Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Al-Aqsa imam warns against Israeli bill to ban Muslim call to prayer

    Al-Aqsa imam warns against Israeli bill to ban Muslim call to prayer

    A controversial Israeli bill that would codify restrictions on the Islamic call to prayer, known as the adhan, has cleared a critical legislative hurdle, drawing sharp condemnation from senior Muslim religious leaders and Palestinian communities who frame the measure as an attack on their religious identity and a violation of international law.

    On Sunday, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation — the body that vets whether proposed bills move forward for a preliminary vote in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset — advanced the legislation. The bill was submitted by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Zvika Fogel, chair of the Knesset’s National Security Committee, and while it has secured committee backing, it still requires approval from the full Knesset, with no vote date scheduled as of yet.

    Under the terms of the proposed law, the installation and operation of loudspeakers for religious calls to prayer would be banned by default, with permits granted only at the discretion of Israeli authorities. Approval would hinge on a set of criteria including volume limits, required noise reduction infrastructure, a mosque’s geographic location, proximity to residential neighborhoods, and the perceived impact on local residents. If permit conditions are violated, police would gain the authority to immediately order loudspeakers shut off, with repeated violations leading to equipment confiscation and steep financial penalties: unpermitted loudspeaker use would carry a fine of 50,000 Israeli shekels (approximately $17,719), while violations of permit terms would incur a 10,000 shekel fine (around $3,545).

    Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, the imam of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque — one of the holiest sites in Islam and a flashpoint of longstanding Israeli-Palestinian tension — labeled the latest legislative push a dangerous escalation of repeated, previously unsuccessful efforts to curtail the adhan. “The current attempt to ban the Muslim call to prayer has taken a dangerous turn by legalising the banning of the call to prayer through issuing a law to prohibit it,” Sabri stated on Monday. He emphasized that Israeli authorities have no legitimate standing to classify the centuries-old religious practice as unwanted noise or a public nuisance, arguing “The disturbance and noise come from the war machines of the aggressors.”

    The bill’s backers have defended the proposal as a necessary public health and quality of life measure. Ben Gvir has claimed that excessive noise from muezzins (the religious figures who recite the adhan) harms the well-being of Israeli residents, saying, “In many places, the noise of the muezzin is unreasonable and harms the quality of life and health of residents. This is a phenomenon that cannot be tolerated.”

    Palestinian citizens of Israel, who would bear the direct brunt of the new regulations, have widely condemned the proposal, rejecting the claim that the adhan constitutes a noise problem. They argue the legislation is just the latest example of the current Israeli government’s systematic efforts to erode Palestinian religious and cultural identity across territories under Israeli control.

    A key unresolved question remains: whether the new rules would apply to Al-Aqsa Mosque, located in occupied East Jerusalem. Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, a move that has never been recognized by the international community. Consistent with international law, most of the global community regards East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory, holding that an occupying power cannot claim sovereignty over the area and is barred from implementing permanent legal or structural changes to the occupied territory. Sabri emphasized this principle, noting that as an occupying power, Israel “has no right to alter the existing status quo of the occupied territory” and “has no right to enact laws that contradict the laws that were in effect in the country before its occupation.”

    Efforts to restrict the adhan in Israel are not a new development. In 2017, a nearly identical bill targeting loudspeaker use for the Islamic call to prayer passed a preliminary Knesset reading but was never enacted into law. Most recently, at the end of 2024, Ben Gvir already issued a directive ordering Israeli police to block mosques from broadcasting the adhan, repeating his claim that the practice disturbs Jewish residents.

  • Trump names inexperienced ally as intelligence director

    Trump names inexperienced ally as intelligence director

    In a surprise and controversial Tuesday announcement, former and current US President Donald Trump has tapped one of his most aggressively loyal allies, 38-year-old Bill Pulte, to serve as acting director of national intelligence — a role Pulte will hold alongside his existing positions overseeing the nation’s federal housing finance system. Pulte, who currently leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and regulates the government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will step into the intelligence role to succeed Tulsi Gabbard, whose short tenure ended with her resignation in late May. Gabbard, herself a divisive pick for the intelligence post, departed after public reports of friction between her and Trump over his hardline policy against Iran.

    In an official post shared on his Truth Social platform Tuesday, Trump defended the unconventional appointment, highlighting Pulte’s track record overseeing US housing finance markets. “William has deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America, the safety and soundness of the Markets,” Trump wrote, confirming that Pulte would not step away from his current housing and mortgage regulatory roles while leading the US intelligence community.

    Long recognized as one of Trump’s most vocal public defenders, Pulte has built a reputation as a blunt “attack dog” for the president, repeatedly targeting Trump’s political opponents across the Democratic Party with public accusations and investigations. He has openly claimed that Democratic Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James falsified information on their personal mortgage applications. According to reporting from The Wall Street Journal, an internal Fannie Mae complaint alleges Pulte improperly accessed the confidential mortgage records of James and other top Democratic officials, drawing criticism for misusing his regulatory power for political gain.

