Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • US judge drops bribery and fraud case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani

    US judge drops bribery and fraud case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani

    A high-profile transnational legal saga centered on one of India’s wealthiest business magnates has reached an abrupt conclusion after a federal judge in the United States approved the Justice Department’s request to dismiss all criminal bribery and fraud charges against Adani Group chair Gautam Adani. While the case is now permanently closed, the ruling left behind sharp public criticism of the unusual behind-the-scenes process that led to the dismissal, raising lingering questions about procedural fairness and equal application of the rule of law.

    The case dates back to 2024, when federal prosecutors brought charges alleging Adani had paid millions in bribes to senior Indian government officials to secure approvals for large-scale renewable energy projects, while intentionally misleading American investors about the illegal practice. From the outset of the proceedings, Adani and all Adani Group entities have forcefully denied any and all wrongdoing, and maintained that stance through the conclusion of the case.

    On Monday, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis formally granted the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the indictment in a 47-page written ruling. The decision to drop the case came after senior department official R. Trent McCotter, principal associate deputy attorney general, collaborated directly with Adani’s defense team to craft the dismissal request — a move that cut out the line prosecutors and FBI and SEC investigators who had spent months building the criminal case.

    In his ruling, Judge Garaufis did not mince words in condemning the irregular process. He described the arrangement as “highly unusual,” noting that McCotter had overstepped to replace the independent judgment of the career law enforcement officials directly involved in the investigation with his own. “The irregularities in the decision to dismiss the indictment are concerning,” Garaufis wrote in the official order. While he ultimately concluded that there was no direct evidence that Adani’s November 2024 pledge to invest $10 billion in U.S. infrastructure projects and create 15,000 jobs — announced in a post congratulating Donald Trump on his presidential election victory — influenced the Justice Department’s call, he acknowledged that the public retains the right to draw its own conclusions about how these backchannel discussions could shape public trust in equal justice.

    The Justice Department first formally requested dismissal of the charges in May of this year. Department officials argued that most of the alleged misconduct occurred outside U.S. borders, making successful prosecution extremely challenging, and added that pursuing the case no longer aligned with the agency’s current prosecutorial priorities. The request came only after Adani assembled a high-powered new legal team led by Robert J. Giuffra Jr., co-chair of elite Washington law firm Sullivan & Cromwell and a longtime personal attorney to former President and current President-elect Donald Trump. Multiple reports confirm Giuffra met with senior Justice Department officials earlier this year to push back on the case and raise the defense’s objections. Judge Garaufis initially rejected the department’s first dismissal request in June, writing that the agency’s explanation for abandoning the prosecution was insufficient and ordering additional disclosures to clarify the decision-making process.

    While the criminal charges are now dismissed with prejudice — a legal designation that means they can never be refiled against Adani — this case is not the only ongoing U.S. legal action involving the billionaire and his conglomerate. Earlier this year in May, Adani agreed to pay a $6 million civil penalty, and his nephew Sagar Adani agreed to a $12 million penalty, to settle civil disclosure allegations brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, without admitting or denying the agency’s claims. Separately, Adani Enterprises, the Adani Group’s flagship publicly traded company, reached a $275 million settlement to resolve potential civil liability over apparent violations of U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran.

    Adani, 64, who never appeared in any U.S. court during the criminal proceedings, issued a public statement welcoming the ruling, writing on social media platform X that “Throughout this challenging period, our faith in truth, fairness and the rule of law remained unwavering.” He added that he accepted the court’s order with humility and deep respect for the U.S. judicial process. A well-connected tycoon, Adani chairs a sprawling multinational conglomerate with core holdings in ports, energy, airports, and large-scale infrastructure across India and beyond, and is widely recognized as one of the richest men in India, with long-documented personal and political ties to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who hails from the same western Indian state of Gujarat.

  • A burial row over Zambia’s late president has turned its election into a hot contest

    A burial row over Zambia’s late president has turned its election into a hot contest

    As Zambia prepares for its general election on 13 August, the Southern African nation faces one of its most unpredictable electoral contests in modern history, shaped by an unresolved political dispute, widespread economic frustration, and sweeping constitutional reforms that have redefined the race.

    At the center of the campaign’s lingering tension is the legacy of former President Edgar Lungu, who died in South Africa over a year ago. More than 12 months after his passing, Lungu’s body remains unburied, trapped in a bitter public standoff between incumbent President Hakainde Hichilema and the Lungu family. The dispute has sharpened deep political divides across the country, reinvigorating opposition momentum in regions that were once strongholds of Lungu’s Patriotic Front (PF).

    When Lungu first passed away, court rulings had already barred him from seeking another term due to term limits, and his death initially appeared to clear a smooth path to re-election for Hichilema, who defeated Lungu by a landslide in the 2021 contest on a platform of systemic economic change. Instead, the PF fractured after Lungu’s passing, with dozens of politicians and loyalists defecting to opposition groups. This fragmentation accelerated the consolidation of a unified opposition bloc behind Brian Mundubile, a 55-year-old lawyer, accountant, and former government chief whip under Lungu.

