Fifteen months following the October 7, 2023 attacks led by Hamas and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza, a sharp and alarming wave of physician emigration has emerged as a major threat to Israel’s public health infrastructure, a new study from the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) confirms.\n\nThe IMA conducted its survey across 32 Israeli hospitals and medical facilities, unveiling a steady outflow of doctors that senior health officials warn could carry irreversible consequences for the country’s healthcare network. The organization presented its findings at an emergency summit focused specifically on the growing physician exodus, convened shortly after Tel Aviv University released independent projections showing 1,369 Israeli physicians will leave the country for stays of one year or longer between 2023 and 2025.\n\nBeyond the minimum 50 doctors who have already relocated permanently abroad in the first 15 months after October 7, the IMA found an additional 53 physicians who left Israel to pursue specialized medical training overseas and have failed to return within the pre-agreed timeline. Israeli news outlet Ynet, which first broke news of the IMA survey this week, reports that key medical specialties have been disproportionately impacted by the brain drain, including gastroenterology, oncology, internal medicine and psychiatry.\n\nWhile initial analysis cited four core drivers of emigration — insecure domestic conditions, personal motivations, pursuit of career advancement and higher compensation — one senior Israeli psychiatrist speaking at the emergency meeting clarified that pay ranks far lower on the list of contributing factors than widely assumed. Instead, the top catalysts for departure are persistent instability, deep anxiety over children’s long-term safety and future, widespread professional burnout, and access to broader career opportunities overseas. The psychiatrist added that since October 7, Israeli healthcare providers have been overwhelmed by an unprecedented surge in demand for mental health support — including from doctors themselves, a strain that has directly pushed many to consider leaving.\n\nThis widespread mental health crisis is not an isolated issue: ERAN, an Israeli non-profit focused on providing emotional and psychiatric support, estimates that one in four Israelis have exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) over the past three years, and the organization has fielded hundreds of thousands of requests for assistance from distressed citizens.\n\nZion Hagay, IMA chairman, noted that the most popular destination countries for departing Israeli doctors are the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany, explaining that Israeli-trained physicians are in high demand across global healthcare markets. Hagay framed the ongoing emigration wave as nothing less than a strategic threat to Israel, and announced plans to launch a dedicated advocacy forum to persuade departed doctors to return to the country.\n\nThe outflow of doctors is part of a broader national trend of emigration, recent Tel Aviv University research confirms: nearly 270,000 Israelis have left the country since 2023, with highly educated professionals like doctors making up a disproportionate share of those departures. What makes the current wave particularly worrying for health officials is that it is not only early-career medical staff leaving; a growing share of experienced senior physicians are also departing. The Tel Aviv University study found that 20 percent of doctors who left between 2023 and 2025 are over the age of 45, totaling 270 senior experienced clinicians. That marks a notable jump from the 2013-2015 period, when just 14 percent of departing physicians were over 45.\n\nOverall, the rate of physician emigration between 2023 and 2025 has spiked 94 percent compared to the 2013-2015 period, when 705 doctors left the country over two years. The gap between growing demand for care and shrinking physician supply is set to widen dramatically in the coming years: Israel’s population grew 1.2 percent in the last Jewish year to reach roughly 10.3 million people, and the Israeli Ministry of Health projected last week that the country will need 32,000 specialist physicians by 2035, compared to just 20,000 currently practicing in public health facilities. Currently, 24 percent of specialist physicians working in Israeli public hospitals are already approaching retirement age, making the loss of senior clinicians even more damaging.\n\nOne senior Israeli health official explained that the departure of medical interns and early-career doctors undermines the long-term stability of the healthcare system, while the exit of senior specialists — who are responsible for training the next generation of Israeli clinicians — will gradually erode the high standard of care the system has long been known for.\n\nThe physician exodus compounds pre-existing challenges facing Israel’s healthcare system, beyond workforce shortages. In recent years, Palestinian Israeli physicians working within the system have faced a growing wave of racist harassment and exclusion, even amid widespread staffing gaps. Hardline Israeli politicians and commentators have openly pushed to reduce the number of Palestinian medical staff working in Israeli hospitals, with one prominent pundit claiming last month that Palestinian clinicians are “poisoning Jews.” For Palestinian medical students and recent graduates, the barriers to employment are even steeper: a recent report found that roughly 4,000 Palestinian medical graduates are unable to secure open positions in Israel’s healthcare system.
作者： admin
-
Turkey secures a strategic win over Greece as eastern Libya backs the maritime deal
A pivotal development has reshaped geopolitical dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean this week, as Libya’s Benghazi-based House of Representatives formally approved a long-stalled maritime boundary agreement with Turkey on Tuesday. In an official announcement posted to its website, the eastern legislative body also announced the revocation of a 2019 boycott targeting Ankara, a concrete signal of warming relations between Turkey and the eastern Libyan administration.