    The accusation against James led to a federal grand jury indictment in October last year, though a federal judge dismissed the case without prejudice a month later over unrelated procedural issues. Pulte has also brought forward mortgage fraud claims against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a move that prompted Trump to attempt to fire the sitting central bank official. That legal dispute remains pending before the US Supreme Court.

    Beyond his attacks on political opponents, Pulte has drawn controversy for his actions inside FHFA and Fannie Mae. He has fired internal ethics watchdogs who were investigating close allies of his, framing the dismissals as a deliberate effort to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs within the agency. On housing policy, he has pushed a controversial proposal to introduce 50-year mortgages in the US, a plan that has sparked intense backlash even within Trump’s own pro-Trump MAGA movement.

    Pulte, the heir to the PulteGroup homebuilding fortune, left the company’s board of directors in 2020 after a public falling out with his family over the future of the business. His aggressive, public approach to political combat has also alienated many insiders, even within Trump’s own inner circle. Multiple US media outlets including The Wall Street Journal and Politico have reported that in 2025, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatened to physically assault Pulte during a private dinner at an exclusive club, highlighting the deep divisions within the Trump administration over Pulte’s actions. Critics have raised widespread alarm over the appointment, noting that Pulte has no prior experience in national security or intelligence work, marking a sharp break with standard practice for the top intelligence leadership role.

  • Senegal’s ousted PM Sonko boycotts new government, raising fears of political deadlock

    Senegal’s ousted PM Sonko boycotts new government, raising fears of political deadlock

    A widening political fracture in Senegal has thrown the West African nation into uncertainty, after ousted Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko announced his majority ruling party will boycott the newly formed national government — escalating months of public tension with President Bassirou Diomaye Faye and raising fears of crippling governance gridlock as the country grapples with a record-level debt crisis.

    The pair once rose to power together as close allies within the Patriotes Africains du Sénégal pour le Travail, l’Éthique et la Fraternité, commonly known by its French acronym Pastef. Led by Sonko, Pastef commands an overwhelming legislative majority, holding 130 of the 165 total seats in Senegal’s national parliament. This dominant control gives the party significant power to derail Faye’s new administration if the confrontation continues.

    Last Monday, newly appointed Prime Minister Ahmadou Al Aminou Lo unveiled his cabinet. Notably, the lineup excludes all prominent Pastef figures aligned with Sonko, as well as any of the ousted prime minister’s close associates who previously held key ministerial portfolios. Sonko was removed from office alongside his entire cabinet in May, a move that formalized the months-long growing rift between the former allies.

    In a statement following the cabinet announcement, Sonko confirmed that Pastef would formally refuse to participate in the new government, citing unresolved points of disagreement with Faye and Lo. Babacar Ndiaye, a political analyst with Dakar-based think tank Wathi, noted Tuesday that the country has now shifted to a new political landscape where the ruling party’s dominant parliamentary bloc is acting as a formal opposition. Ndiaye added that Pastef has the legislative power to table a no-confidence vote against Faye’s new government, a move that would almost certainly push the country into full governance gridlock.

    The political unrest comes at a particularly precarious moment for Senegal. The country is currently facing a deepening sovereign debt crisis and soaring cost of living, with one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios across the African continent. A 2023 government audit uncovered that the national debt, accumulated by the previous administration, totals $13 billion — far larger than previously reported to the public. In recent months, public disagreements between Faye and Sonko have centered on high-stakes policy decisions, most notably ongoing negotiations for a new loan from the International Monetary Fund that the struggling economy desperately needs.

    The ongoing confrontation has raised alarm across regional political circles, as the unresolved standoff threatens to delay critical economic reforms and debt restructuring efforts that are essential to stabilizing Senegal’s fragile economy.

  • What stolen Scottish party funds bought: Nintendo games, robot lawnmower and a motorhome

    What stolen Scottish party funds bought: Nintendo games, robot lawnmower and a motorhome

    EDINBURGH, Scotland — A high-profile political scandal has deepened in Scotland this week, as prosecutors laid out staggering details of systemic embezzlement carried out by Peter Murrell, the former chief executive of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and estranged husband of ex-Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. Over a 12-year period stretching from 2010 to 2022, Murrell siphoned more than 400,000 British pounds, equal to roughly $540,000, from the SNP’s main operating bank account to fund a sprawling personal spending spree that included everything from high-end luxury vehicles and accessories to routine household goods, prosecutors confirmed in court Tuesday.