    Running as the presidential candidate for the opposition National Reconciliation Party for Unity and Prosperity (NRPUP) as part of the broader Tonse-Pamodzi Alliance, Mundubile has seen a meteoric late surge in popularity just months after filing his nomination papers in May. He has tapped into long-held loyalty to Lungu in the country’s northern strongholds and widespread public anger over stagnant living standards to build his campaign. Mundubile’s running mate, Makebi Zulu, is a lawyer closely linked to the Lungu family, and the candidate has publicly pledged to arrange a dignified burial for the former president if he wins office – a promise that has resonated deeply with voters frustrated by the ongoing impasse.

    Mundubile has centered his campaign on generational inclusion, framing his candidacy as a break from the old guard of Zambian politics. “We are moving the women and the youth from the margins to the centre of policy and economic transformation,” he told the BBC. “We believe the youths have solutions to most of their challenges. What they don’t have is a big brother, what they don’t have is a caring government to be able to assist them achieve their objectives and goals. So I’m positioning myself as president as big brother to the youth.”

    For Hichilema, the contest is a fight to defend his administration’s record as he seeks a second five-year term leading his United Party for National Development (UPND). When Hichilema took office in 2021, Zambia was crippled by sovereign debt distress, with the government defaulting on billions in external payments. His administration spearheaded a landmark restructuring of more than $13 billion in foreign debt, unlocking roughly $1.9 billion in annual savings that the president says have been redirected to public investments including free primary and secondary education.

    Under Hichilema’s term, copper production – Zambia’s core economic backbone – has rebounded sharply, foreign currency reserves have climbed to record highs, annual inflation has fallen to 6.6% (its lowest level in eight years), and the kwacha has strengthened against major global currencies. The administration has also hired thousands of new teachers and health workers, sharply increased constituency development funding, and cut the national unemployment rate from 13% to 11% over four years. After a severe 2024-2025 drought slashed hydropower generation and triggered nationwide blackouts lasting up to 20 hours a day, the government ramped up costly electricity imports and accelerated utility-scale solar projects, easing outages in recent months.

    Supporters argue the president has laid solid macroeconomic foundations for long-term growth that will deliver widespread benefits over time. “I think opportunities have been increased, looking at the number of people who have been employed – it has increased amongst civil servants. And, opportunities have just increased,” one young woman hoping to join the teaching profession told reporters.

    Yet for millions of ordinary Zambian voters, these macroeconomic gains have not translated into tangible relief from daily economic pressure. Across Lusaka’s busy city markets, on street corners, and in shared minibus taxis, the dominant conversation remains the crippling cost of living. Global post-pandemic inflation and geopolitical shocks have sent food and energy prices soaring across the continent, and Zambia has not been spared. For example, cooking oil prices have jumped more than 70% over the past five years.

    Given Kangwa, a 27-year-old flour mill worker in Lusaka City Market, explained that his 3,000 kwacha ($157) monthly salary is barely enough to cover basic expenses for his household. “The cost of living, I cannot say is okay,” he said. “Where I work, for example, the money we are getting paid is not enough and we cannot sustain our lives.” Theresa Zulu, a street-food vendor, echoed that frustration, saying bluntly: “Money has become so hard to come by. We are trying to stay strong to survive, but things have become really hard for us.”

    Memories of the months-long blackouts also remain fresh for many voters, even as outages have eased. Critics of Hichilema add that the benefits of economic recovery have yet to reach most working-class families, and civil society groups have raised concerns that the administration has silenced opposition voices, with several opposition figures convicted of hate speech in recent years. Even some voters who reject a return of the old PF government cite ongoing economic hardship as a reason to question backing the incumbent. “Because we gave them a chance to rule the country and we saw what they did,” Edith Muntanga, a voter in her late 30s, said of the previous government, but added that daily costs remained a top concern.

    This 2026 election is also the first to be held under sweeping constitutional reforms enacted in late 2025, designed to increase representation for underrepresented groups in parliament. The amendments created a mixed-member proportional system for the National Assembly, expanding total constituency seats from 156 to 226, and adding 40 additional reserved seats: 20 for women, 15 for youth under 35, and 5 for people with disabilities. Despite the reforms to boost gender representation in national politics, just one of the 14 cleared presidential candidates on the 13 August ballot is a woman: independent candidate Given Katuta.

    With 14 candidates vying for the presidency, political analysts widely predict that no candidate will cross the 50%+1 vote threshold required to win outright in the first round, triggering a second round runoff within 37 days of the initial vote. Civil society organizations have also raised questions about the integrity of the electoral process, with prominent human rights activist and former Law Association of Zambia president Linda Kasonde arguing that multiple electoral commission members have close ties to the ruling UPND, undermining public confidence in the body’s independence. “In terms of the constitution of the electoral commission itself, a number of the members of the commission are actually politically aligned to the incumbent ruling party and are not seen to be independent,” Kasonde said. The electoral commission has repeatedly rejected claims of bias, asserting it operates strictly within its constitutional mandate and upholds core principles of transparency and independence.