The original agreement was first signed in 2019 between Ankara and Libya’s UN-backed Government of National Accord based in Tripoli, crafted explicitly to push back against competing maritime claims advanced by Greece and Cyprus in the energy-rich Eastern Mediterranean. For years, the deal remained trapped in political limbo, held up by Libya’s decade-long division into two competing governing blocs: the internationally recognized administration in Tripoli, and the self-declared government in eastern Libya led by Libyan Arab Armed Forces commander Khalifa Haftar.
Over the past 18 months, however, Turkey has deliberately rebuilt diplomatic and economic ties with Haftar and his inner circle, particularly his son Saddam Haftar, a rising political figure in eastern Libya. Multiple sources familiar with the negotiations confirmed to Middle East Eye that the timing of the ratification—coinciding with a reported visit to Tripoli by Turkey’s intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin—was no accident. Kalin has cultivated deep personal connections with Haftar’s camp and drove the diplomatic push to finalize the agreement, the sources said.
For years, regional diplomatic observers have noted that Greece exerted relentless pressure on Haftar to block the deal, a move that would severely undermine Athens’ own expansive maritime claims in the region. But analysts note that Haftar’s calculus shifted as he sought to diversify his regional partnerships, and Turkey offered tangible benefits that Greece could not match.
“Turkey is a major regional power that can deliver significant support in the defense industry, open up new investment avenues, and help Haftar secure broader international legitimacy,” explained Bilgehan Ozturk, a non-resident fellow at the Doha-based Global Institute for Strategic Research. “Greece simply does not have those tools to offer.”
The ratification also comes on the heels of a major political shakeup in eastern Libya earlier this month, when Haftar forced out long-time House speaker Aguila Saleh and installed his ally Al-Salhin Abdelnabi al-Obeidi in the role. Diplomatic sources say the approval of the deal is the first major signal of the new legislative leadership’s alignment with Haftar’s shifted regional approach.
Tuesday’s vote builds on months of incremental diplomatic progress. Turkey has spearheaded diplomatic efforts alongside other regional powers to reconcile Libya’s rival political factions, culminating in a US-backed confidence-building agreement signed by both blocs in Tripoli this past August. That deal paves the way for national presidential and legislative elections to be held within the next two years, a major step toward ending years of political deadlock.
According to a Libya-based source involved in the negotiations, the ratification served as a critical confidence-building gesture from Haftar’s camp to prove its commitment to improved ties with Ankara. “This is just the beginning,” the source told MEE. “We will see major restructuring of Libya’s governing system in the coming months.”
The source added that a final unification deal, backed by the U.S. and its envoy Massad Boulos, would likely see current Tripoli-based prime minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh retain his post, while Haftar or one of his sons assume the presidency, merging the two rival administrations into a single national unity government.
Ozturk added that Turkey’s own recent diplomatic overtures to Egypt and Saudi Arabia — key backers of Haftar for years — have also created the space for Haftar to deepen ties with Ankara. “All regional actors are looking to keep their options open right now,” he noted.
The ratification follows a landmark visit by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan in early August, which saw Fidan travel to Tripoli and make the first ever visit by a senior Turkish diplomat to Benghazi, where he met with Haftar, his two sons Saddam and Belkacem, and then-speaker Aguila Saleh. Ankara framed the visit as a core part of its “One Libya” policy, which prioritizes the unification of the country’s competing institutions.
Regional analysts have described Tuesday’s vote as a transformative moment for both Libyan politics and Eastern Mediterranean geopolitics. “You cannot overstate how important this decision is. It is deeply strategic, and it will change the entire trajectory of the region,” said Jalel Harchaoui, a leading Libya expert at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute. He called the ratification a watershed moment in Libyan politics, creating an irreversible shift toward political reconciliation after more than a decade of division and intermittent conflict.
The deal also marks a major political win for Saddam Haftar, who Harchaoui confirmed is a rapidly rising power broker in eastern Libya. Harchaoui cautioned that the agreement will almost certainly trigger backlash from Greece, Cyprus, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates — all of which have long benefited from a frozen, divided conflict in Libya to advance their own strategic goals, including efforts to contain Turkish influence in the region.
The analyst also offered a cautiously optimistic outlook for neighboring Sudan, where the ongoing civil war has been partially funded by backers in eastern Libya. Harchaoui predicted that if the new political trajectory holds, Saddam Haftar will likely end his support for the Rapid Support Forces, the paramilitary group leading the ongoing offensive against Sudan’s civilian government.
