprecedented decision by Powell, his predecessor, to remain on the Fed’s Board of Governors after stepping down as chair. Powell has cited growing threats to the Fed’s institutional independence as the core reason for his decision to stay on the board, a move that has drawn pushback from the White House. On Friday, White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said he hoped Powell would “step aside” soon to allow Warsh to take “complete and easy control of the Fed.”

    Columbia Law professor Kathryn Judge, a leading scholar of central banking, noted that Warsh takes office at a moment of profound shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory institutions. “Warsh takes over at a time of disruption and rebalancing in the overall authority of the president,” Judge explained, a context that adds to the already significant economic and political challenges the new Fed chair will face over his tenure.

  • Carney says Alberta is ‘essential’ to Canada as province plans vote on separation

    Carney says Alberta is ‘essential’ to Canada as province plans vote on separation

    Canada is facing its most significant test of national unity in decades after Alberta’s provincial government announced a non-binding referendum this October on the province’s place within the Canadian federation, capping years of growing separatist sentiment in the resource-rich western region. The announcement came one day after Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly reaffirmed Alberta’s irreplaceable role in the country, emphasizing that the province’s contributions have been foundational to Canada’s growth and that his government’s national reform efforts center on including all regions, including Alberta.

    The separatist movement in Alberta has gained traction over the last several years, driven by widespread frustration among many residents who feel their province’s economic and political priorities are systematically ignored by federal policymakers based in Ottawa. Most polling to date shows a clear majority of Albertans oppose full independence, with roughly one quarter of respondents voicing support for separation. Earlier this year, a pro-unity petition collected more than 400,000 signatures from across the province, demonstrating the depth of support for remaining part of Canada.

    Despite that majority, grassroots separatist pressure forced Premier Danielle Smith to address the demand for a public vote. A separatist petition crossed the 300,000 signature threshold required to trigger a binding independence referendum earlier this year, but a successful legal challenge by Alberta First Nations groups halted the signature verification process earlier this month, leaving the original plebiscite plan in legal limbo. A court ruled that the Alberta provincial government failed to fulfill its legal obligation to consult with Indigenous communities on the referendum plan before approving the petition process.

    Smith has publicly rejected the court ruling, and while the decision blocks her from moving forward with a binding vote immediately, she has pushed forward with a new voting plan for October 19. On that date, Albertans will answer a two-part question: whether the province should remain part of Canada, or whether the provincial government should begin the formal legal process to hold a binding independence referendum at a future date.

    “I will not have a legal mistake by a single judge silence the voices of hundreds of thousands of Albertans,” Smith said in her public announcement. “Alberta’s future will be decided by Albertans, not the courts.” The premier added that her government is appealing the original court ruling, a process that could stretch into a lengthy legal battle, and confirmed she will personally vote to keep Alberta within Canada. She also committed to campaigning for the pro-unity side through a series of summer town halls, arguing the province can no longer delay addressing the independence question. When asked if she risked repeating the legacy of former British Prime Minister David Cameron, who called the Brexit referendum that split the U.K. despite opposing the exit side, Smith said she has no fear of Albertans’ judgement. “You have to be prepared to have the debate, and you have to be prepared to defend your position,” she stated.

    Prime Minister Carney, speaking during a tour of renovation work at Canada’s federal Parliament building on Friday, struck a unifying tone in his first public comments following Smith’s announcement. “We’re renovating the country as we go, and Alberta being at the centre of that is essential,” Carney said, praising the “huge contributions” the province has made to Canada’s national identity and economy, and noting his government is working to improve conditions for all Canadians, including those in Alberta.

    Smith’s compromise plan has failed to win support from either side of the debate, drawing widespread criticism from pro-independence activists, Indigenous leaders and provincial opposition politicians. The Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation issued a harsh statement condemning Smith’s government as “undemocratic, authoritarian, and willing to bend to the whims of a loud, angry minority.” Naheed Nenshi, leader of Alberta’s official opposition New Democratic Party, dismissed the October vote as “needless,” accusing Smith of deliberately delaying action to shore up her own hold on political power. Even separatist leaders have expressed frustration with the plan: Mitch Sylvestre, a leading figure in the pro-independence movement, told the *Globe and Mail* that he “feel[s] duped” by the revised proposal. In response to the criticism, Smith defended her decision during a Friday press conference, saying the province cannot “kick the can down the road” for years by leaving the independence question unresolved.