    For weeks, the streets of Lusaka have been saturated with campaign energy: the hum of daily market activity is layered over the sound of opposition and ruling party campaign jingles, and candidate posters line lamp posts, shop fronts, and towering billboards across the capital. More than 8.2 million registered voters are eligible to cast their ballots on 13 August, choosing not just a president but a new 266-seat parliament. Zambia has a long, proud history of peaceful elections and democratic transfers of power, a legacy all parties have invoked repeatedly on the campaign trail. But this year, a combination of economic frustration, lingering political tension over Lungu’s unburied remains, and questions about institutional integrity have created a deeply fragmented race with an outcome that remains too close to call. As voters weigh the macroeconomic gains of the last five years against the daily struggles that shape their households, Zambians will deliver their verdict on 13 August.

  • Trump asks Iran for war reparations in new tit-for-tat demand

    Trump asks Iran for war reparations in new tit-for-tat demand

    In a tit-for-tat response to Iran’s recent demand for war reparations as a condition to reopen the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, former and current U.S. President Donald Trump announced Monday he will make Iranian compensation for the deaths of American service members a core requirement for any future peace negotiations between the two nations.

    Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump pushed back against Iranian officials’ calls for payments to repair damage inflicted during the five-month military conflict between the two countries – a war Trump has framed as necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. “I see that Representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran are asking for compensation for the damage done to them during the last five-month Military Conflict (started because, THEY WILL NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON), even though it was never mentioned in any of our negotiations or meetings!” Trump’s post read.

    In line with his longstanding pattern of matching Iranian demands with reciprocal claims, Trump immediately extended his counter-demand far beyond the scope of the current ongoing war. The U.S. leader is seeking reparations for attacks on American troops spanning more than 20 years, dating back to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. These include attacks that global intelligence and defense communities widely attribute to Iranian-backed militant groups, including roadside bombings that U.S. officials claim were orchestrated by legendary Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps General Qassem Soleimani. Beginning in the mid-2000s, during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, Iran began supplying lethal roadside explosive devices to Shia militias opposing American forces as part of a broader regional power struggle between Washington and Tehran for influence over Iraq. That decades-long confrontation culminated in Trump’s 2020 order to assassinate Soleimani in a drone strike inside Baghdad, a decision the White House justified by citing Soleimani’s coordination with anti-U.S. militias.

    Notably, Trump also included the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in his list of grievances attributed to Iran – a claim that contradicts longstanding conclusions from U.S. intelligence agencies, which have formally pinned responsibility for the attack that killed 17 American sailors on the al-Qaeda terrorist network, not Tehran.

    Trump’s demands go beyond compensation for American casualties: he also called on the Iranian government to pay reparations to its own citizens for the killing of anti-government protesters earlier in 2026. Trump cited this crackdown as one of the core justifications for the joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran launched in February 2026. There is already stark division over the death toll from the protests: Trump claims around 50,000 people were killed, while an Iranian official has put the confirmed death toll at no fewer than 5,000.

    At this stage, it remains unclear how seriously Trump is advancing these demands, which condition any ceasefire agreement not only on compensation for U.S. service members but also on reparations for Iranian protesters. The counter-demand comes just days after Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei confirmed Tehran would require war reparations from the U.S. before it agrees to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supplies pass.

    Trump’s latest public statement continues a pattern of inconsistent messaging that has already put him at odds with his own cabinet. Just months prior in July, Trump contradicted his own Secretary of State Marco Rubio by suggesting the U.S. could impose a 20% toll on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for acting as the waterway’s security guarantor. Rubio quickly pushed back, clarifying that any unilateral toll on the international waterway would be “completely illegal” under international maritime law.

    The exchange of competing reparation demands underscores the effective collapse of the ceasefire extension between Washington and Tehran that was agreed to back in June, with both sides now maneuvering to gain strategic leverage on the battlefield. However, a recent report from *The Wall Street Journal* published over the weekend indicates Trump has largely abandoned his core stated war objective – reaching a new nuclear agreement that permanently blocks Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. According to the report, Trump now intends to end the military conflict in order to secure the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a priority that has overtaken his original nuclear goals.

  • For Nigel Farage, success brings new pressures and a showdown with Count Binface

    For Nigel Farage, success brings new pressures and a showdown with Count Binface

    On the sun-kissed coast of eastern England, the quiet seaside town of Clacton is hosting one of the most surreal special elections in modern British political history. What began as a political gamble by Nigel Farage, the firebrand leader of anti-immigration party Reform UK and a long-time ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, has turned into a contest that upends every expectation of how British elections work.

    For nearly 20 years, Farage has built his entire political brand on positioning himself as an anti-establishment outsider, a plain-speaking populist who took on the elite to deliver Brexit, the defining political upheaval of 21st-century Britain. His charismatic, everyman persona—often described as “the bloke you’d have a pint with at the local pub”—fueled the 2016 Leave campaign’s unexpected referendum victory, and later shifted to galvanizing support around hardline policies on small boat migration across the English Channel. After eight failed attempts to win a seat in Parliament, Farage finally claimed Clacton, a deeply pro-Brexit constituency, in 2024.