    Murrell, 61, was transported to Edinburgh’s High Court on Tuesday in a prison van, where lead prosecutor Alan Cameron walked the court through the full scope of the fraud. As the party’s long-serving top administrative executive, Murrell held full, unchecked control over the SNP’s core financial accounts, which hold funds from party membership dues and member donations. That unmonitored access allowed him to divert hundreds of thousands of pounds in public-facing party funds for his own private use for more than a decade, Cameron explained.

    To avoid detection, Murrell deliberately falsified accounting records and created fake invoices, masking personal purchases with misleading labels tied to legitimate party operating expenses. Court documents revealed a lengthy, eclectic list of purchases, ranging from high-value luxury assets to mundane everyday items. The single most expensive purchase was a luxury motorhome that cost more than $167,816, which Murrell listed simply as a “van” on a party invoice. The vehicle was never used for any SNP-related activity; police investigators noted it had only been driven four miles before it was seized as evidence.

    Murrell also used stolen party funds to purchase two cars: a Volkswagen Golf bought in 2016 for $22,220 in SNP money, which he later traded in to upgrade to a Jaguar, labeling the entire transaction a cost for staging party events. When he sold the Jaguar privately in 2021, he pocketed roughly $63,844 from the sale for himself. Other high-end purchases included $33,010 worth of luxury leather goods and stationery from iconic London retailer Smythson, two premium Bremont watches worth $12,598 (recorded as “event merchandise” in accounting software), a $4,716 ornate silver wine coaster falsely marked as “leadership expenses,” and a pair of Lalique salt and pepper grinders costing $3,527. Even a 3,070-pound ($4,136) robotic lawnmower was disguised as a “legal fee” to avoid raising red flags.

    Beyond luxury goods, Murrell charged hundreds of routine household purchases to SNP payment cards over 12 years. In total, he made 383 separate Amazon purchases totaling $57,474, including PlayStation and Nintendo gaming consoles, a Super Mario video game, Montblanc luxury fountain pens, knife sets, kitchenware, gardening tools, electric toothbrushes, super glue, and shower squeegees.

    Last week, Murrell formally pleaded guilty to a single charge of embezzlement covering the full 12-year period of the fraud. In response to the scandal, Sturgeon — who led the SNP for 10 years and served as Scotland’s First Minister until 2023 — has repeatedly and forcefully denied any knowledge or involvement in Murrell’s crimes. The former leader stated she was “deceived, misled and betrayed” by her former husband, and the couple announced their plans to divorce last year. Sturgeon was arrested in June 2023 as part of the broader investigation into SNP party finances but was later cleared of any wrongdoing by police. Murrell is scheduled to receive his official sentencing later this month.

    The SNP has held control of Scotland’s devolved semi-autonomous government for nearly 20 years, built around its core campaign goal of securing Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. The embezzlement scandal has already had far-reaching impacts on public trust in Scottish politics, according to Jack McConnell, a former Labour First Minister of Scotland who was defeated by the SNP in the 2007 general election. McConnell argued that the incident is far more than trivial local gossip, noting that it has damaged Scotland’s international reputation and eroded public confidence in political institutions. “This is embarrassing internationally for us now and we need to take it seriously,” McConnell said.

  • The UK government has set a target of an 87% cut in carbon emissions by 2042

    The UK government has set a target of an 87% cut in carbon emissions by 2042

    LONDON – In a high-stakes announcement on Tuesday, the United Kingdom’s ruling administration made clear it will hold firm to its legally mandated 2050 net-zero carbon emissions target, even as ongoing global geopolitical conflicts continue to roil international energy markets and test supply chains. The government has committed to cutting the nation’s planet-warming greenhouse gas output by 87% compared to 1990 baseline levels within the next 15 years, aligning its policy with guidance from an independent scientific advisory body.

    The UK first enshrined its path to net-zero emissions in law back in 2008, establishing a strict regulatory framework that requires successive governments to set legally binding five-year emissions caps on a set rolling timeline. This latest target will apply to the fifth carbon budget, spanning the period from 2038 to 2042, and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband confirmed the government will fully adopt the recommendation put forward by the independent Climate Change Committee.

    Ministers frame the accelerated transition to clean, domestically produced energy as a strategic buffer against the volatile fossil fuel price shocks that have rocked national economies over the past decade. Two major global conflicts – the ongoing war in Ukraine and heightened instability in the Middle East – have sent global energy prices swinging sharply, leaving households and businesses across Europe exposed to sudden, crippling cost increases. “As Britain faces the second fossil fuel shock of the decade, the only way to protect family and business finances is to drive for clean homegrown power that we control,” Miliband said in remarks following the announcement.

    Climate scientists have welcomed the new target as a critical stepping stone that keeps the UK on track to hit its 2050 end goal, but have also highlighted a notable gap in Tuesday’s announcement: no concrete policy details outlining exactly how the steep emissions cut will be achieved. Martin Siegert, a professor of geosciences at the University of Exeter, called the commitment a welcome milestone, but emphasized that ambition alone is not enough to deliver results. “I think this is very good news as a milestone to net zero at 2050. But, alongside the ambition, we need both a coherent joined-up plan to achieve it and a delivery board — independent of government, politics and the Climate Change Committee — tasked with making it happen,” Siegert noted.