  • Judge dismisses criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    Judge dismisses criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia

    A high-stakes immigration controversy centered on the Trump administration’s border policies has reached a dramatic conclusion, after a federal judge threw out the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant wrongfully deported to one of El Salvador’s most notorious maximum-security facilities last year.

    Abrego Garcia’s journey through the US immigration system has been one of the most visible flashpoints in national debates over executive overreach in immigration enforcement. The 30-year-old, who entered the United States as a teenager from El Salvador and has resided in Maryland for years while married to a US citizen, first received court-ordered protection from deportation in 2019. That protection was granted on the basis that he faced credible threats of deadly persecution from gangs in his home country.

    Despite the court’s order, the Trump administration wrongfully deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March 2025. He spent months confined in CECOT, El Salvador’s infamous mega-prison infamous for its harsh, overcrowded conditions, before the US Supreme Court ordered the federal government to facilitate his return to the US. Instead of releasing him after repatriation in June 2025, however, federal authorities moved to charge him with human smuggling connected to a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop, where he had been found transporting multiple individuals in his vehicle.

    Abrego Garcia immediately entered a plea of not guilty to the charges, and his legal team argued the case was nothing more than a vindictive effort to justify the government’s earlier wrongful deportation. On Friday, that argument won the support of US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, who formally dismissed the case in a detailed ruling that called out the executive branch’s politically motivated prosecution.

    “The Court does not reach its conclusion lightly,” Crenshaw wrote in her opinion. The judge made clear that the prosecution was only revived to retroactively justify the botched deportation, noting that federal investigators had closed the probe into the 2022 traffic stop back in November 2022. The case was only reopened after Abrego Garcia successfully sued to challenge his wrongful removal and secure his return to the US.

    “The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the government would not have brought this prosecution,” Crenshaw stated from her Tennessee courtroom. The judge also emphasized that the Trump administration had failed to provide any evidence to counter the clear presumption of vindictiveness surrounding the charges.

    Speaking after his release from federal detention Friday, Abrego Garcia declared, “I stand before you as a free man.” The US Department of Justice has not yet issued any public comment in response to the judge’s ruling.

  • ‘The mosque always felt like a safe space’: San Diego’s Muslims reel after deadly shooting

    ‘The mosque always felt like a safe space’: San Diego’s Muslims reel after deadly shooting

    A brutal mass shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego, the largest Muslim place of worship in San Diego County, has claimed three lives and left the region’s Muslim community in profound grief, simmering anger, and shattered sense of safety. The attack, which investigators have classified as a bias-fueled hate crime, has sparked widespread criticism of local leaders who community members say ignored years of repeated warnings about surging Islamophobia across the United States.

    The violence unfolded shortly before midday prayers on a Monday, when two armed gunmen opened fire outside the mosque grounds. Killed in the attack were 51-year-old Amin Abdullah, 57-year-old Nadir Awad, and 78-year-old Mansour Kaziha, who was known to the community by the affectionate nickname Abu Ezz. The 140 children who attend the on-site mosque school were protected from further harm thanks to rapid action: Abdullah, who served as a security volunteer at the center, triggered an emergency lockdown that prevented the gunmen from accessing the full building. Community members have since honored the three victims as heroes, who all rushed toward danger to shield fellow worshippers and young people inside.

    Osama Shabaik, a San Diego attorney and long-time regular attendee of the mosque, described the disbelieving shock that gripped him when he learned of the deaths. “We’ve had so many times where someone has driven by the masjid fired a BB gun – throwing something at the masjid, just a lot of incidents like that,” he explained to reporters. “Then my wife called me, and she’s like ‘did you see the news? Amin is dead’. I kinda just stopped in my tracks.” Shabaik remembered each victim warmly: Abdullah always greeted everyone with a wide smile, Kaziha served as a beloved mentor and unofficial caretaker for the mosque for decades, and Awad selflessly ran toward the gunfire after hearing shots from his nearby home, an act that saved multiple lives.

    Two days after the attack, more than 2,000 people from across California and the United States gathered at the mosque for funeral prayers to honor the three men who gave their lives to protect their community.