    But that victory brought unforeseen trouble: the scrutiny of public office that comes with being a lawmaker. Just months after taking his seat, Farage triggered a snap special election by resigning, amid growing awkward questions about his personal financial dealings and undeclared political donations. Farage framed the move as a chance for Clacton’s voters to deliver a verdict in a classic “people versus the establishment” showdown, but major parties across the political spectrum dismissed the election as a self-serving political stunt and refused to field candidates. That decision left an open field that defied all political norms.

    Today, Farage—who has spent his career painting himself as an outsider taking on mainstream politics—finds himself cast as the prohibitive incumbent favorite, with his most high-profile opponent being Count Binface: a comedy candidate who portrays himself as a space alien with a trash can for a head, performed by comedian Jon Harvey. Farage is not laughing. He and his allies have framed Binface’s candidacy as yet another plot by the political establishment to undermine him, with Reform UK board member and former Farage press officer Gawain Towler claiming the establishment is using “every means available, fair and foul” to discredit the Reform leader before voters cast their ballots.

    Count Binface, a veteran of joke British elections, has centered his entire platform on the contrast with Farage, with a key pledge that he “will not accept 5-million-pound gifts from crypto billionaires (on Earth)”—a clear jab at the controversies that sparked the election. Farage is currently under investigation by Britain’s parliamentary standards watchdog over an undeclared £5 million ($6.7 million) donation received in 2024 from Thailand-based cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne. Farage defends the transaction, arguing the sum was a personal gift to fund his personal security received before he took office, and thus not required to be declared under parliamentary rules, which mandate disclosure of gifts over £300 ($400) tied to political activity for incoming lawmakers.

    A second investigation is also ongoing into Farage’s financial ties to George Cottrell, a 32-year-old aristocratic crypto and gambling entrepreneur who served eight months in a U.S. prison a decade ago after pleading guilty to fraud charges connected to a proposed money laundering scheme with undercover agents posing as drug traffickers. Cottrell remains a close ally of Farage, who has publicly stood by him, saying “I don’t ditch my allies” in comments from August 3. British media have reported that Cottrell and his mother have been interviewed by police as part of a broader probe into Reform UK donations, though no arrests have been made.

    Beyond Binface, the Clacton ballot features 33 other candidates, ranging from single-issue pro-Rejoin EU campaigners to representatives of the long-running Official Monster Raving Loony Party, making it one of the most crowded candidate fields in recent British electoral history. While most political analysts predict Farage will win the seat comfortably, as he did in the 2024 general election, the outcome of the vote carries far broader implications for British politics than a single parliamentary seat.

    If Farage secures victory, the parliamentary investigations into his finances will immediately resume. A finding of wrongdoing could result in his suspension from Parliament and force yet another special election for the constituency. For Reform UK, which has led national opinion polls for more than a year and currently holds just seven parliamentary seats (eight if Farage retains Clacton), the election comes at a tense moment for the party. After a long stretch of leading national polling, Reform has suffered a string of recent defeats in special elections, including a June loss that saw Labour’s Andy Burnham elected prime minister. Farage’s party is also facing pressure from multiple sides: Labour is enjoying a post-Burnham polling boost, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has stabilized her party after a rocky start, and the far-right Restore Britain party, which holds one seat and enjoys amplified social media reach via Elon Musk, is chipping away at Reform’s right-wing base.

    Political analysts note that Farage’s greatest political strength has always been his charismatic outsider persona, but that same image has now created a trap for him. “It’s that very charismatic aspect of Farage that is both his strength and his weakness,” explained Simon Usherwood, professor of politics and international studies at the Open University. “He has fallen into a trap of thinking that he is somehow immune from the kind of scrutiny that would undo other politicians.”

    There is also the long-running question of Farage’s commitment to holding office: the 62-year-old politician has a history of stepping down from the parties he founded, having resigned from both the UK Independence Party and its successor, the Brexit Party, over the past decade. Outside of his parliamentary salary, Farage has earned more than £2 million ($2.7 million) in the past two years from speaking engagements, media appearances, and promotional work—far outstripping his income as a lawmaker—leading to speculation he could walk away from politics again if the financial scrutiny continues to mount.

    Martin Farr, a contemporary historian at Newcastle University, noted that regardless of the final vote count, the election will reinforce the existing perceptions of Farage among both supporters and opponents. “To his supporters, this will be an example of how he’s fearless and he’s prepared to fight against, as he will put it, the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the establishment,” Farr said. “To his opponents, it suggests a thin-skinned demagogue who has reacted petulantly to scrutiny and has been embarrassed by the fact that no one else has taken his stand seriously.”

  • Less than four percent of US safety funding went to Muslim institutions: Report

    Less than four percent of US safety funding went to Muslim institutions: Report

    A groundbreaking new analysis from the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has uncovered stark inequity in the distribution of U.S. federal security grants designed to protect religious nonprofits, revealing that Muslim American organizations have received less than 4% of total funding allocated over the past nine years. The funding in question is distributed annually through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP), a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiative overseen by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that provides up to $200,000 per site to cover physical security upgrades such as surveillance cameras, bulletproof glazing, perimeter barriers, and security staff training. According to MPAC’s data, Jewish organizations have claimed nearly 60% of the $850 million distributed through the program since 2017, when Donald Trump first took office, while Christian groups have received just over 25%. Muslim organizations, by contrast, have only secured 3.8% of the total pot, despite facing a rapidly growing risk of targeted hate violence.

