Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • 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.

  • Russia’s Putin vows retaliation after accusing Ukraine of hitting student dormitory

    Russia’s Putin vows retaliation after accusing Ukraine of hitting student dormitory

    A recent drone strike on the occupied Ukrainian town of Starobilsk has escalated cross-border tensions, with Russian authorities accusing Kyiv of targeting a civilian student dormitory and Ukrainian forces confirming the attack as a strike on an elite Russian military unit.

    According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the overnight three-wave assault using 16 drones left six people dead, 39 wounded, and 15 others unaccounted for as of Friday. Putin emphatically rejected any suggestion that the damage to the building could have resulted from Russian air defense or electronic warfare countermeasures, claiming no military infrastructure was located near the collapsed structure in Luhansk Oblast. He has formally ordered Russia’s military leadership to draft immediate proposals for retaliation against Ukraine.

    Local officials installed by the Kremlin have released visual evidence showing the extent of the destruction, with emergency response teams combing through collapsed concrete rubble for survivors. Russian state media has also featured an interview with a 19-year-old identified as an injured student, Diana Shovkun, though no imagery has been released of the people Moscow says were killed in the incident.

    Kyiv’s account of the strike differs sharply from Moscow’s narrative. Ukraine’s military has openly acknowledged carrying out the attack, but says the target was the headquarters of Russia’s elite Rubicon drone unit. The Ukrainian statement adds that Rubicon forces have repeatedly launched attacks on Ukrainian civilian populations and infrastructure, and that Ukrainian military operations strictly follow international humanitarian law and the established customs of war.

    The Starobilsk strike follows just one day after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced another successful strike on Russian-occupied territory: a hit on a Federal Security Service (FSB) headquarters in Moscow-controlled southern Kherson Oblast. Zelensky claimed that the strike left roughly 100 Russian occupying personnel dead or injured. Russia’s military has not issued any official comment on the Kherson attack, though a pro-Kremlin Telegram channel has acknowledged unspecified casualties following what it described as a large-scale drone assault.

    Independent verification of either side’s claims has not been possible, as the BBC notes it cannot confirm details of the Starobilsk incident on the ground. This exchange of strikes comes amid a long-running war of words over civilian casualties that stretches back to the start of Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine has repeatedly documented and condemned what it says are deliberate Russian strikes on civilian targets, a charge the Kremlin consistently denies. Just one week prior, Ukrainian officials reported that a Russian missile strike on a multi-story residential apartment building in Kyiv killed 24 people, including three young girls.

  • Sadiq Khan cancels Met police Palantir contract, with pressure to end all links to AI firm

    Sadiq Khan cancels Met police Palantir contract, with pressure to end all links to AI firm

    London Mayor Sadiq Khan has scrapped a planned £50 million AI intelligence partnership between the Metropolitan Police and U.S. tech firm Palantir Technologies, a move that has drawn cautious praise from pro-Palestine advocacy groups and British Green Party politicians who warn that unchallenged smaller existing contracts between the force and the controversial company still stand.

    Khan’s official rejection of what would have been Palantir’s largest ever UK law enforcement contract came on Thursday, with the mayor citing a clear, serious violation of UK public sector procurement protocols as the core justification for the decision. Under existing London governance rules, any Metropolitan Police spending exceeding £500,000 requires formal sign-off from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac), the independent oversight body tasked with ensuring legislative compliance and transparent public spending.

    According to Khan’s announcement during Mayor’s Question Time, Mopac identified multiple critical red flags during its review of the proposed deal. The Metropolitan Police failed to submit its full procurement strategy for pre-approval from the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, as required under Mopac’s formal delegation rules. Instead, the force advanced procurement negotiations all the way to the final contract award stage before requesting oversight approval. Beyond procedural violations, Khan’s office added that the agreement failed to demonstrate guaranteed value for taxpayer money and would have left the force locked into a long-term proprietary technological dependence on Palantir.

    The proposed £50m deal was intended to deploy Palantir’s artificial intelligence tools to automate criminal investigation intelligence analysis, but the company has long faced widespread condemnation for its deep ties to the Israeli government and military. In January 2024, after Israel launched its large-scale military campaign in Gaza, Palantir signed a formal contract with Israel’s Ministry of Defense to provide technology for “war-related missions”. Company CEO Alex Karp has openly acknowledged strong demand for Palantir’s services following the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, and the firm’s board held a high-profile meeting in Tel Aviv explicitly framed as an act of solidarity with Israel. Human rights advocates directly link Palantir’s surveillance and AI tools to Israeli military operations in Gaza that have been labeled as genocide by multiple advocacy groups and global political bodies.

