Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Trump says holding off on new Iran attack

    Trump says holding off on new Iran attack

    In a sudden announcement that shook global geopolitical dynamics on Monday, former US President Donald Trump revealed he had paused a pre-planned large-scale military attack on Iran, caving to requests from key Gulf Arab allies who are pushing for negotiated de-escalation after nearly six weeks of open conflict.

    Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump confirmed that the strike, originally scheduled for Tuesday, had been put on hold at the urging of the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The Gulf bloc argued that serious diplomatic talks are now underway, and expressed confidence that a final deal could be reached that satisfies both Washington and regional powers, with a core goal of ensuring Iran never acquires nuclear weapons. “I stopped the attack plan at the request of our Gulf allies,” Trump stated, noting that Iran has threatened widespread reciprocal retaliation against Gulf states if the US and Israel resume full-scale offensive operations after the recent six-week ceasefire. Trump, who has previously framed the ongoing conflict as a growing political liability and extended the truce indefinitely, added that he has ordered the US military to remain on high alert, ready to launch a full-scale offensive at a moment’s notice if negotiations collapse.

    Iran, which has repeatedly rejected Trump’s initial deal frameworks and maintained tight control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz – a chokepoint that carries a third of global seaborne oil – has driven international energy markets into volatility with its closure of the waterway. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei confirmed that indirect talks are progressing through Pakistan, which has served as a neutral mediator between the two nations. Baqaei made clear that Tehran has laid out non-negotiable demands for any final agreement: the full release of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen overseas, the permanent lifting of decades-old international sanctions, and war reparations for what Tehran calls the “illegal and baseless” US-led invasion that left Iran’s top leadership decapitated – Supreme Leader Khamenei was killed in the initial February 28 strikes, though the Iranian government has remained surprisingly resilient through months of conflict. Baqaei also emphasized that Iran is “fully prepared for any eventuality” if US forces renew attacks.

    Divisions have emerged within Iran’s ruling establishment over the path forward. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, widely labeled a moderate in a political system now dominated by hardline Revolutionary Guards commanders who have consolidated power since the war began, pushed back against hardline critics of diplomatic outreach. “Dialogue does not mean surrender,” Pezeshkian wrote on X. “The Islamic Republic of Iran enters into dialogue with dignity, authority, and the preservation of the nation’s rights, and will under no circumstances retreat from the legal rights of the people and the country.”

    Details of the competing negotiating proposals have begun to emerge in recent days. Over the weekend, Iran’s Fars news agency reported that Washington had tabled a five-point framework that includes a demand for Iran to shut down all but one of its nuclear facilities and transfer its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium to US control. The report added that US negotiators have so far refused to release even 25 percent of Iran’s frozen assets or commit to any war reparations, a major sticking point for Tehran. Still, there was a small sign of progress on Monday: Iran’s Tasnim news agency, quoting an anonymous source close to the Iranian negotiating team, reported that Washington had made a key concession, agreeing to waive oil sanctions on Iran for the duration of the negotiation period.

    On Iran’s end, Tehran proposed a broader peace framework last week that calls for an end to all hostilities across the Middle East, including Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Lebanon, and a full lifting of the US naval blockade that has been in place on Iranian ports since April 13. A core tenet of Iran’s proposal is its claim to full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, which it has largely closed to commercial traffic since the war began.

    Last week, Iran formalized its control over the waterway with the launch of a new governing body, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority. On Monday, the agency announced via X that it would begin publishing real-time updates on navigation and operations in the strait, and clarified that all commercial ships passing through the Strait’s Iranian territorial waters must coordinate their passage directly with the new authority – any unauthorized transit will be classified as an illegal incursion. Earlier this month, Iranian state broadcaster Press TV revealed that the authority would send navigation instructions to passing vessels via email, and the Revolutionary Guards added Monday that all undersea fiber optic cables passing through the strait will now be subject to Iranian permitting requirements.