    “Of the $850m awarded through this program over nine years, Muslim organisations only got 3.8 percent of the funding… it’s a really, really small amount going to a community that is under threat, and a growing threat,” Dr. Sarah Mohamed, co-author of the report and senior researcher at MPAC’s Center for Security, Technology, and Policy, told Middle East Eye in an interview Monday.

    The inequitable distribution comes amid a years-long campaign by conservative actors to block Muslim access to the program. A year ago, right-leaning think tank Middle East Forum released a controversial report falsely claiming that DHS had funneled U.S. tax dollars to “terror-linked and extremist” Muslim organizations between 2013 and 2023, naming 49 Muslim American groups and labeling NSGP “the greatest source of DHS funding to extremist groups.” MPAC’s managing director in Washington D.C. and report co-author Sameer Hossein pushed back on these unsubstantiated claims, noting that “Even members of Congress have not been able to verify that.”

    Hossein added that new restrictions imposed by the current Trump administration have made it far harder for Muslim and other marginalized community organizations to access the critical grant funding. The administration has added prohibitions targeting activities that conflict with its policy agenda, including Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) work, support for undocumented immigrants, and boycotts of Israel, leaving grantees that engage in any of these activities exposed to heightened legal risk.

    Because no public data is available on the total number of organizations that applied for NSGP funding each year, researchers cannot confirm whether the low share of funding awarded to Muslim groups stems primarily from lower application rates or systemic bias. But Hossein pointed to structural advantages that have helped other religious groups secure more funding: Jewish American organizations, which first advocated for the creation of a program like NSGP in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks shortly after DHS was founded, have more existing resources and greater experience navigating the grant program’s complex, bureaucratic application process. MPAC has already collaborated with Jewish American groups on this issue to address shared concerns around community security.

    The lack of equitable security funding comes as anti-Muslim sentiment across the U.S. has surged to unprecedented levels following Trump’s return to the White House in 2025. Much of the current administration’s policy agenda, pre-developed by the far-right Heritage Foundation in its Project 2025 blueprint, explicitly targets Muslim American communities and Muslim-majority nations. Top Republican elected officials have openly promoted anti-Muslim rhetoric and called for punitive or violent action against Muslim Americans, with high-profile examples including Florida Congressman Randy Fine, Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles, and Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville.

    Trump himself has amplified anti-Muslim hate repeatedly on his social platform Truth Social. Most recently, he shared a photo of Muslim kindergarten students in Minnesota wearing hijabs, and has repeatedly called for the investigation and deportation of Somali Americans living in the state, including hijab-wearing Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

    Data from independent hate monitoring groups confirms the rapid spread of online and offline anti-Muslim aggression. Ahead of last year’s New York City mayoral election, which saw Zohran Mamdani become the city’s first Muslim mayor, the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) documented that Islamophobic and xenophobic discourse about Mamdani on X reached 1.5 billion user accounts between his June Democratic primary win and the end of October. CSOH called on X to implement election-specific content protections, enforce existing community guidelines targeting religious and racial hate speech, and adjust the platform’s algorithm to prioritize corrective counter-narratives to disinformation and hate.

    CSOH also recorded a sharp spike in anti-Muslim content on X immediately after the U.S. and Israel launched a joint military campaign against Iran on February 28. Between January 1 and March 5, a period when Trump repeatedly threatened to launch military action against Iran, CSOH tracked thousands of posts that explicitly dehumanized Muslims, called for their exclusion, or incited violence against the community. On the day the war began, daily volumes of these harmful posts jumped from fewer than 2,000 to more than 6,000.

    Offline attacks have also reached alarming levels. In April, MPAC reported that targeted attacks against Muslim American individuals and institutions hit a 15-month high in the first quarter of 2025 under the Trump administration, with an 11-fold increase in targeted incidents compared to previous periods. At least nine attacks were recorded in March alone, ranging from mosque vandalism and bomb threats to sexual assaults against Muslim women, according to MPAC’s policy paper *The Pitfalls of Operation Epic Fury: How the Undeclared War Against Iran Hurts Americans’ Interests Abroad and at Home.*

    In May, a mass shooting outside a California mosque that hosted a children’s school left three people dead. Muslim American advocacy groups immediately blamed the attack on the mainstreaming of anti-Muslim hate speech by Republican lawmakers and far-right influencers. “We are deeply disturbed, but not at all surprised,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a statement following the shooting. “Hate against American Muslims is completely out of control.”

    As the 2025 Senate campaign in Michigan heads toward a potentially historic outcome, with Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed positioned to become the first Muslim U.S. senator in American history, anti-Muslim rhetoric has seeped into the race. His Republican opponent Mike Rogers has released a attack ad against El-Sayed that features images of deceased al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, echoing a long pattern of Islamophobic dog whistles in American electoral politics.