    Investigators from local police and the FBI have confirmed the attackers were radicalized by extremist ideology. Evidence collected after the shooting shows the pair were influenced by neo-Nazi propaganda and drew inspiration from previous anti-Muslim massacres, including the 2019 Christchurch mosque attack that killed 51 worshippers in New Zealand.

    Community leaders say this deadly attack is the tragic culmination of a sharp national rise in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hate incidents that began with the start of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization, has documented at least 8,658 reported cases of Islamophobia and anti-Arab discrimination across the U.S. since the start of 2024.

    For years, and particularly over the last three years of escalating anti-Palestinian hostility, Muslim organizers in San Diego have repeatedly reached out to local elected officials, university administrators, and law enforcement to flag the growing risk of violence. But those warnings, community members say, were largely dismissed.

    Much of the community’s anger is directed at San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, a vocal supporter of Israel who has publicly condemned pro-Palestinian protests and aligned closely with anti-Muslim Zionist groups. When Gloria visited the mosque shortly after the shooting to announce increased police patrols, he was met with furious pushback from local residents. When the mayor bailed on a scheduled meeting with Muslim community leaders immediately after the October 7 attacks last year, residents say that neglect proved deadly.

    “Right after October 7, he bailed on our meeting last minute… and then had the audacity to show up on the day of the shooting,” said Samar Ismail, a graduate student at the University of California San Diego and community organizer. Shabaik echoed that criticism, saying: “Mayor Gloria is not someone that I would welcome into our Muslim spaces. He is someone who turned his back on the Muslim community years ago, and he turned his back on the issues that affect us.”

    Beyond elected officials, community members are also questioning whether law enforcement missed clear warning signs that could have prevented the attack. Police have confirmed that one of the suspects’ mothers contacted authorities hours before the shooting to warn that her son was suicidal and had access to firearms. Shabaik also confirmed that community members were aware of threatening public posts made by one of the gunmen, Cain Clark, on the social platform Discord more than a month before the attack, where he shared photos of the same firearm and bulletproof vest he used in the shooting. Shabaik added that a member of the public had already alerted the FBI to Clark’s activity ahead of the attack, though federal authorities have not confirmed whether they acted on that tip.

    For San Diego’s Muslim community, the attack has destroyed the safe haven the mosque represented for generations. For long-time attendees who grew up facing anti-Muslim bigotry in the U.S., the center had long been a space to escape that hostility. “We always grew up knowing that there’s a target on our back, the mosque always felt like a safe space from that,” Shabaik said. Ismail, who described the Islamic Center as her “second home,” added that the “illusion of safety has been shattered. Fear has now exacerbated within the community.”

  • ‘Totally unfair’: Cameron Ciraldo lets loose as he calls out ‘bull—t’ coverage of Bulldogs players

    ‘Totally unfair’: Cameron Ciraldo lets loose as he calls out ‘bull—t’ coverage of Bulldogs players

    It was a night to remember for the Canterbury Bulldogs at their home ground on Friday, as a ferocious second-half comeback overturned a 12-point deficit to claim a vital win over the Melbourne Storm – snapping a frustrating five-match losing skid that had dominated rugby league headlines for weeks. Now, head coach Cameron Ciraldo is hitting out at what he calls unfair and overblown external commentary that has hammered his club, players and staff throughout their losing run.

    For the better part of 12 months, Canterbury’s attacking structure and overall on-field performance has been under intense scrutiny from fans and pundits alike. After crashing out of last year’s finals and dropping down the ladder in 2026 – despite a stunning upset victory over the reigning premier Panthers earlier in the season – every loss has amplified calls for roster and coaching changes. Friday’s win, however, has silenced many of those critics, at least temporarily, while piling more defeat-fueled pressure on the struggling Storm.

    The match itself was sealed by winger Jacob Kiraz, who marked his return from injury with a dominant performance: racking up 256 running metres, seven offloads and crossing for the match-winning try, a play highlighted by the NRL as its Telstra Moment of the Match. While the victory came at a cost, with promising back-rower Jacob Preston ruled out after suffering a broken forearm, it was the standout displays from two under-fire players that defined the result: Bronson Xerri and Matt Burton, whose futures at the club have been the subject of constant off-field speculation for months. The pair combined for a massive 420 running metres, controlling the tempo of the game after halftime to power the Bulldogs’ comeback. Ciraldo called Friday’s effort the best game both men have turned in all season, amid ongoing rumours linking Burton to a move to the expansion Perth Bears.