    Even before the proposed £50m deal, the Metropolitan Police had already secured a series of smaller, lower-value contracts with Palantir that fall just under the £500,000 threshold that triggers mandatory Mopac oversight, a structure that critics say was intentionally designed to avoid public scrutiny. The force launched an initial pilot program with a £10,000 contract, later extending the arrangement for three months at a cost of just under £490,000, bringing the total value to just under the oversight threshold. Under the pilot, Palantir’s AI is already being used to analyze data stored on Met officers’ personal devices, a policy that has drawn fierce criticism from the Metropolitan Police Federation, the union representing Met officers. In late April, the federation warned officers to be “extremely cautious” about carrying their work-issued devices while off duty, arguing that the AI monitoring has severely eroded officer trust in force leadership and sent already plummeting morale even lower.

    During a Wednesday meeting of the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee, Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes defended the force’s choice to partner with Palantir for the pilot, noting that the firm is already an approved supplier on the UK government’s G-Cloud 14 procurement framework and is widely used across multiple British government departments. Jukes acknowledged that Palantir is a “divisive supplier” from a reputational standpoint, but emphasized that the company’s existing use across 72 NHS trusts and its status on national government frameworks made it a qualified choice for the Met. When asked whether Palantir had offered the pilot at a discounted rate to intentionally avoid crossing the oversight threshold, Jukes said the full cost of the pilot had been clearly documented.

    Reaction to Khan’s decision to block the £50m deal has been mixed, with human rights and pro-Palestine groups welcoming the move while pushing for further action to cancel all existing Met contracts with Palantir. Amnesty International UK campaigns manager Kristyan Benedict called the cancellation “positive news”, noting that Palantir tools are currently deployed by the Israeli military during its military campaign in Gaza. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), which has led widespread advocacy against the deal, credited its grassroots campaigning for pushing Khan to reject the contract, arguing that “Palantir supplies Israel with AI and surveillance technology used in its genocide in Gaza. It should not receive a penny of public money.” The group is now calling on Khan to go a step further and cancel the existing nearly £500,000 pilot contract, and is demanding the UK government scrap all national public sector contracts with Palantir, including a £330m deal with NHS England to build and maintain a national patient data platform that has been opposed by health workers, patients and human rights organizers across the country.

    Green Party London Assembly member Benali Hamdache, who first raised public questions about the Palantir partnership, also welcomed the cancellation of the large contract, but echoed calls to end existing agreements. “It’s good that this £50 million contract was blocked, but the Met still has contracts with Palantir worth nearly £500,000 that haven’t been challenged,” Hamdache said in a statement to Middle East Eye. He added that the current procurement rules, which allow deals under £500,000 to bypass mayoral oversight, create dangerous loopholes that could allow similar controversial agreements to move forward in the future. Hamdache also pointed to additional red flags around Palantir, including the company’s work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration enforcement operations, and a recent public manifesto adapted from Karp’s writings that openly espouses far-right ideological positions and defends high-profile far-right figures including Elon Musk.

    Palantir already holds nearly $1 billion in total contracts across multiple UK government bodies, including the Ministry of Defence, NHS, and multiple regional police forces. Founded by high-profile Donald Trump supporter Peter Thiel, the firm has faced growing grassroots resistance across the UK over its human rights record and geopolitical ties. Critics argue that the current case exposes deep flaws in UK public procurement rules that allow controversial contractors to split large projects into smaller agreements to avoid oversight and public accountability.

  • Trump is putting pressure on Cuba – why and to what end?

    Trump is putting pressure on Cuba – why and to what end?

    Decades of fragile, strained relations between the United States and Cuba have plunged to new lows in recent weeks, following a series of aggressive moves by the second Trump administration that have put the Caribbean nation on high alert for potential military intervention.

    Since his return to the White House, US President Donald Trump has openly stated his goal of ousting Cuba’s current ruling leadership, even speculating publicly that the island’s government is on the brink of collapse. In March, he claimed Cuba was mired in deep crisis and teased the possibility of a so-called “friendly takeover” of the country. While no formal military invasion plans have been announced, heightened surveillance activity in the region has amplified Cuban anxieties. Over the past seven days, US military aircraft have intentionally kept their flight transponders active while operating near Cuban airspace, broadcasting their positions publicly on global flight-tracking platforms. Dr. Steve Wright, a UK-based expert in unmanned aerial and surveillance technology, called the choice to leave transponders enabled almost certainly intentional, noting the move is designed to send an unambiguous message that US intelligence maintains constant oversight of the island as it ramps up pressure.