    The announcement has already drawn sharp pushback from opposition parties on the right. The opposition Conservative Party and the right-leaning Reform UK are both calling for the government to roll back its renewable energy expansion targets, arguing that boosting domestic oil and gas extraction from the North Sea is the only viable path to cutting the UK’s reliance on imported energy. Claire Coutinho, the Conservative Party’s energy spokeswoman, called the new emissions target a reckless policy that would damage national interests. “This target will make us weaker, poorer and send everyone’s energy bills even higher,” Coutinho said.

  • Cambodia initiates action with UN agency to force conciliation of maritime dispute with Thailand

    Cambodia initiates action with UN agency to force conciliation of maritime dispute with Thailand

    After Thailand unilaterally scrapped a decades-old bilateral agreement aimed at managing overlapping maritime claims, Cambodia has officially launched compulsory conciliation proceedings through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to resolve its long-running sea border dispute with neighboring Thailand, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet announced Tuesday in a live address on national state television.

    The contested stretch of water, claimed in full by both Southeast Asian nations, is widely believed to hold significant commercially viable reserves of natural gas and other hydrocarbon resources, making the dispute a high-stakes issue for both countries’ energy and economic outlooks. Tensions between the two neighbors escalated dramatically last year, when deadly armed clashes broke out along their shared land border. The violence stoked widespread nationalist sentiment in Thailand, which put growing domestic political pressure on Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s administration to walk away from the 25-year-old memorandum of understanding (MoU) that had governed bilateral talks on the overlapping claims. Thailand followed through on that pressure in May, terminating the agreement unilaterally.

    In his televised address, Hun Manet confirmed that his government had submitted formal notification of the conciliation request to both the Thai government and UN Secretary-General, triggering the formal process under UNCLOS regulations. He emphasized Cambodia’s commitment to a peaceful, rules-based resolution, saying, “Cambodia has never violated the sovereignty of other states. At the same time, we are unwaveringly determined to defend Cambodia’s sovereignty. Today, we continue to honor that responsibility, not through force, but through international law; not through unilateral action, but through peaceful engagement.”

    It remains unclear how long the conciliation process will take or when a preliminary outcome may be reached. Responding to Cambodia’s announcement, Anutin told reporters that the move itself does not create an insurmountable barrier to dialogue, noting that Thailand has long stated it is committed to resolving the dispute in line with UNCLOS frameworks. However, the Thai leader has made clear that his government rejects Cambodia’s push for a forced conciliation process.

    Notably, any outcome from the UNCLOS conciliation process is non-binding for all participating parties, even though both Cambodia and Thailand are official signatories to the treaty. Thailand has a long-standing preference for resolving all territorial disputes through direct bilateral negotiations rather than third-party international adjudication, a stance rooted in decades of resentment over a 1962 International Court of Justice ruling that granted Cambodia control over the disputed Preah Vihear hilltop temple along their shared land border. That ruling has remained a persistent source of friction between the two nations, contributing to cycles of tension that have flared repeatedly over the decades.

  • Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ+ bill to be scrutinised before approval, president says

    Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ+ bill to be scrutinised before approval, president says

    During an official visit to the United Kingdom, Ghanaian President John Mahama has confirmed that a newly parliament-passed bill criminalizing LGBTQ+ activities will go through a multi-stage review process before it can receive formal presidential approval. Introduced as a private members’ motion rather than an official government-sponsored piece of legislation, the bill will first be examined by Mahama’s legal council and the country’s attorney general, the head of state clarified.

    Approved by Ghana’s parliament on a Friday, the controversial draft legislation proposes harsh penalties including up to three years of imprisonment for individuals who openly identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. It also imposes a legal mandate requiring people to report any prohibited activities related to LGBTQ+ identity to local law enforcement. Mahama stressed that the administration will conduct a thorough check to ensure all provisions align with legal and constitutional standards, noting that any provisions flagged for issues will be forwarded to the Council of State, the president’s top advisory body, for further review.

    Since taking office last year, Mahama has faced sustained pressure from influential religious leaders across the country to toughen existing anti-LGBTQ+ laws, a framework that first originated from colonial-era legislation inherited from British rule. During a public question-and-answer session held in London on the Monday of his visit, Mahama also acknowledged that procedural irregularities occurred during the bill’s parliamentary passage, issues that are currently being addressed by the Speaker of Ghana’s parliament.