    Speaking to reporters post-match, Ciraldo made clear his frustration with the toxic external noise that surrounds the club during losing runs, saying the constant speculation and unfair criticism takes a particularly heavy toll on the team’s younger players. “That’s probably the hardest thing around this club is that when we do lose a game, there’s a lot of outside noise,” Ciraldo said, adding he was also frustrated by some of referee Wyatt Raymond’s on-field decisions during the clash. “So for us (we need) to manage that and try to keep the boys off their phones and off TV because our wins are extreme. Our wins are awesome. We just get so much energy out of them, but our losses are even more extreme. Even when we perform well and lose, the outside noise becomes quite debilitating for young guys.”

    To combat the constant barrage of criticism, Ciraldo said the club has worked hard to keep the squad focused on internal goals rather than outside commentary. “What we’ve done really well is try to focus on what opinions matter within our four walls. That’s going to be really important after a win – a really good win tonight – that we don’t listen to what’s being said on the outside and we focus on what we did well tonight, which was a lot, and what we can do better, which is still a bit as well.”

    Halfback Lachlan Galvin, who joined the Bulldogs from the Wests Tigers last year, has been a particularly frequent target for critics during the losing streak, while the club’s recruitment and retention strategy has also faced constant public scrutiny. While the coaching staff has encouraged players to step back from social media to avoid unsubstantiated stories and personal attacks, Ciraldo admitted it is impossible to shield the squad from outside noise entirely.

    “As much as we say to try to block it out, I think it’s hard to ignore all of it. Not just the outside noise, but the rumours that circulate and the bullshit that gets made up,” he said. “I feel really proud of this group that they just kept turning up and trusting in what we were doing. But I felt a lot for them that they’ve had to sort of go through that as well.

    “I think these five weeks we’ve been through will be a blessing in disguise. You find out a lot about people. What I’ve found out about our group – players and staff – is that we’ve got a really tough group. Some of the stuff that’s been said about some of our players and our staff is totally unfair. I’m just glad we got a performance tonight that we can enjoy, and hopefully some people get a lot of credit for that.”

    Addressing the constant rumours surrounding Burton’s future, Ciraldo hit out at the made-up speculation that follows the club during losing runs. “People make up rumours about players on the outer and getting sold here,” he said. “Matt Burton’s one that gets tossed up a lot, doesn’t he? So it’s really disappointing when you’re going through a losing streak and people decide to make up rumours about your players, and it’s hard for us to defend them. When Burton plays like that, we win a lot of games.”

    Ciralaldo also reserved praise for his under-fire coaching staff, who have faced their own share of public criticism during the five-match skid, adding: “Some people are copping a lot of unfair criticism as well. I feel really proud of our coaching staff with how connected they’ve stayed together and how much they’ve trusted in what we’re doing and how hard they’ve been working.”

  • Colombian army deploys hundreds of soldiers in country’s southwest after land dispute leaves 7 dead

    Colombian army deploys hundreds of soldiers in country’s southwest after land dispute leaves 7 dead

    BOGOTA, Colombia – Fresh deadly inter-communal violence has sparked a major security deployment in southwestern Colombia, after a long-running territorial dispute between two Indigenous groups erupted into open conflict that left multiple people dead and dozens more injured.

    On Thursday, violent clashes broke out in a rural zone of Cauca department’s Silvia municipality, pitting the Misak and Nasa Indigenous communities against one another. Both groups have laid overlapping claims to the same parcel of land, a source of simmering tension that has persisted for months. By Friday morning, official preliminary counts put the death toll at seven people, with more than 110 others wounded – most hit by gunfire. Defense Minister Pedro Sánchez cautioned that the number of fatalities and casualties could climb in the coming hours as rescue teams reach isolated areas of the conflict zone.

    In response to the violence, Colombian national security forces launched a large-scale deployment to the region on Friday. The national army announced via social media that more than 500 infantry soldiers, backed by air support, have entered the Silvia area to restore public safety for local residents and prevent further escalation of the conflict. The deployment aims to separate the rival groups and create a secure environment for dialogue to resume.