    The most provocative recent US action came this week, when federal prosecutors unsealed an unprecedented murder and conspiracy indictment against 94-year-old Raúl Castro, Cuba’s former president and the symbolic “Leader of the Cuban Revolution.” The charges stem from a 1996 incident in which Cuban fighter jets shot down two small civilian aircraft operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-based Cuban exile group. Four people, three of them US citizens, were killed in the incident. Washington has long maintained the planes were shot down over international waters, while Cuba has consistently argued the aircraft entered its sovereign airspace after repeated incursions that posed a national security threat. Along with Raúl Castro, five other Cuban figures face charges including conspiracy to kill US nationals, murder, and destruction of US aircraft; a conviction could carry a life sentence or the death penalty. Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche said the charges reflected that the US “does not, and will not, forget its citizens,” but Cuban leaders have denounced the indictment as a baseless political gambit to justify military action. Cuba’s current president Miguel Díaz-Canel called the prosecution “a political manoeuvre, devoid of any legal foundation,” reaffirming that the 1996 downing was a legitimate act of self-defense within Cuban national waters.

    Experts and Cuban officials note the indictment is a deliberate strike at the heart of Cuba’s ruling structure. While Díaz-Canel formally holds both the presidency and leadership of the Cuban Communist Party, the Castro name remains the most powerful symbolic and political force on the island, commanding deep loyalty within the military and security services that dominate Cuban politics and economics. Raúl Castro, who led the country from 2008 to 2018 after decades as defense minister under his older brother Fidel, remains the figurehead of the 1959 revolution that established the island’s anti-imperialist, one-party communist system. The Cuban military’s sprawling conglomerate GAESA controls most of the island’s key economic assets, underpinning the power of the ruling political-military elite. In a recent video address to the Cuban people, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that GAESA operates as a “state within a state,” controlled by a corrupt, incompetent elite that blocks reform and any potential rapprochement with the US. Rubio confirmed that the White House prefers a diplomatic resolution to the current standoff, but said Trump retains the right and obligation to respond to any purported US national security threat, adding that the probability of reaching a peaceful agreement is “not high.” Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez has dismissed Rubio’s comments as an attempt to “instigate a military aggression.”

    Beyond the legal charges, the most impactful pressure on Cuba has come from a total US oil blockade and sweeping new sanctions that have crippled the island’s already fragile economy. For years, Venezuela and Mexico supplied the vast majority of Cuba’s crude oil and fuel, but both halted shipments after the Trump administration removed Venezuela’s sitting president in January and threatened tariffs on any country that sent petroleum to Havana. Since the blockade was implemented, only one Russian oil tanker has successfully delivered fuel to the island, leaving Cuba facing chronic fuel shortages that have sparked months of widespread, hours-long blackouts across the country. Shortages of food, medicine, and basic goods have also reached crisis levels, forcing hospitals to scale back critical care and forcing schools and government offices to close repeatedly. Public discontent has boiled over into repeated street protests across the capital Havana, including a demonstration this week where demonstrators blocked roads with burning debris and chanted anti-government slogans. This month, the US added new sanctions targeting senior Cuban officials in the energy, defense, finance, and security sectors, accusing them of human rights abuses and corruption.

    Washington has also offered $100 million in humanitarian aid to Cuba, but attached strict conditions requiring the aid be distributed through the Catholic Church and independent non-governmental organizations, completely bypassing the Cuban government. The Trump administration says Cuba has rejected the aid, but Rodríguez countered that Cuba does not refuse assistance offered in good faith, and the most meaningful help the US could provide would be lifting the blockade entirely.

    Unconfirmed intelligence reports published by US news outlet Axios have further escalated tensions, claiming that Cuba holds roughly 300 combat drones and is planning potential strikes on US targets including the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Key West, Florida, and US naval vessels operating in the region. The report also claimed Iranian military advisors are present in Havana, an allegation Cuban officials have dismissed as part of a fabricated pretext for military intervention. Rodríguez has repeatedly emphasized that Cuba “neither threatens nor desires war” but is fully prepared to repel any external aggression.

    Backchannel talks between the two governments were confirmed by both sides in March, but Cuba has so far responded only with formal public condemnation of US actions, characterizing the entire campaign as “collective punishment” of the Cuban people. Two of Cuba’s key international allies, China and Russia, have both spoken out against US actions, with Beijing calling on Washington to end its coercion and threats, and the Kremlin saying the pressure on Cuba “borders on violence.” As the blockade continues and rhetoric hardens on both sides, the Caribbean faces one of its most severe security crises in decades.