    This marks the second time Ghanaian lawmakers have backed a restrictive bill targeting sexual minorities. The first iteration of the legislation was tabled in parliament back in August 2021, shortly after authorities shut down an LGBTQ+ community resources center in the capital city of Accra. Then-president Nana Akufo-Addo, Mahama’s predecessor, never granted his assent to the 2024 version of the bill, citing ongoing legal challenges filed against it at Ghana’s Supreme Court as his justification for withholding approval.

    The bill was reintroduced to the current parliament earlier this year by a coalition of cross-party legislators. Members of Ghana’s parliamentary minority have voiced criticism of the updated version, arguing that recent amendments have weakened its restrictive provisions. Minority spokesperson John Ntim Forjour explained that the current draft has “substantially lost the force and the bite and the thrust, the deterrence, the efficacy that it contained and carried in 2024.” Key changes in the current iteration include exemptions from punishment for legal, healthcare, and media professionals who provide services to LGBTQ+ people or cover LGBTQ+ related news. However, the updated bill still allows for prison sentences for anyone who identifies as an open ally to LGBTQ+ communities.

    Both versions of the legislation have drawn widespread condemnation from international and local human rights organizations, which warn the bill fundamentally infringes on the basic human rights of sexual minority Ghanaians. Human Rights Watch has issued a formal submission to Accra’s constitutional and legal affairs committee, which is currently reviewing the bill, calling for the legislation to be scrapped entirely. Supporters of the bill, by contrast, argue that the restrictive measures are necessary to protect and preserve what they frame as traditional Ghanaian family values.

    The proposed Ghanaian law fits into a broader regional trend of growing restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights across several African nations in recent years. In March of this year, Senegal’s parliament passed similar legislation that sets a maximum 10-year prison sentence for same-sex sexual activity and criminalizes the “promotion” of homosexuality. Two years prior in 2023, Uganda enacted a law that allows the death penalty for certain same-sex sexual acts, a move that sparked global outcry from rights advocates.

  • He was a reality show villain. Can he be the mayor of one of America’s largest cities?

    He was a reality show villain. Can he be the mayor of one of America’s largest cities?

    Four decades after he first rose to infamy as one of reality television’s most iconic antagonists on 2000s MTV hit *The Hills*, 42-year-old Spencer Pratt is trading on-camera drama for city hall politics, mounting a surprisingly competitive bid to become the next mayor of Los Angeles – America’s second-largest city.

    A lifelong Republican and political outsider, Pratt launched his campaign in January 2026, and in the months since, his unexpected rise in pre-election polling has turned him from a novelty candidate into a serious contender ahead of Tuesday’s nonpartisan primary election. Under LA’s primary rules, all candidates appear on the same ballot regardless of party affiliation; any candidate who secures 50% plus one of the vote wins outright, while the top two finishers advance to a November general election if no candidate hits the majority threshold.

    A new UC Berkeley-Los Angeles Times poll released Thursday puts Pratt in a dead-heat three-way contest with the two leading Democratic incumbents: current mayor Karen Bass and city councilmember Nithya Raman. The poll of likely voters shows Bass holding a narrow 1% lead at 26% support, with Raman trailing at 25% and Pratt close behind at 22% – out of a field of more than 36 total candidates. What makes Pratt’s performance even more striking is his dominance in campaign fundraising: between April 19 and May 16, he raised $2.7 million (roughly £2 million), nearly 10 times Bass’s haul in the same window and seven times what Raman collected.

    Pratt’s rapid traction in the deep-blue city has been fueled by a savvy social media strategy that has turned his outsider brand into viral content. His TikTok rants, reposted AI-generated clips mocking his opponents, and attention-grabbing campaign adverts have earned him widespread mainstream attention far beyond his existing reality TV fanbase. His campaign has already moved to quash persistent rumors that a new reality show documenting his political run is in the works if he wins election. Echoing the “Make America Great Again” rhetoric that defined fellow reality star-turned-politician Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential run, Pratt’s campaign centers on a pledge to “get the golden age of Los Angeles back.”

    The catalyst for Pratt’s entry into the race came one year prior, when he lost his Pacific Palisades home in the 2025 LA wildfires – one of the most destructive and deadly wildfire seasons in the region’s history. Much of his campaign messaging centers on the city’s ongoing response to climate-driven disasters, where he has repeatedly accused Bass of mismanaging the 2025 fire crisis and failing to support affected residents. Beyond wildfire policy, Pratt has campaigned on a platform of fixing what he frames as a “broken Los Angeles,” highlighting public safety, urban cleanliness, and pushing for mandatory drug treatment programs as part of a broader plan to address the city’s ongoing homelessness crisis.

    Despite his strong polling and fundraising, political analysts warn Pratt faces a steep uphill climb to win the general election. Los Angeles has not been led by a Republican mayor since 2001, marking a 25-year streak of Democratic control of city hall. UCLA political psychology professor Efrén Pérez notes that Pratt’s base and policy platform remain narrow, rooted largely in the experience of the wealthy Pacific Palisades neighborhood where he resided before the 2025 fires. “That wealthy slice of LA is not representative of the entire city,” Pérez explained, though he acknowledged that Pratt’s advocacy for fire-affected communities holds inherent validity.