    Tensions between the two communities first began to rise in April of this year. Colombia’s state-run National Land Agency has been involved in the dispute since that time, taking part in formal mediation sessions and technical working groups designed to resolve ambiguity over the official territorial boundaries between the two Indigenous groups. In the wake of Thursday’s violence, the agency repeated its call for both communities to set down weapons and return to the negotiating table to resolve their differences through peaceful dialogue rather than armed confrontation.

    The violence drew swift international reaction: the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Colombia mission released a statement Thursday calling for an immediate end to hostilities and urging national authorities to launch a full investigation into the violence, holding all those responsible for deaths and injuries legally accountable.

    The region where the clashes occurred already faces significant security challenges, with multiple illegal armed factions active across Cauca department. Among these active groups are dissident units of the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) that refused to disarm under the terms of the landmark 2016 national peace agreement with the Colombian government. These armed groups often exacerbate local tensions over land and resources to extend their own control over territory in remote rural areas.

  • Who’s eligible for the ‘Anti-Weaponisation Fund’? Trump’s critics think they might be

    Who’s eligible for the ‘Anti-Weaponisation Fund’? Trump’s critics think they might be

    What was framed as a redress fund for people harmed by what the current U.S. Justice Department calls improper political weaponization of law enforcement has quickly erupted into a national political firestorm, as high-profile critics of former President Donald Trump have stepped forward to announce they will pursue claims against the fund — upending widespread assumptions that the pot of money was intended exclusively for Trump allies.

    Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche first announced the $1.8 billion fund as part of a settlement agreement with Trump over the unauthorized leak of his personal tax returns to the press. From the outset, Blanche emphasized that the fund was built to compensate people harmed by unlawful government targeting. In a explanatory memo sent to skeptical Republican senators, Blanche justified the massive size of the fund by noting that “literally tens of millions of Americans were subjected to improper and unlawful government targeting,” adding that no partisan barrier would block claims: “there is no partisan restriction; Democrats can submit claims, too.”

    But the broad wording of the fund’s eligibility rules has created an unexpected scenario: the first high-profile figures to publicly announce their intention to file claims are some of Trump’s most vocal political opponents, starting with Michael Cohen, Trump’s one-time personal fixer who turned on his former boss and testified against him in two separate high-profile criminal trials.

    “After years of being smeared, surveilled, financially exposed, imprisoned, and silenced, I will file a claim asking whether America’s justice system became America’s political weapon,” Cohen wrote in a post on the social platform X.

    Cohen has a long and fraught history with the legal system: he pleaded guilty to a slate of charges including lying to Congress, tax evasion, illegal campaign finance violations, and bank fraud in 2018. He was briefly released from prison early at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, but was rearrested shortly after, before a federal judge ultimately ordered his release, finding the government had improperly retaliated against him for preparing to publish a tell-all book critical of Trump. Trump and his legal team, which includes Blanche during Trump’s ongoing Manhattan criminal trial, have repeatedly questioned Cohen’s credibility, pointing to his prior conviction for lying to federal investigators.

    Cohen is far from alone. Former FBI Director James Comey, who was twice indicted by the current Justice Department over cases that multiple legal experts have described as legally questionable, confirmed to CNN that he also intends to join the line for compensation. Comey, who was fired by Trump in 2017 and has been a public critic of the former president ever since, noted that the fund was explicitly created to compensate people targeted for political, personal, or ideological reasons. “So I’m guessing, I’ll be in line,” Comey said, adding a pointed jab: “I hope I’ll be ahead of those who savagely beat police officers and sacked the Capitol.”

    Comey’s first indictment was ultimately dismissed by a judge, who sided with his legal team’s argument that the prosecution was driven by improper retaliation. A second pending case accuses Comey of threatening the president via a social media post that showed seashells arranged to spell “86 47” — a reference to removing Trump from office, a reference that Comey’s team calls a harmless political joke. Blanche has defended the new charges, arguing that any threat against a sitting U.S. president must be treated as a serious matter.

    Other prominent Trump critics have also joined the push for compensation. Allison Gill, the political commentator behind the popular “Mueller, She Wrote” podcast and X account, says she will file a claim for $8.647 million, alleging she lost her government job after the Trump administration retaliated against her for the content of her criticism-focused podcast.