    Beyond diplomatic maneuvering, military tensions continue to escalate across the region. On Monday, the Revolutionary Guards announced it had carried out a cross-border strike against militant groups linked to the US and Israel in Iran’s Kurdistan province, near the Iraqi border. In a statement carried by Iran’s ISNA news agency, the Guards claimed the groups were based in northern Iraq and acting on behalf of Washington and what Iran calls the “Zionist regime,” and were attempting to smuggle a large shipment of US-made weapons and ammunition into Iranian territory.

    Tensions rose further over the weekend after a drone strike sparked a large fire near a nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates’ Abu Dhabi emirate. The UAE defense ministry confirmed the drone entered the country from the west but declined to publicly name the party responsible. Still, senior UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash made clear in off-the-cuff remarks that the blame lies with Iran and its network of regional proxy militias, stoking fears that the conflict could spread beyond Iran’s borders and draw in other major regional powers.

    Separately, in a show of regional solidarity with Iran’s allies, thousands of supporters of the Iran-backed Houthi movement gathered for a rally in Yemen’s capital Sanaa on Monday to express unity with Lebanon amid Israel’s ongoing military campaign there.

  • Cuba warns of ‘bloodbath’ if US attacks; Washington adds sanctions

    Cuba warns of ‘bloodbath’ if US attacks; Washington adds sanctions

    Tensions between long-standing adversaries the United States and Cuba have surged to new heights in recent days, bringing with them fears of direct military confrontation and a deepening humanitarian crisis on the Caribbean island. On Monday, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel issued a stark warning that any U.S. military attack on the country would trigger a catastrophic bloodbath with unforeseeable, far-reaching consequences, even as the U.S. Department of the Treasury unveiled a new round of punitive sanctions targeting Havana’s top intelligence apparatus and senior leadership.

    Diaz-Canel’s public statement came one day after U.S. news outlet Axios published an exclusive report citing unnamed American intelligence officials, which claimed Cuba had acquired more than 300 military drones from Russia and Iran, and was weighing potential drone strikes against U.S. targets. The alleged targets named in the report included the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay located on Cuban territory, American military vessels operating in the region, and even targets within the U.S. state of Florida. This unconfirmed report quickly fueled widespread global speculation that the Trump administration was actively considering full-scale military action to overthrow Cuba’s long-standing communist government.

    In a post shared on the social platform X, the Cuban leader reiterated that his country poses no military threat to the United States or any other sovereign nation. While he did not directly refute or confirm the allegations surrounding the reported drone stockpile, Diaz-Canel made clear that Cuba retains the absolute, legitimate right to arm itself in self-defense against any outside military aggression.

    Cuba’s top diplomatic representative to the United Nations echoed this defiant tone in an interview with AFP in New York. “If someone tried to invade Cuba, Cuba will fight back, no doubt about it,” Ernesto Soberon Guzman told reporters. He referenced the 1960s Bay of Pigs invasion, when a U.S.-backed assault on Cuba was soundly defeated by Cuban forces. “In the 60s, they (the US) tried to invade Cuba, and they were defeated. Of course, everybody can say this is a different situation. Yes, it is. But the will of the people of Cuba has not changed,” he added.

    Alongside the rising rhetorical conflict, the U.S. moved to ramp up economic pressure on Havana on Monday. The new sanctions target Cuba’s primary intelligence agency, plus nine senior Cuban nationals, including the nation’s cabinet ministers for communications, energy, and justice. A statement from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control confirmed that several top leaders of the Cuban Communist Party and at least three senior military generals were also added to the U.S. sanctions list.

    This latest action is part of a broader campaign of intensified pressure the U.S. has waged against Cuba since January. The strategy mirrors the U.S. military intervention that ousted the Venezuelan government earlier that year, with former President Donald Trump openly musing about removing Cuba’s sitting leadership. Most impactful, Washington cut off one of Cuba’s last remaining economic lifelines by halting all oil shipments from Venezuela, Havana’s primary fuel supplier, and threatened to impose tariffs on any third country that moved to cover the resulting fuel gap.