    Pratt’s leading opponents have launched sharp attacks on his lack of governing experience ahead of the primary. “It’s not just that he has no experience in city government. I don’t know that he’s ever held a job in his life other than to be a reality TV star,” Bass told supporters at a Monday campaign event, arguing that Pratt lacks understanding of city issues and is campaigning out of anger rather than a coherent policy vision. Raman has gone further, labeling Pratt an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist and arguing he “is not offering a realistic solution” to LA’s most pressing challenges.

    Pratt has pushed back on these criticisms, leaning into his outsider status. “I may not have the experience, but I have the common sense to say this is not working,” he said in a recent interview.

    Pratt first became a household name alongside his wife Heidi Montag, who he met during his time on *The Hills*, the hit MTV spin-off of Laguna Beach that catapulted both to fame in 2007. His on-screen persona – a dramatic, abrasive villain who fueled conflict and spread rumors – made him one of the show’s most talked-about cast members. After *The Hills* wrapped its original run in 2010, Pratt went on to appear on multiple other reality programs including *Celebrity Big Brother* and *I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!*, and launched an online e-commerce business selling crystals. He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science, though he has never held public office.

    USC entertainment, media and society professor Marty Kaplan argues that Pratt’s background gives him a unique advantage in a modern political landscape that has increasingly blurred the line between entertainment and governance. California has a long history of celebrity politicians turning entertainment fame into electoral success, from actor Ronald Reagan who went on to become governor and president, to action star Arnold Schwarzenegger who served two terms as California governor. Donald Trump, the most recent high-profile example, parlayed *The Apprentice* fame into the presidency.

    “The audience has now been accustomed to want to be entertained,” Kaplan explained. “A candidate who can have a story that makes you want to know what happens next, and who delivers sure-fire twists and turns and thrills, that’s what we want.” By contrast, Kaplan noted, Bass – a longtime community organizer and seasoned politician with deep roots in LA – “is just not as entertaining” as Pratt. “What seems to matter now is almost exclusively, ‘will you promise not to bore me?’” he said.

    That entertainment background has earned Pratt a notable endorsement from the former president himself. When asked about Pratt’s campaign during a recent reporter Q&A, Trump said: “I’d like to see him do well. He’s a character. I heard he’s a big Maga person. He’s doing well.” Whether Trump’s backing will help or hurt Pratt in deep-blue Los Angeles, where nearly 65% of county voters backed Kamala Harris in the last presidential election, remains to be seen. Pratt himself has sought to distance his campaign from national partisan fights to appeal to cross-party voters.

    Like Trump’s first 2016 presidential bid, Pratt’s campaign is rooted in anti-establishment protest, Kaplan noted. As a political outsider who has never held office, he “therefore isn’t tainted by experience” – though that cuts both ways. “Unfortunately, that also may mean that he’s not tainted by competence, and voters may be more interested in casting a protest vote against the problems they see… it is a way of saying to the establishment ‘you’re fired,’” Kaplan said.

    Pérez added that Pratt’s celebrity status gives him an inherent advantage that lesser-known outsider candidates rarely get: immediate name recognition and the ability to draw large donations from supporters. Even so, he warns that campaigning is very different from governing. “There’s a big leap, massively, between running for office and campaigning, and all the glitter that comes with it, and then getting your hands dirty for the long haul,” he said.

    As voters head to the polls on Tuesday, all eyes will be on whether the former reality TV villain can pull off one of the biggest political upsets in recent California history.

  • EU strikes migration deal for more deportations and detention centers abroad

    EU strikes migration deal for more deportations and detention centers abroad

    BRUSSELS – After months of tense negotiations and heated political debate, the European Union has finalized a sweeping overhaul of its bloc-wide migration policy, a landmark legislative change that prioritizes accelerated deportations and authorizes controversial off-shore migrant detention centers – changes that human rights advocates warn mirror the hardline, restrictive immigration agenda pushed by former U.S. President Donald Trump.

    The provisional policy agreement was reached Monday evening during closed-door trilogue negotiations between the EU’s three core governing institutions: the European Commission, the European Council, and the European Parliament. Cyprus, which currently holds the bloc’s rotating presidency, has spearheaded the push for the new rules. Nicholas Ioannides, Cyprus’ deputy migration minister, framed the overhaul as a long-overdue correction to the EU’s fragmented existing migration framework, noting that “the new regulation will speed up the return process and increase returns of persons who have no legal right to stay in the EU.”