    To date, the Department of Justice has declined to respond to requests for comment or clarification on whether high-profile figures like Cohen, Comey, and Gill actually meet the fund’s eligibility requirements.

    The opaque structure of the fund has already drawn widespread criticism from both sides of the aisle. Initial assumptions that the fund would primarily deliver payouts to hundreds of people convicted for their roles in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot — a group Trump pardoned on his first day back in office — have proven partially correct: multiple people charged in connection with the attack have told U.S. media they hope to receive compensation, and several conservative Trump-aligned figures have already filed claims. Michael Caputo, a first-term Trump administration official who was targeted in the 2016 Russian interference investigation, has already publicly posted his claim for $2.7 million in damages.

    Bipartisan groups of lawmakers, including many members of Congress who were forced to evacuate and hide during the January 6 riot, have demanded Blanche release clear details on who qualifies for payouts. The settlement agreement explicitly bars Trump and his immediate family from receiving any money from the fund, but that has done little to ease concerns.

    A closed-door meeting between Blanche and Senate Republicans on Thursday turned tense, multiple media outlets reported, with many lawmakers voicing strong opposition to the fund. Pennsylvania Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick has already sent a formal letter to Blanche asking for clear answers on whether “individuals convicted of federal crimes associated of acts of violence” will be allowed to receive payouts. Fitzpatrick has also introduced bipartisan legislation with New York Democrat Tom Suozzi that would block any federal money from being used to pay out claims from the fund.

    Blanche has pushed back against claims from Democratic lawmakers that the fund is nothing more than an unauthorized “slush fund” for Trump allies, working to reassure wavering Republican senators that their opposition would not derail other administration priorities. Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune has publicly stated he is “not a big fan” of the fund, though some conservative Republicans have come out in support of the initiative. Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville defended the fund on the Senate floor, arguing that “hundreds” of “innocent patriotic Americans sat behind bars for the past five years over this made-up witch hunt” connected to the January 6 investigations.

    The fund will be overseen by a five-person board appointed entirely by the attorney general, with one seat to be filled in coordination with Congress, leaving many unanswered questions about how claims will be reviewed and vetted as applications begin to roll in from across the political spectrum.

  • ‘Stupid on stilts’ – Trump’s investigation compensation fund draws ire of Republicans

    ‘Stupid on stilts’ – Trump’s investigation compensation fund draws ire of Republicans

    A controversial $1.8 billion compensation fund created by the Trump administration has thrown federal government funding negotiations into chaos, after a bloc of Trump’s own Republican lawmakers blocked a critical spending bill over fierce objections to the initiative. The so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, established by the U.S. Department of Justice, was created as part of a settlement agreement that ended former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the unauthorized release of his personal tax records. In exchange for dropping his legal challenge, Trump secured a formal apology from the agency and approval for the fund, which is intended to pay individuals who claim they were unfairly targeted for political investigations by previous presidential administrations.

    Critics on both sides of the aisle have slammed the initiative as an unaccountable “slush fund” reserved for Trump’s political allies. The most explosive controversy centers on eligibility for claimants charged in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, many of whom received full pardons from Trump during his first day back in office. According to Department of Justice (DoJ) data, nearly 1,600 people have been charged with crimes connected to the riot, including 175 defendants facing charges for using deadly weapons or inflicting serious harm on the roughly 140 police officers injured during the assault.

    Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell issued a blistering rebuke of the plan this week, saying, “So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong – Take your pick.” North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis echoed the criticism, calling the fund “stupid on stilts” and arguing that using taxpayer dollars to compensate rioters who attacked police is fundamentally indefensible. “That’s absurd,” Tillis said of the prospect of pardoned, convicted rioters receiving payouts. “It will invariably put us in a position where your taxpayer dollars and my taxpayer dollars could potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer, admitted their guilt, got convicted, got pardoned, and now we’re going to pay them for that?”

    Democratic lawmakers have joined Republicans in condemning the fund, also branding it a slush fund for the president’s closest allies. The fund has already drawn interest from a range of claimants: Michael Caputo, a Trump ally who served as a health official during the president’s first term, confirmed he submitted a $2.7 million claim earlier this week, arguing he was wrongfully targeted by the FBI during the 2016 Russia interference investigation. “The machinery of government was clearly politically weaponized against my family,” Caputo wrote on social media. “They found nothing; we lost everything.” Even Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney who was convicted of lying to investigators, tax evasion and campaign finance violations, has announced he intends to file a claim for compensation, turning the initiative into a target for both supporters and critics of the president.