-
Zelensky says US intelligence sharing ‘works now’ after talks with Trump envoy in Oslo
High-stake negotiations hosted in Oslo this week have marked a partial breakthrough in strained relations between Kyiv and Washington, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that U.S. intelligence sharing for early warnings of Russian missile and drone attacks is now functioning effectively. The resolution of this friction point came during closed-door talks between Zelensky and Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, clearing the way for the next phase of Western-backed peace efforts that will move to St. Petersburg when Witkoff meets Russian leadership on Wednesday.
The meeting in the Norwegian capital followed weeks of growing tensions between the two allies, after Kyiv publicly accused Washington of holding back critical intelligence that could protect Ukrainian civilians from deadly airstrikes. That claim was immediately dismissed as “scandalous” by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has pushed back on suggestions the Trump administration is deliberately withholding military support. A parallel dispute has also emerged over SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service, which Ukrainian military forces rely on for drone operations against Russian targets. Zelensky told reporters after the Oslo talks he remained hopeful for a positive resolution to recent reported speed restrictions on the platform, a issue that a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has already called for an urgent investigation into.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb, one of the co-hosts of the multilateral talks alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, announced that participants had made “genuine progress” on drafting a set of peace proposals, though he declined to share specific details and cautioned that a negotiated end to the three-year conflict will require significant patience. Støre also emphasized a core European demand: that European nations must be included at every stage of any peace talks, a position that comes amid growing concern across the continent over inconsistent signals from the Trump administration on its commitment to Ukraine’s security.
Witkoff did not appear at the joint press conference following Tuesday’s discussions, and the focus now turns to Moscow’s response to the drafted framework. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not yet issued a public comment on the latest developments, but Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already signaled the Kremlin’s opening stance: while it will hear out Witkoff’s proposals, it will not make any political concessions. Moscow currently retains control of roughly 20 percent of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory, three years after Putin launched a full-scale invasion of the country in 2022.
On the same day the Oslo talks were held, Russian forces continued their regular airstrike campaign, killing at least 10 civilians across Ukraine: four in and around Kyiv, four in the eastern Donetsk region, and two in the central city of Dnipro. The deadly attacks underscored the ongoing urgency of early warning intelligence that Zelensky highlighted, noting that timely alerts allow civilians to take shelter before incoming ballistic missiles strike.
The Oslo meeting was not the first round of backchannel talks between U.S. and Ukrainian representatives in recent weeks. Earlier this month, a Ukrainian delegation led by intelligence chief Rustem Umerov and lawmaker Davyd Arakhamia met Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in Miami. That meeting ended abruptly after the delegation learned Trump would lift U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel exports, allowing Moscow to ship more than 300,000 tons of diesel to the U.S. and global markets. Zelensky reacted to the decision by calling it a “happy birthday present” for Putin.
Recent weeks have seen a sharp downturn in public U.S.-Ukraine relations, with Trump repeatedly stating that it is time for Ukraine to negotiate an end to the war and even suggesting that Ukraine should replace its current leadership. Speaking to reporters at the White House after the Oslo talks, Trump reaffirmed his position that Kyiv should reach an agreement, saying Russia is also willing to finalize a deal and that the war must end. Ahead of upcoming U.S. midterm elections, Trump has also blamed Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries for rising U.S. fuel prices, a point echoed by Vice President JD Vance in comments this week that have alarmed European leaders.
Vance said Monday that he does not consider Ukraine a formal U.S. ally, noted it is not a NATO member and should not join the alliance, and said Washington and Kyiv hold divergent interests on multiple issues, including strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz echoed widespread European anxiety this week, saying there are “mixed pictures and messages” coming from Washington on the war. Merz told Bloomberg TV that Europe remains committed to supporting Ukraine despite the heavy budgetary burden, and is working to convince the U.S. administration that the conflict must be resolved jointly with European partners.
On the issue of U.S. military support, unconfirmed reports ahead of the Oslo talks suggested that the transfer of additional U.S.-made Patriot interceptor missiles – the only weapon system Ukraine currently has that can effectively shoot down Russian ballistic missiles – has not yet been approved by the Trump administration. Rubio, who is currently on an official visit to India, acknowledged that the new interceptors have not yet arrived in Ukraine but denied that Kyiv has been intentionally denied any requested military support. Zelensky added that he held a constructive discussion with Rubio ahead of the Oslo meeting on the need for early warning intelligence, additional Patriots, and a resolution to the Starlink restrictions.
-
Trump and Zelensky appear at loggerheads despite Oslo optimism
A warm opening hug between former U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Oslo this week did little to mask the growing rift at the highest levels of U.S.-Ukrainian relations, as a series of controversial policy shifts from the Trump administration have left Kyiv questioning Washington’s commitment to its war against Russian invasion.