  • Former Australian actor Damien Richardson loses appeal for Nazi gesture at political event

    Former Australian actor Damien Richardson loses appeal for Nazi gesture at political event

    A former Australian television actor’s bid to overturn his conviction for making a banned Nazi salute at a far-right political gathering has failed, with a Victorian judge confirming the guilty verdict earlier this week.

    Damien Richardson, 57, a household name in Australia for decade-long roles on hit shows including *Neighbours*, *City Homicide*, and *Blue Heelers* – most notably playing Gary Canning on *Neighbours* from 2014 to 2020 – has reemerged in recent years as a far-right political activist. The offense dates back to a September 2024 political rally organized by the National Workers Alliance, an event reportedly attended by multiple known neo-Nazi sympathizers.

    At the rally, Richardson delivered a wide-ranging speech railing against what he framed as a “war on men”, the growing influence of “wokeism” in public life, and what he calls the “transsexual agenda”. During a segment addressing past claims in *The Age* newspaper that compared him to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, Richardson raised his right arm in the banned Nazi salute, drawing applause from attendees. The entire incident, including the gesture, was broadcast live to audiences on Facebook.

    Richardson was originally found guilty of violating Australia’s ban on the Nazi gesture late in 2024, but he appealed the conviction and pending sentence to the County Court of Victoria. His legal team argued that the salute qualified for an exception under the law, as it had been performed for a legitimate artistic purpose. Richardson himself claimed the gesture was intended as satire to mock accusations that he held anti-Semitic views, noting that his grandfather served in World War II against the Axis powers, making the original comparison particularly offensive to him.

    After a two-day appeal hearing held last month, Judge Kate Hawkins issued her ruling on Monday, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original guilty verdict. In her published judgment, Hawkins outlined that the context of the act made the “artistic purpose” defense invalid.

    “The central logic of your performance of the Nazi gesture in the context of your speech was to respond to *The Age* article and link it back to the political message of your speech,” Hawkins wrote. “You were a political speaker at a political event addressing issues politically important to you. Whether it was done satirically, humorously or to otherwise engage the audience is immaterial. It follows that your true and dominant purpose was not a genuine artistic one.”

    Richardson is scheduled to return to the County Court of Victoria on September 1 for formal sentencing. The case has drawn renewed public attention to Australia’s restrictions on hate symbols and the growing presence of far-right extremist ideology in mainstream political spaces in the country.

  • Ceuta leader wants migrant detention centre after influx

    Ceuta leader wants migrant detention centre after influx

    A sharp political clash has erupted between Spain’s leftist national administration and right-leaning regional leadership over the fate of thousands of migrants who remain stranded in the North African enclave of Ceuta, following an unprecedented mass border crossing from Morocco last month. On Monday, Juan Jesus Vivas, leader of Ceuta’s Popular Party (PP) administration, issued an urgent call for the construction of a dedicated detention facility to hold the remaining migrants, clearing the way for faster processing and eventual expulsion from the small Spanish territory. The crisis unfolded on July 30 and 31, when roughly 72,000 migrants stormed the fortified border between Morocco and Ceuta in one of the largest mass border crossings in recent European history. Spanish government data confirms that approximately 70,000 of those migrants have since been repatriated back to Morocco. But thousands remain, among them hundreds of unaccompanied minor migrants who are protected from immediate summary deportation under Spanish and EU law. Currently, these remaining migrants are forced to live in makeshift conditions on Ceuta’s streets, with limited access to basic necessities including food, clean drinking water, emergency shelter and proper sanitation. The small enclave, whose permanent population numbers just 84,000, has seen its public resources completely overwhelmed by the sudden arrival of such a large group of people. The unresolved situation of the remaining migrants has opened a major rift between the central government led by left-leaning parties, and regional governments controlled by the conservative PP and far-right Vox party. Right-leaning regional administrations across Spain have refused to comply with existing legal requirements to accept and resettle the unaccompanied minor migrants from Ceuta, deepening the political deadlock. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Vivas argued that a centralized internment facility for irregular migrants is an urgent necessity to address the current chaos. “A space that acts as an internment centre for foreigners must be set up, where these people can be held and remain confined,” Vivas stated. He emphasized that the facility would allow authorities to speed up deportation procedures and remove homeless migrants from Ceuta’s public streets, describing the current situation as completely “unsustainable” for the small territory. Vivas also pushed back against central government figures, estimating the actual number of remaining migrants is between 8,000 and 11,000, far higher than the central government’s official count of roughly 2,500. The growing public discontent over the crisis boiled over on Sunday, when thousands of Ceuta’s permanent residents gathered for a mass protest to condemn the central government’s handling of the emergency. Protesters argued that the crisis has left the enclave unsafe and abandoned by national leaders. In response to the growing outcry, Angel Victor Torres, Spain’s minister for regional relations, sought to reassure Ceuta’s population that the national government was stepping up its response. Torres confirmed that security force numbers had been significantly increased, including a 40 percent boost in the deployment of the national Civil Guard to the enclave. He added that reuniting unaccompanied migrant children with their family members is the administration’s top priority, but made no mention of plans for further expulsions of the remaining migrants, leaving key questions about the crisis’s resolution unanswered.