    On Thursday, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, the nation’s top law enforcement official, traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with Republican senators and address their concerns, but the outreach failed to win over skeptical lawmakers. A group of Senate Republicans insisted on attaching strict restrictions to the fund as part of the broader government funding package up for a vote this week, but no compromise could be reached. As a result, Senate Majority Leader John Thune was forced to scrap the scheduled vote on the full spending bill, leaving federal funding in limbo.

    After the cancellation, Thune told reporters that administration officials bear responsibility for breaking the impasse, noting “we have a lot of members who are concerned, obviously, about the timing, but also about the substance” of the fund. Opposition is not limited to the Senate: in the House of Representatives, Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania has emerged as a leading opponent of the initiative, and is drafting standalone legislation that would eliminate the fund entirely. He has already submitted formal questions to Blanche demanding more details about how the fund would operate and how claims would be vetted.

    When DoJ officials formally announced the fund on Monday, they said it would allocate a total of $1.776 billion to settle and pay out approved claims, overseen by a five-member independent commission tasked with vetting applications and approving payouts. Congress holds constitutional authority over all federal spending, meaning lawmakers must approve the use of taxpayer dollars for the initiative before any payouts can be distributed.

  • Trump’s Cuba strategy echoes his Venezuela playbook. But there are key differences

    Trump’s Cuba strategy echoes his Venezuela playbook. But there are key differences

    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s hardline strategy to destabilize Cuba has increasingly mirrored the pressure campaign that led to the ouster of Venezuela’s former leader Nicolás Maduro, featuring an escalating oil blockade, expanded U.S. military presence in the Caribbean, federal criminal charges against top Cuban officials, and repeated public threats of direct military intervention. But regional policy experts warn that copying the Venezuela playbook does not guarantee a similar outcome, even as President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that “Cuba is next” on his list of regional regime changes.

    Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group and former State Department legal advisor, noted that Trump views the successful removal of Maduro as a major policy win and has attempted to replicate that model across adversarial regimes, including Iran. “But obviously, Cuba, like Iran, is a very different country than Venezuela,” Finucane emphasized. Unlike Venezuela, where the U.S. was able to install a compliant successor after capturing Maduro in January, Finucane says there is no obvious alternative Cuban leader willing to cooperate with the Trump administration. Unnamed Cuban officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to restrictions on public commentary, echoed this assessment, bluntly stating “there is no Delcy in Cuba” — a reference to Maduro’s former second-in-command Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed power with U.S. backing after Maduro’s ouster.

    Finucane also pointed to key differences in U.S. military posture between the two campaigns. In the months leading up to Maduro’s removal, the U.S. assembled a massive, threatening naval buildup off Venezuela’s coast. By contrast, current U.S. military force levels in the Caribbean are far smaller and less intimidating. Additionally, while criminal charges against sitting Venezuelan president Maduro provided a legal justification for his capture, an indictment against 94-year-old former Cuban leader Raúl Castro — who stepped down from daily leadership years ago — carries far less practical impact for the current Cuban government.

    To understand the gaps between the two pressure campaigns, it is necessary to break down their core similarities and divergent dynamics:

    ### Repeated Escalating Threats of Military Action
    Months before launching the operation that removed Maduro from power, Trump steadily laid groundwork for intervention through a cascade of public threats, a pattern he has now repeated for Cuba. He has pressured Caribbean regional governments to align with U.S. policy or face consequences, and just weeks before the special operation that captured Maduro, Trump issued a final public warning to the Venezuelan leader from Florida, alongside his top national security team. “If he wants to do something, if he plays tough, it’ll be the last time he’ll ever be able to play tough,” Trump told reporters in December.

    Within days of Maduro being transported to the U.S. to face trial, Trump shifted his focus to Cuba, identifying the island as his next target. “Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know if they’re going to hold out,” he told reporters on January 5. He followed this by threatening to impose tariffs on any country that supplies oil to Cuba, and claimed the U.S. might “have the honor of taking Cuba” after concluding operations in Venezuela and Iran. He repeated these threats last Thursday, dismissing Cuba as “a failed country” and claiming he will be the first U.S. president to resolve the decades-long standoff over the island’s governance.