The meeting, held in the Norwegian capital, comes after ten days of escalating public tension between Trump and Zelensky that has laid bare the fractious and unpredictable nature of their relationship. The two leaders have never enjoyed close ties, but recent exchanges have revealed a rupture deeper than any seen in years. Last week, Trump publicly attacked Zelensky in an interview with Newsmax, calling the Ukrainian leader “not a good guy” for the U.S. to work with. This week, he doubled down, dismissing Zelensky’s criticism of the U.S.-Russia diesel deal by saying “Zelensky doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
These harsh words are characteristic of Trump’s blunt, inconsistent approach to diplomacy, observers note. For instance, just four months after lambasting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in June 2025, calling him a leader with poor judgment, Trump publicly endorsed him ahead of Israel’s elections. “Trump can always do another U-turn,” explained Ian Bond of the Centre for European Reform, “But this does look bad.”
For his part, Zelensky has historically maintained a cautious public tone regarding his most unreliable yet critical partner, but this month his frustration has boiled over. Speaking to a visiting U.S. congressional delegation, Zelensky referenced “decisions on the American side that are hard to explain between friends” and openly voiced fears that Washington has made a political decision to slow down military support to Ukraine. Responding directly to Trump’s recent claim that he is the main barrier to a negotiated end to the war, Zelensky wrote on Telegram: “We have welcomed literally EVERY attempt by our partners to end this war with dignity.”
This is not the first time U.S.-Ukraine relations have hit a crisis point. After a high-profile public altercation between the two leaders in the Oval Office in February 2025, when Trump accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War III,” Washington temporarily suspended military aid and restricted intelligence sharing. That crisis was resolved in a week, and when the Trump administration later decided to end direct U.S. financing for military assistance to Ukraine, it established a mechanism for European nations to purchase U.S.-made military equipment on Kyiv’s behalf.
Today, however, the strains are being felt on the front lines of Ukraine’s air defense. One critical exception to the European funding model has been U.S.-made Patriot air defense missiles, which are badly needed by Kyiv to counter Russian ballistic missile attacks. Amid a global shortage of Patriot interceptors, supplies to Ukraine have slowed to a trickle. Citing an unnamed senior Ukrainian official, The Washington Post reported that only a handful of interceptors remain in Kyiv’s stockpile, and the Trump administration has delayed approval for U.S. allies to transfer their own Patriot stocks to Ukraine.
The most consequential policy shift that has angered Kyiv came earlier this month, when Trump announced a new deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to open U.S. markets to Russian diesel exports. While experts have questioned whether the deal will actually lower U.S. gasoline prices ahead of congressional midterm elections – widely seen as the primary political motivation for the agreement – it sent a clear signal that Washington is willing to prioritize its own political and economic interests over Ukraine’s concerns, particularly in the wake of Ukraine’s long-range strikes on Russian oil infrastructure. For Kyiv, the deal was a sharp rebuke.
Things got worse last Friday, when Trump waived a new round of sweeping sanctions on Russia that had been passed in the Graham Act – legislation named after late South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent and longtime supporter of Ukraine. Trump justified the move by arguing the sanctions would derail his efforts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, but Kyiv and its supporters see it as further evidence that the White House is aligning with the Kremlin. “What the Trump administration is doing is providing carrots to the Russians and sticks applied to the Ukrainians,” former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor told the BBC, adding “It’s inexplicable and saddening.” Senior Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev echoed that reading, calling the move “an important and truly historic moment,” a development that aligns with Moscow’s vision of closer U.S.-Russia ties promoted after the 2025 Trump-Putin summit in Anchorage.
Further eroding trust are unconfirmed allegations that the Trump administration has restricted intelligence sharing with Kyiv and limited Ukraine’s access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service, both critical tools for Ukraine’s defense against Russian drone and missile attacks. Zelensky told NBC News that for three days amid a wave of Russian ballistic attacks, Ukraine received no advance warning from U.S. satellite intelligence. On October 12, five Russian S-400 missiles hit central Kyiv before air raid sirens or mobile alerts could be activated, according to local reports. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has denied any intentional pause in intelligence sharing, blaming the gap on a temporary “software problem.”
Similar confusion surrounds Starlink access. Ukrainian officials reported last week that connection speeds have been throttled, leaving military terminals unable to maintain the stable high-speed connections needed to intercept fast-moving Russian jet-powered drones, which have launched an escalating wave of attacks on Ukrainian cities in recent months. Reuters reported that the order to restrict access originated at the White House, but Rubio has denied that any such order was issued. Even so, the repeated emergence of these allegations points to a deep and ongoing breakdown of trust between the two sides.