  • Russia bars only anti-war party from elections

    Russia bars only anti-war party from elections

    On Monday, Russia’s highest judicial body upheld a legal challenge brought by a pro-Kremlin nationalist faction, issuing a ruling that excludes Yabloko, the country’s sole remaining openly anti-war political party, from participating in the upcoming September State Duma parliamentary elections. The decision eliminates the last electoral option for Russian voters who oppose the ongoing 4.5-year military conflict in Ukraine.

    “The claims seeking to annul the registration of the federal list of candidates for the State Duma of the ninth convocation, nominated by the Yabloko political party, were granted,” announced Judge Vyacheslav Kirillov from the bench.

    Against a backdrop where nearly all of President Vladimir Putin’s prominent political rivals have been imprisoned, forced into exile, or killed, Yabloko stands as the last liberal-leaning political organization still legally operating within Russia’s borders. The party has earned public support from multiple exiled opposition figures, including Yulia Navalnaya, widow of deceased opposition leader Alexei Navalny — both Navalnaya and her late husband are officially labeled “extremists” by Russian authorities.

    Shortly after the ruling was made public, roughly 100 Yabloko supporters, a majority of whom were young people, assembled outside the Supreme Court building, repeating chants of “Shame! Shame!” to protest the decision. Speaking to the gathered crowd following the hearing, Yabloko party leader Nikolay Rybakov confirmed that the organization would launch an appeal against the court’s ban.

    “We have a long way ahead and we have a big and important task: to stop deaths and bring the peace back,” Rybakov told supporters. “Everything we do should be dedicated to that.”

    Before the court issued its decision, 22-year-old Yabloko backer Yevgenia spoke with AFP, explaining that she planned to cast her vote for the party to signal to the Kremlin that “we are not satisfied with the current state of affairs”. She added, “We would really like to reach some kind of peaceful agreement so that this special military operation can finally come to an end,” using the official Russian terminology for the full-scale offensive in Ukraine.

    As Ukrainian cross-border retaliatory strikes increasingly target Russian infrastructure including oil refineries and e-commerce storage facilities, disrupting daily life for ordinary citizens across the country, Yabloko had centered its electoral campaign on its anti-war peace platform, hoping to resonate especially with younger voter demographics. The party also aimed to channel growing public discontent over widespread internet shutdowns implemented by Russian authorities to mitigate the impact of Ukrainian drone attacks.

    Years of growing pressure have been placed on Yabloko and its members, who have faced repeated legal repercussions for their open opposition to the conflict. In a pre-ruling interview with AFP over the weekend, Rybakov shared that approximately 40 of the party’s activists currently face criminal prosecution.

    Earlier this year in June, the party’s deputy leader Maxim Kruglov was sentenced to seven years in prison over social media posts criticizing the military campaign, while Lev Shlosberg, head of Yabloko’s Pskov regional branch, was arrested by authorities in 2023. Rybakov himself was issued a fine last December for sharing a photo of Alexei Navalny on social media, a penalty that also disqualifies him from running as a candidate in the September election.

    Polling conducted earlier in 2024 placed Yabloko — whose name translates to “apple” in Russian — at just 3% public support, a figure that falls short of the 5% vote threshold required to secure seats in Russia’s lower legislative house. Founded in 1993 by a group of pro-Western former government officials shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yabloko saw modest electoral success in the 1990s. But since 2003, as the Kremlin consolidated control over Russia’s electoral system, the party has failed to win any State Duma seats, with Putin’s ruling United Russia party securing a supermajority in every parliamentary election held since that time.

    To date, all diplomatic efforts to end the conflict in Ukraine have stalled. Putin has maintained hardline territorial demands as a condition for ending fighting, and has repeatedly ruled out any peace negotiations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Despite this official stance, independent public opinion polls show that a majority of Russian residents favor opening peace negotiations with Kyiv.

  • Trump insists Netanyahu relationship ‘very good’ despite Gaza rift

    Trump insists Netanyahu relationship ‘very good’ despite Gaza rift

    U.S. President Donald Trump moved to quell growing speculation of a fractured bilateral relationship on Monday, publicly affirming that his partnership with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains “very good” — days after the Israeli leader openly rejected a Washington-brokered postwar framework for Gaza. The clarification came in response to a reporter’s shouted question at the conclusion of an official event held in the White House Oval Office.

    The public rift has built steadily over more than a week, culminating in Netanyahu’s explicit Sunday rejection of the U.S.-led proposal, which requires Israel to begin a phased drawdown of its military forces in Gaza in parallel with Hamas fulfilling disarmament commitments. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving sitting prime minister, is navigating a high-stakes political contest ahead of the country’s October 27 national elections — the first national vote since the devastating October 2023 Hamas attack that triggered the ongoing Gaza war. Recent polling shows the leader either neck-and-neck with opposition candidates or trailing in key matchups.