    The agreement will now move to full votes by the European Parliament and EU member state leaders, where swift approval is widely expected given the shifting political landscape across the bloc. Once enacted, the rules will allow individual EU countries to negotiate bilateral agreements with non-EU nations, primarily in Africa, to construct and operate off-shore “return hubs” – purpose-built detention centers for migrants facing deportation. At least five member states, including Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Greece, have already confirmed they are in early talks with potential third-party host countries, modeling the arrangements after Italy’s existing controversial migration detention deal with Albania.

    The policy shift comes after a marked rightward political shift across the EU, following far-right and anti-immigration parties gaining power in multiple member states in 2024. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose center-right European People’s Party has allied with anti-immigration factions to advance the reforms, has argued the new measures are necessary to prevent a repeat of the 2015 refugee crisis, when more than 1 million asylum seekers, most fleeing Syria’s civil war, arrived in the bloc. Ongoing irregular migration driven by conflict and poverty across Africa and the Middle East has fueled anti-immigrant sentiment across the continent, a political shift that mirrors the anti-immigration momentum that drove a conservative “red wave” in U.S. 2024 elections.

    Critics of the reform have been quick to condemn the changes, drawing direct comparisons to the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration strategy, which included secretive bilateral deals to deport migrants to third countries that were not their nations of origin. The United Kingdom’s similar plan to deport migrants to Rwanda was ultimately scrapped by the new ruling government after becoming tied up in protracted legal challenges, a precedent critics argue the EU is ignoring.

    Silvia Carter, a spokesperson for the Brussels-based Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, called the new framework a purpose-built punitive system, stating that “the Regulation is going to create a draconian detention and deportation machine.” She added, “Across the Atlantic, we see the violence and fear created by ICE’s brutal immigration enforcement. Europe should be learning from the harms of that model, not building its own version of it.”

    French Green Party lawmaker Mélissa Camara, who opposed the agreement, described it as a devastating step backward for human rights in Europe. “Center-right political groups allied with the far-right to overcome opposition from centrist and left-wing parties,” Camara said. “The legalization of return hubs outside the European Union, the green light for the detention of minors, home visits inspired by ICE practices: the legal arsenal serving a xenophobic ideology is now complete.”

    Major international migrant advocacy groups have echoed these concerns, warning the new rules will erode long-standing human rights protections enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and expose vulnerable migrants to severe harm. Marta Welander, a spokesperson for the International Rescue Committee, outlined the far-reaching risks of the policy shift: “This deal will give governments much broader powers to detain and deport people. It looks set to normalize immigration raids, expand the use of detention in prison-like facilities outside EU territory that are essentially legal black holes, and increase the risk of people being deported to countries where they could face persecution, torture or worse.”

    Follow AP’s full coverage of global migration developments at https://apnews.com/hub/migration.

  • Border, peace, democracy: Myanmar president’s India visit is closely watched

    Border, peace, democracy: Myanmar president’s India visit is closely watched

    In a high-stakes diplomatic meeting that has drawn widespread international attention, Myanmar President Min Aung Hlaing held official talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Monday, kicking off a five-day official visit focused on advancing bilateral cooperation across critical sectors ranging from trade and cross-border connectivity to border security and defense cooperation. This meeting marks a historic milestone: it is Min Aung Hlaing’s first foreign trip since he was sworn in as president in April 2026, following a military-backed election that sparked global criticism, and comes five years after the 2021 military coup that plunged Myanmar into a protracted civil conflict. Regional and global powers are closely watching the visit to gauge how key regional players will engage with Myanmar’s military-led administration amid ongoing domestic unrest.

    Geography has long bound the fates of India and Myanmar together: the two neighbors share a 1,643-kilometer land border, and political and security developments in Myanmar have direct and immediate impacts on India, particularly its vulnerable northeastern states, where local security, cross-border migration and informal trade are deeply interconnected with events across the border. The current crisis in Myanmar traces back to February 2021, when Min Aung Hlaing, then serving as commander-in-chief of the Myanmar Armed Forces, ousted the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi, just weeks after her National League for Democracy secured a landslide victory in general elections. The military takeover triggered mass nationwide pro-democracy protests that quickly escalated into an organized armed resistance movement, igniting a civil conflict that has killed more than 10,000 people, displaced millions more, and left large swathes of Myanmar outside the control of the military government. The violence has spilled across the border into India, with thousands of refugees, most from Myanmar’s persecuted Chin ethnic minority, fleeing to the Indian states of Mizoram and Manipur to escape the fighting.

    Between December 2025 and January 2026, the military-backed government held a national election, which resulted in an overwhelming victory for pro-military parties. The vote was heavily criticized by the international community, as major opposition parties were barred from running, and millions of voters in conflict-affected regions were unable to cast ballots. Following the election, a military-dominated parliament elected Min Aung Hlaing to the presidency in April 2026. Myanmar’s authorities frame the election as a critical step toward a return to civilian rule, but opposition groups, Western governments and independent international observers have rejected the vote as unfair, arguing it does nothing to loosen the military’s stranglehold on power. Despite this, Min Aung Hlaing has maintained that the election was free and transparent. Before this post-inauguration visit to India, Min Aung Hlaing had traveled to China and Russia for diplomatic meetings in the period between the 2021 coup and his presidential election. The last official visit by an Indian prime minister to Myanmar took place in 2017.