This long-running tension has deep roots. For more than a decade, Trump has harbored mistrust toward Ukraine, stemming from his debunked belief that Ukrainian officials interfered in the 2016 U.S. election to prevent him from winning, including the false claim that the Democratic National Committee stored a server on Ukrainian territory. When Zelensky took office in 2019, he resisted Trump’s demands to open investigations into both the 2016 election claims and then-candidate Joe Biden, a refusal that came as Trump was withholding $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine – a scandal that ultimately led to Trump’s first impeachment.
While it remains unclear whether this historical resentment is shaping current U.S. policy, there is no question that the already volatile U.S.-Ukraine relationship has entered another period of severe strain. Following the Oslo talks, Witkoff is set to carry a new set of Ukrainian proposals to St. Petersburg for talks with Putin, leaving the international community waiting for Moscow’s next move. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, who hosted the talks, said the meeting had helped “to straighten out a few things,” and struck a diplomatic tone, saying “There’s nothing to gain from… digging into what was said yesterday or a week ago.”
Zelensky struck an optimistic note after the talks, telling reporters he had a productive conversation with Secretary Rubio, that the early warning intelligence issue had already been resolved, and that he expected positive progress on both Patriot missile supplies and Starlink access. “I think we will have good results too,” he said. Even so, behind Zelensky’s carefully calibrated upbeat tone, it is clear that Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump are once again at odds, with the future of critical U.S. support for Ukraine hanging in the balance.
-
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wins dismissal of sister’s lawsuit
In a high-profile legal development tied to one of the technology industry’s most prominent leaders, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has secured a full dismissal of a sexual abuse lawsuit filed against him by his sister, Ann Altman, who brought decades-old allegations forward earlier this year. The case, which was filed in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, was thrown out with prejudice by District Judge Zachary Bluestone after Ann Altman repeatedly refused to comply with a court order requiring her to attend an independent medical examination – a requirement she was explicitly warned would result in dismissal if she failed to appear.
Ann Altman’s accusations dated back more than 20 years, claiming that Sam Altman, her older brother, had sexually abused her repeatedly between 1997 and 2006. She amended her claim to allege the abuse began when she was just three years old and Sam Altman was 12. Sam Altman has consistently and categorically denied all of these allegations.
In a joint statement released shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Sam Altman, his mother, and his two other brothers shared their side of the situation, noting that Ann Altman has long struggled with mental health challenges. The family confirmed that they have provided ongoing financial support to Ann for years, covering her monthly living costs, rent, and medical bills, while also continuously attempting to help her access appropriate mental health care. The family’s statement added that Ann’s accusations against Sam have shifted dramatically multiple times over the course of their public dispute, and that every claim she has made is “utterly untrue”. The family also asserted that the allegations emerged amid ongoing demands from Ann for increased financial support from the family.
In his formal written order dismissing the case, Judge Bluestone outlined that court officials had granted Ann Altman multiple accommodations and three separate opportunities to complete the required independent medical examination. Despite these repeated chances, she failed to appear for any of the scheduled appointments, and ultimately “failed to meaningfully prosecute her case”, the judge wrote. “Because Annie has continued to violate her discovery obligations and forced this case to a halt through her intransigence, the Court has run out of options and, thus, dismisses her claims with prejudice,” Bluestone’s order read. A dismissal with prejudice means Ann Altman cannot refile the same lawsuit against Sam Altman in the future.
Sam Altman is one of the most recognizable figures in global artificial intelligence, best known as the co-founder and CEO of OpenAI, the research and deployment company that launched the widely popular ChatGPT chatbot in 2022. ChatGPT’s launch sparked a global AI boom that has reshaped technology investment, business strategy, and public discourse around artificial intelligence.
For individuals impacted by sexual abuse issues discussed in this report, support resources are available through the BBC Action Line.
-
Trump sued over Canadian tariffs in latest legal challenge
A decades-old American food importing business is taking the Trump White House to court again over unilateral tariffs imposed on billions of dollars worth of Canadian goods, marking the fourth high-profile legal challenge to the administration’s aggressive trade policy by a conservative public interest law firm that has already defeated one set of sweeping levies.
The legal action comes after trade negotiations between Washington and Ottawa collapsed in August, prompting the Trump administration to implement a 50% tariff on roughly $20 billion in Canadian imports. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded with a dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariff matching the U.S. duties, targeting American goods including domestically produced cheese that Gellert Global Group, the plaintiff in the new case, sells to Canadian customers.