    The U.S. Gaza plan faces deep backlash among Netanyahu’s core right-wing electoral base, and influential far-right members of his governing coalition have repeatedly pressured him to reject the proposal outright. Until the recent public split, Netanyahu centered much of his reelection campaign on his close, mutually beneficial relationship with Trump, who has taken historically pro-Israel steps during his time in office, including the controversial decision to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

    The two leaders aligned closely earlier this year when they launched a joint military campaign against Iran in late February, but their strategic priorities have diverged in recent months. Trump has pushed for a permanent ceasefire and negotiated political settlement to the Gaza conflict, as the protracted war has dragged down his domestic approval ratings and pushed global oil prices sharply higher.

    The U.S.-backed Gaza plan represents the next phase of a ceasefire agreement brokered by Washington earlier this year, which has reduced the scale of Israeli military operations in the enclave but failed to end hostilities entirely. According to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry — whose casualty data is deemed reliable by the United Nations — more than 1,250 Palestinian civilians and fighters have been killed by Israeli operations in Gaza since the ceasefire took effect. The Israeli military has confirmed five of its soldiers have died in the same period.

  • Why Egypt held back from joining Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s defence pact

    Why Egypt held back from joining Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s defence pact

    In an unannounced, off-schedule gathering in Mecca on Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan joined leaders from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to sign a landmark regional security agreement, a deal that took two years of delicate diplomatic negotiations to bring to fruition. The last-minute decision to hold the signing ceremony, arranged abruptly just three days prior on Tuesday, was kept out of Erdogan’s official public itinerary amid specific security concerns.

    Senior Turkish officials chose to conceal details of the trip over fears that提前 publicizing Erdogan’s travel plans would open the door for hostile actors to attempt to disrupt the signing, multiple anonymous sources familiar with the internal planning confirmed to Middle East Eye. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan clarified in a Saturday interview that Ankara had invested two full years of diplomatic work to coordinate with all negotiating parties to finalize the pact.

    While the agreement leaves concrete, binding military commitments undefined, it includes a core collective defense clause modeled after NATO’s Article 5, which frames an armed attack on any one member state as an attack against all three signatories.

    This security framework grows out of months of regular high-level consultations among Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, a diplomatic forum dubbed the “Regional Four.” The bloc’s efforts have already sparked sharp backlash from Israel, with former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett publicly accusing Turkey in February of orchestrating a “hostile Sunni axis” with nuclear-armed Pakistan to turn Saudi Arabia against Israeli interests.

    In recent months, both Saudi Arabia and Egypt had grown noticeably hesitant about committing to a formal closer security partnership with Turkey, internal Turkish sources based in Ankara confirmed. Earlier this year, one frustrated Turkish official told Middle East Eye: “We are working to hold Egyptians and Saudis to this platform, even as Israeli officials constantly pressure and bully them to walk away.”

    Initially, Turkish negotiators had only planned for a three-party treaty, but as diplomatic talks progressed, Egypt emerged as a logical candidate for inclusion. Boasting one of the largest and most capable militaries in the Middle East and North Africa, Egypt has increasingly aligned its positions with Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia on a wide range of pressing regional issues – from ceasefire negotiations to end the war in Gaza to shifting geopolitical developments across the African continent.

    Ankara devoted significant diplomatic capital to bringing Egypt into the pact and formally extended an invitation for Cairo to join the agreement. But when it became clear that Egyptian leadership was not prepared to move forward with membership at this time, the three remaining negotiating parties opted to proceed with the signing without Cairo.

    Fidan sought to frame Egypt’s decision as a temporary delay rather than a permanent exit in his Saturday interview. “I am confident that in the next phase, Egypt will also become part of this alliance,” he said. “We already operate in practice as if Egypt is a member; that is the current state of our relationship with all these countries. There are only a small number of outstanding technical issues to resolve. Once those are addressed, there is no reason Egypt will not join us.”

    A second Ankara-based source with direct knowledge of the negotiations explained that Egypt’s choice to step back is rooted primarily in its uniquely complex diplomatic relationship with Israel. As a key U.S. ally, a direct neighbor of Israel, and an Arab state that maintains full formal diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, Cairo must balance carefully between competing regional interests. Joining the security pact would open Egypt to intense diplomatic and political pressure from Israel, a burden Cairo is not currently willing to take on.

    Egyptian independent outlet Madamasr echoed this reporting on Sunday, confirming via its own internal sources that Cairo had formally declined the invitation to join at this stage.

    Regional diplomatic sources who spoke to Middle East Eye noted that Egypt has additional, independent motivations for its decision to stay out for the moment. Amid growing geopolitical tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Cairo finds itself caught between competing blocs, and remaining outside the alliance allows the Egyptian government to maintain strategic flexibility and avoid forced alignment. Egypt already holds a standing defense treaty with the UAE, and deployed military assets including Rafale fighter jets in response to Iranian strikes on Emirati territory in May. Egypt is also unwilling to cut off deepening commercial ties with India, while relying on critical financial assistance from the UAE, and has no immediate interest in aligning against the bloc that includes Israel, the UAE, and India.

    This perceived unwillingness to commit has also led Saudi leadership to question Egypt’s reliability as a security partner, the second source added. Even so, Turkish officials remain optimistic that once the new alliance solidifies and establishes itself as a credible deterrent to regional aggression, Cairo will be more open to joining the framework in the future.