    ### Divergent Goals Behind Linked Oil Embargoes
    The U.S. oil embargoes imposed on both Cuba and Venezuela share the core objective of squeezing ruling elites to force political change, but they target opposite sides of the oil trade to achieve this. For Venezuela, the Trump administration originally targeted the country’s oil exports to cut off revenue for the Maduro government. After Maduro’s ouster, the focus shifted to blocking unapproved Venezuelan oil exports to Cuba — which for years received crude in non-cash barter arrangements — while forcing Venezuela’s new government to comply with U.S. terms for oil shipments. Today, most of Venezuela’s crude output is routed to U.S. refineries.

    For Cuba, the embargo is designed to cut off the energy-import dependent island from critical oil supplies. While the U.S. has allowed a small number of limited shipments to proceed, Cuba recently publicly confirmed it has exhausted its stored oil reserves. The current embargo is an expansion of the broader U.S. trade blockade on Cuba that has been in place for decades, and it has already severely strained the Cuban government’s ability to provide consistent electricity and gasoline to civilian residents.

    Finucane warned that this pressure could spiral into unintended consequences for the U.S. If the embargo destabilizes Cuba enough, it could trigger a new wave of mass migration to Florida, similar to the refugee crisis that unfolded in the 1990s when thousands of Cubans crossed the 90-mile stretch of ocean in makeshift vessels. “President Trump especially cares about immigration. And if they push too hard on Cuba and destabilize the island, there’s the possibility of some kind of a refugee crisis,” he said.

    ### Criminal Charges Carry Different Strategic Weight
    During Trump’s first term in 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice charged Maduro with narco-terrorism conspiracy and multiple other criminal counts. That indictment was later used as legal justification for his capture, and Maduro now remains in New York awaiting trial, where he has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The removal of Maduro upended decades of U.S.-Venezuela relations, opening the door for U.S. companies to purchase previously sanctioned Venezuelan oil and allowing Venezuelan crude to re-enter global markets — a massive shift from years of near-total restrictions on dealings with Venezuela’s government and oil sector.

    For Cuba, the indictment against Raúl Castro stems from the 1996 shootdown of two civilian planes flown by Miami-based Cuban exiles, and includes charges of murder and aircraft destruction. William LeoGrande, a professor specializing in Latin American politics at American University in Washington, said the charges are primarily a tactical step to escalate the Trump administration’s pressure campaign, rather than a precursor to immediate policy change. Even if the U.S. were to detain Castro, LeoGrande argued it would not alter the day-to-day operations of Cuba’s current government. “Castro still has influence and the leadership seeks his opinion on major decisions, but he is not running the government on a day-to-day basis,” LeoGrande explained.

    ### Modest Military Buildup Versus a Massive Regional Deployment
    In the months leading up to Maduro’s capture, the U.S. deployed a large fleet of warships to waters off Venezuela, marking one of the largest U.S. military buildups in Latin America in modern history. The U.S. Navy’s most advanced carrier at the time, the USS Gerald R. Ford, was rerouted from European deployments to join the operation, while three amphibious assault ships carried a Marine expeditionary unit, attack helicopters, and Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. U.S. forces carried out months of anti-smuggling operations targeting drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, while fighter jets conducted regular patrols over the Gulf of Venezuela. The final mission to capture Maduro involved more than 150 aircraft deployed across the Western Hemisphere.

    Today, the U.S. maintains a much smaller military contingent in the Caribbean, consisting of two amphibious assault ships with Marine detachments onboard. This week, coinciding with the announcement of charges against Raúl Castro, the U.S. military publicized the arrival of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its accompanying escort warships in the region. However, the Nimitz is on its final deployment before being decommissioned, and is only participating in routine maritime exercises. For experts, this scaled-back presence underscores the gap between the two campaigns. “They’re very different situations, and it’s very difficult to see similar outcomes,” Finucane said. “A snatch-and-grab raid against Raúl Castro or someone who’s actually in a leadership position doesn’t seem like it’s going to have the same outcome in Cuba as in Venezuela.”

    Associated Press writer Andrea Rodríguez in Havana contributed reporting to this article.