Headquartered in New Jersey, Gellert Global Group is a third-generation family-owned food industry firm that now faces double punishment from the transatlantic trade dispute: it pays the new 50% levy on Canadian cheese it brings into the United States, while also absorbing retaliatory Canadian tariffs on the U.S.-made cheese it exports to the north. In a statement Tuesday, co-chief executive Thomas Gellert emphasized that the company has spent decades cultivating trusted cross-border relationships with producers and customers, relationships that have been upended suddenly by the new levies. “These tariffs disrupt those relationships overnight and create costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain,” Gellert said.
Representing Gellert Global Group is the Liberty Justice Center, the same legal organization that successfully sued to block the Trump administration’s earlier “liberation day” import tariffs earlier this year. The new challenge was filed with the U.S. Court of International Trade, where attorneys are asking the court to rule the new Canadian tariffs unlawful, order the government to issue full refunds with accrued interest to affected importers, and block the collection of the duties immediately through a preliminary injunction.At the heart of the legal fight is the Trump administration’s reliance on Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, a nearly century-old provision designed to protect U.S. businesses from discriminatory trade practices by foreign governments. Attorneys for the Liberty Justice Center argue that this dormant provision does not grant the executive branch blanket authority to impose economy-wide tariffs whenever a bilateral trade dispute emerges. They also note that Section 338 requires a mandatory 30-day waiting period before new levies can take effect, but the administration added cheese and other goods to the tariff list just one week before collection began, violating this statutory requirement.
Further, the lawsuit argues that Section 338 has effectively been superseded by Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which sets out modern processes for addressing unfair foreign trade practices. Even if the 1930 provision were still valid, the administration failed to meet the legal threshold required to justify sweeping tariffs against Canada, the suit says. The case also challenges the administration’s justification for the levies, which relies on Canada’s retaliatory tariffs to trigger Section 338 protections. Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, stressed that the challenge is not a personal attack on former President Trump, but a defense of constitutional separation of powers. “No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required,” Albrecht said. She added that the core principle uniting all of the Liberty Justice Center’s challenges to Trump’s tariffs is clear: the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants the power to set tariffs to Congress, not the executive branch. “The executive branch cannot keep moving the same policy from one statute to another and pretend the limits disappear,” Albrecht said.
This marks the fourth tariff-related lawsuit the Liberty Justice Center has brought against the Trump administration, including its successful February 2025 challenge to tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which were ultimately struck down by the courts. The White House has not yet issued a public response to requests for comment on the new lawsuit. The legal challenge comes as the trade conflict between the U.S. and Canada escalates, with Trump sharing an AI-generated meme related to the trade dispute as analysts assess how much retaliatory pressure Canada can bring to bear on U.S. trade policy.
-
Nigeria confirms Ebola case linked to East Africa
A new chapter of uncertainty has opened for public health authorities across West Africa after Nigeria confirmed its first case of Ebola, linked to the ongoing deadly outbreak that has swept through East and Central Africa since May this year. The infected patient, a female who traveled from Uganda to Nigeria’s capital city of Abuja, has received a formal diagnosis through definitive laboratory testing, Nigeria’s Health Minister Muhammad Ali Pate announced.
Following her admission to an Abuja hospital, the patient has been placed in isolation and is currently receiving targeted medical care. Local and national health teams have already launched urgent contact tracing operations to monitor individuals who have had close interactions with the infected woman, with 44 close contacts already identified for monitoring.
This development marks the first confirmed Ebola case in a West African nation connected to the current outbreak centered in Central and East Africa. Notably, Nigeria brings prior experience to its response: the country successfully contained and eliminated an Ebola outbreak in 2014 that resulted in at least eight deaths, giving public health teams a foundation of knowledge for this new response.
Ebola is a rare but severe viral disease with a high mortality rate. As symptoms progress, patients typically develop vomiting and diarrhea, which can progress to organ failure. While not all patients experience bleeding, many develop internal and external hemorrhaging as the illness advances. Transmission occurs through direct contact with bodily fluids — including blood and vomit — from an infected individual.
According to data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the current outbreak, which originated in the Democratic Republic of Congo this past May, has already killed at least 4,600 people and recorded more than 9,500 confirmed cases. The outbreak is driven by the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola, an uncommon variant for which no specific vaccine or targeted treatment has yet received formal approval, though multiple clinical trials for countermeasures are currently in progress.
After the initial outbreak was declared in DRC, the virus spread to neighboring Uganda, where two people died from the disease. Uganda officially declared itself Ebola-free in August following the discharge of its last confirmed patient. The virus has since spread further to Kenya, where nine confirmed infections have been recorded. In response to the dual risks of Ebola and other security concerns, the United States issued a travel advisory on Monday urging its citizens to reconsider travel to Kenya due to elevated health risks.