    In a press briefing following the meeting, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri confirmed that the talks between Modi and Min Aung Hlaing covered the full scope of Myanmar’s domestic political situation, alongside bilateral priorities. Misri noted that Prime Minister Modi raised broad concerns about democratic progress in Myanmar, and the two leaders also discussed the case of Aung San Suu Kyi, who remains under strict house arrest five years after the coup. Misri reaffirmed India’s long-standing position: Delhi remains committed to supporting lasting peace and an inclusive political dialogue that brings all of Myanmar’s stakeholders to the table, arguing that sustained diplomatic engagement, rather than international disengagement, is the only viable path to meaningful progress.

    A joint statement published by Myanmar’s state-run *Global New Light of Myanmar* newspaper outlined that both sides emphasized the urgent need to prevent the misuse of border territory for activities that threaten either nation’s security interests. Min Aung Hlaing reaffirmed Myanmar’s formal assurance that it would not allow its territory to be used to launch operations against India, while Modi reaffirmed India’s unwavering support for Myanmar’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    The Myanmar leader arrived in India on May 30, and kicked off his visit with a trip to the sacred Buddhist site of Bodh Gaya, where he offered prayers at the Mahabodhi Temple, the site revered as the place where Buddha attained enlightenment. After the official talks in New Delhi, Min Aung Hlaing traveled to Mumbai to meet with Indian business leaders, with the goal of attracting new foreign investment and expanding bilateral trade between the two nations.

    Regional analysts widely view the visit as a landmark moment for Myanmar’s military leadership, which has sought to expand its diplomatic engagement after years of international isolation and criticism following the 2021 coup. Rajiv Bhatia, a former Indian ambassador to Myanmar, told reporters that the meeting represents a major diplomatic win for Nay Pyi Taw, as it grants formal validation to Min Aung Hlaing’s presidency from the world’s largest democracy. Gautam Mukhopadhaya, another former Indian ambassador to Myanmar, added that the visit is part of Min Aung Hlaing’s broader strategy to build greater regional and international legitimacy as a newly elected head of state.

    For India, the meeting underscores a long-standing strategic calculation: India’s core national interests in Myanmar outweigh any concerns about the character of the country’s military-led government. Analysts outline that India has three primary strategic priorities in its relationship with Myanmar: maintaining stability along its sensitive northeastern border, advancing its Act East Policy aimed at deepening economic and security ties with Southeast Asia, and balancing the growing influence of China in the country. Myanmar holds a unique place in India’s regional strategy: it is the only member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that shares a land border with India, making it a critical gateway for Indian engagement with the bloc. Bhatia notes that the visit could have a positive ripple effect across ASEAN, as member states work to develop a unified approach to the ongoing Myanmar crisis.

    The talks also come amid intensifying great power competition between India and China in the Indo-Pacific, with Myanmar emerging as a key strategic battleground. Myanmar provides China with direct access to the Bay of Bengal, allowing Beijing to reduce its reliance on the Strait of Malacca for critical trade and energy supplies. Mukhopadhaya notes that since 2017, China has steadily expanded its influence in Myanmar and has become increasingly open about its support for the country’s military leadership, in pursuit of its own strategic and economic goals.

    Min Aung Hlaing’s visit to India also takes place against a shifting backdrop of Myanmar’s relations with Western nations. After the 2021 coup, the United States and many of its allies imposed sweeping economic sanctions on Myanmar’s military leadership. But according to Mukhopadhaya, the second Trump administration has shown little interest in engaging with Myanmar, and has suspended most foreign assistance to the country, including funding for Myanmar refugees and pro-democracy opposition groups. Bhatia added that the Quad security grouping — made up of the United States, India, Japan and Australia — shares a common goal of restoring stability to Myanmar, creating an opening for engagement with the country’s new leadership.

    The ongoing civil conflict has already reshaped the security dynamic along the India-Myanmar border. In recent months, the Myanmar military has regained ground from resistance forces in the country’s eastern and northern regions, and has increasingly focused its attention on securing its western border with India. Mukhopadhaya argues that it is highly likely the Myanmar government will seek greater security cooperation with India to crack down on anti-military resistance groups operating near the border. Ultimately, Bhatia noted, India’s core goal is to see a stable, unified Myanmar emerge from the conflict, and a Myanmar that maintains its strategic independence amid great power competition. “Clearly, a more independent Myanmar is what India is looking for,” Bhatia added.