In anticipation of a possible imported case, Nigeria had already ramped up cross-border and travel-related disease surveillance in recent months. The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control has issued clear public health guidance for international travelers, requiring anyone arriving from countries with active Ebola transmission to complete a mandatory health declaration form. Travelers from non-affected countries are currently exempt from this requirement. The agency has also urged all incoming travelers to remain alert for symptoms and seek immediate medical care if they develop any signs consistent with Ebola infection.
-
Ex-student says embattled Cornell University head doubted her gang-rape allegation
A high-stakes showdown over campus sexual assault policy and institutional leadership is unfolding at one of America’s most prestigious Ivy League universities, as Cornell faculty prepare to hold a rare no-confidence vote on President Michael Kotlikoff following explosive allegations from a former student who says she was gang-raped at a campus fraternity event.
The former student, identified only as Jane Doe to protect her privacy, filed a lawsuit last month alleging that she was assaulted by multiple men at a Chi Phi fraternity party held on campus in October 2024. All seven former fraternity members named in her allegation have denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed to date. Doe initially reported the incident to Cornell’s campus police in early November 2024, roughly three weeks after the party. Local prosecutors originally declined to pursue charges, but the criminal case has since been reopened, according to court and law enforcement records.
In a two-page letter dated October 14 and obtained by the BBC, Doe has leveled serious criticism against Kotlikoff’s response to her case. She told the Cornell Faculty Senate that she learned second-hand that during a January 2025 meeting with campus leaders, Kotlikoff questioned why she had waited so long to report the alleged assault. The question, she said, was relayed by multiple attendees, at least one of whom was visibly disturbed by the comment. Doe wrote that the president’s purported comment eroded her trust in the university administration, which she had long viewed as her dream school. “It diminished my confidence in the administration’s ability to approach my experience with the understanding, sensitivity, and fairness I had hoped for and expected,” she noted.
Doe penned the letter specifically to inform faculty ahead of their scheduled October 28 vote on whether to issue a vote of no confidence in Kotlikoff, who has served as the leader of the upstate New York-based Ivy League institution for 26 years. The vote will mark an extraordinary rebuke of a sitting university president, brought forward by academic staff over what they describe as systemic failure to address campus sexual misconduct.
Cornell officials have pushed back firmly against Doe’s account of the meeting. In an official statement to the BBC, a university spokesperson called the second-hand description of Kotlikoff’s comment “incorrect”, citing a documented first-hand account of the January 2025 gathering. The spokesperson clarified that Kotlikoff’s question about a reporting delay was directed at bystanders who knew about the incident and discussed it on social media throughout October 2024 but failed to use Cornell’s anonymous tip line to report it. “He was not questioning Jane Doe’s reporting,” the spokesperson emphasized.
The controversy came to a head during a tense Faculty Senate meeting last Wednesday, where Kotlikoff faced intense questioning from assembled professors and academic staff. Audio recordings of the meeting obtained by the BBC show that multiple faculty members said they were “deeply disturbed” by Kotlikoff’s handling of the case, and accused him of lacking an appropriate emotional response to the allegations.
In his defense during the meeting, Kotlikoff highlighted policy changes the university has implemented in response to Doe’s allegations, including a full ban on fraternity parties on campus. “We are all extraordinarily upset by the events at Cornell in October of 2024,” he told the senate.
Faculty sponsors of the no-confidence resolution argue that the handling of Doe’s case is just one symptom of a long-running systemic problem of sexual misconduct on Cornell’s campus that has been ignored by senior leadership. Paul Ortiz, a labor history professor who put forward the no-confidence motion, told the senate that multiple students have reported feeling unsafe on campus, even in routine situations like walking to the library after dark. Ortiz accused the university administration of framing the alleged assault and broader sexual misconduct issues “as more of a ‘PR problem’ than a heinous crime”, arguing that only systemic change can address the crisis. Faculty leaders have framed the upcoming vote as a pivotal moment for the university to confront its long-standing failures to protect students from sexual violence.
-
Exclusive: Full text of the Mecca defence pact signed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
On Tuesday, the Turkish government formally transmitted the full text of a landmark mutual defence agreement, the Mecca Defence Pact, to the country’s national parliament for ratification. The 16-article accord, first signed in August by the governments of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, establishes a new collective defence alliance structured around mutual security guarantees that echo the core principle of NATO’s Article 5.
The full text of the agreement, obtained in an exclusive report by Middle East Eye, does not name any specific nation or geographic region as an explicit threat to the three signatory states. Instead, the pact’s opening articles anchor its core commitment to collective security. The first article mandates that if any member’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, or internationally recognized borders face threat or danger, all parties will deploy every necessary measure to neutralize that risk. The second article goes further, clarifying that any external armed attack against one signatory will be treated as an attack against all three.
In the event of military aggression against any member, the agreement requires all parties to provide immediate assistance to the targeted state, utilizing all available mutual support capabilities at their disposal. The scope and nature of this support will be determined following an objective assessment of the attacked party’s needs, with all cooperation aligned to each member’s available resources, including military assets and operational capabilities.
Beyond the core collective defence commitment, the pact outlines a broad framework for deepening multi-faceted security cooperation between the three nations. Provisions include joint development of domestic defence industries, standardized training for armed forces, cross-supply of military equipment, fuel and other critical defence material, and the establishment of formal protocols for cross-border intelligence sharing.
A key structural feature of the alliance is its indefinite duration: the agreement has no fixed expiration date. Withdrawal is only permitted after the pact has been in force for 10 years, and any member seeking to exit must provide written notification of their intent to the other signatories no less than three months in advance.
The full text of the accord opens by grounding the alliance in foundational principles aligned with the United Nations Charter and international law, including mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and the inviolability of internationally recognized borders. Signatories emphasize their shared commitment to advancing regional and global peace and security, deepening coordinated counter-terrorism efforts, and aligning policy positions on shared international interests within multilateral organizations.
To govern the alliance’s operations, the agreement establishes a permanent Strategic Political and Defence Committee, composed of each member’s foreign minister, defence minister, and chief of general staff. The committee is tasked with setting strategic direction for the alliance, advancing security cooperation, and resolving implementation challenges. It is scheduled to meet twice annually, with rotating host duties among the three members, and annual leader-level summits can be convened if required. A permanent Secretariat will be based in Saudi Arabia, led by a Secretary-General that rotates every three years among the core parties; the first Secretary-General will be a Pakistani national. The committee also holds the authority, via consensus, to set terms for the accession of additional future members.
Additional provisions cover logistical support during peace, war, and emergencies, confidentiality protocols for classified information (obligations that remain in force even if a member withdraws), mechanisms for amicable dispute resolution, and rules for amending the pact via unanimous core party agreement. The accord will enter into force once all three original signatories complete their domestic ratification processes and deposit the final ratification instrument with the alliance Secretariat, and any pre-existing international obligations of member states remain unaffected by the new agreement.
-
Burnham rejects Corbyn’s call for public inquiry into ‘British complicity’ in Gaza genocide
The current UK government led by Prime Minister Andy Burnham has turned down a high-profile demand from independent MP and former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to launch an independent public investigation into alleged British complicity in Israel’s military operations in Gaza that have sparked global humanitarian outrage.
Corbyn first tabled a legislative proposal in July, shortly after Keir Starmer stepped down as UK Prime Minister, reviving a bill that had already been voted down during its second reading in Parliament by Starmer’s outgoing administration. Modeled after the landmark 2016 Chilcot Inquiry into the 2003 Iraq War, the bill calls for a full public probe into all dimensions of British military, economic, and political collaboration with Israel throughout its ongoing offensive in Gaza, which first began in October 2023.
Specifically, the bill seeks to examine the UK government’s ongoing supply of weapons and surveillance aircraft to Israel, as well as Israel’s repeated use of United Kingdom Royal Air Force bases for operations tied to the Gaza campaign. In his letter to Burnham sent in July, Corbyn explicitly urged the new prime minister to reverse the previous government’s position and throw his support behind the independent inquiry push.
However, responding to a parliamentary written question on Monday, Burnham’s government confirmed it would not back the proposal. The administration argued that an ad-hoc independent inquiry is unnecessary, claiming that the UK already maintains a robust system of parliamentary accountability and oversight to review government actions related to the conflict.
In a public statement released the following day, Corbyn pushed back against the government’s decision, noting that Burnham himself had previously acknowledged that the last Labour government’s stance on Gaza was incorrect. “However, his words will mean very little if he doesn’t break with the last government’s shameful record of complicity, secrecy and evasion,” Corbyn said.
Verified on-the-ground data confirms that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 74,480 people to date, with widespread documentation of forced displacement that international observers have labeled ethnic cleansing of Palestinian residents from their homes across multiple areas of the besieged territory. Beyond arms exports, the UK has openly acknowledged that Royal Air Force aircraft have carried out hundreds of surveillance sorties over Gaza, and that British intelligence has been shared with Israeli forces to support their operations.
“Delaying scrutiny will not make questions about British complicity in genocide disappear,” Corbyn emphasized in his statement. “The public deserve to know the full extent of Britain’s military, economic and political cooperation with Israel, including arms supplies, surveillance flights and the use of RAF bases. It’s not complicated: if the government has nothing to hide, then why block our efforts to expose the truth?”
This reporting was originally distributed by Middle East Eye, a media outlet that provides independent, on-the-ground coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa, and wider global regions connected to the conflict.