    The U.S. oil blockade has dramatically worsened a already severe humanitarian and energy crisis across Cuba. The island now suffers from increasingly frequent and extended national blackouts, as its aging, dilapidated power plants struggle to operate without sufficient fuel to run backup generators. The Cuban government has repeatedly accused Washington of intentionally crippling the island’s economy through the fuel blockade to create a pretext for a full military intervention to overthrow its government, after decades of economic pressure failed to force regime change.

    The Axios drone report was not an isolated development: it came just days after Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Havana for closed-door negotiations with Cuban officials. It also aligned with ongoing U.S. media reports that the Trump administration was preparing to file criminal charges against 94-year-old Raul Castro, the brother of iconic Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, as another element of its pressure campaign.

    Amid the growing crisis, Cuba has received critical support from Mexico’s left-wing government. On Monday, the island took delivery of its fifth shipment of humanitarian aid from Mexico since February. Unlike previous aid shipments, which were transported by Mexican navy vessels, journalists from AFP observed that this consignment was carried by a commercial merchant ship sailing under a Panamanian flag. The vessel is carrying a total of 1,700 tons of relief supplies. According to Cuban Food Industry Minister Alberto Lopez, the shipment includes powdered milk and beans earmarked for distribution to children and elderly residents, the most vulnerable groups affected by the ongoing crisis.

  • ‘We have to remove Islam’: Social media reacts to racist speeches at Unite the Kingdom rally

    ‘We have to remove Islam’: Social media reacts to racist speeches at Unite the Kingdom rally

    On a Saturday in mid-May 2026, central London played host to two contrasting mass demonstrations, alongside the season’s FA Cup Final, stretching city policing resources as a far-right rally organized by British anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson drew widespread condemnation for overtly hate-filled rhetoric targeting the UK’s Muslim community.

    Organized under the banner “Unite the Kingdom”, the rally led by Robinson – whose legal name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – drew an estimated crowd of 60,000 attendees, according to Metropolitan Police figures. This marked a sharp drop from the 150,000 attendees that turned out for Robinson’s September 2024 demonstration, signaling declining public traction for his movement despite the inflammatory messaging on display.

    At the same time the far-right gathering got underway, pro-Palestine organizers held their annual Nakba Day commemoration across the city, marking 78 years since the forced displacement of roughly 750,000 Palestinians during the establishment of the state of Israel. In total, more than 4,000 Metropolitan Police officers were deployed across London to manage all three major public events. By the end of the day, officials confirmed a total of 43 arrests across the two protests, with 20 of those taken into custody at Robinson’s rally facing charges that include public order violations, drunk and disorderly conduct, criminal property damage, and possession of an offensive weapon.

    Robinson opened his remarks by framing the event as a call for political organizing, urging attendees to register to vote ahead of upcoming elections. But his rhetoric quickly turned to division, asking the crowd if they were “ready for the battle of Britain” and warning that without greater grassroots activism from his supporters, “we are going to lose our country forever.” In a post-rally interview with pro-Israel influencer Weronika Rogowska, he doubled down on his anti-Muslim stance, stating that if he gained political power he would “stop Islam” and publicly called for “many Muslims to leave this country” – comments that were quickly labeled incitement to violence by social media users.

    Other speakers at the event amplified the Islamophobic messaging. A delegation from Collectif Nemesis, a French far-right feminist group that opposes immigration and the presence of Islam in Europe, staged a widely criticized performance: three members of the group, including founder Alice Cordier, walked onto the stage wearing full Islamic coverings. They then urged the crowd to chant “take it off” before removing the garments to reveal casual clothing underneath. The stunt drew immediate backlash across social media, with commentators labeling it a deliberate dehumanization of Muslim women. “6% of the UK is Muslim. This is bullying a minority group, pure and simple. It’s gross, despicable racism,” British commentator Harry Eccles wrote in a viral post on X.

    Anti-transgender activist Kellie Jay Keen also drew fierce criticism for her remarks, telling the crowd that the UK can only be “saved” if Islam is removed from every position of public authority. Many observers noted that such open targeting of a religious community would almost certainly lead to prosecution and widespread condemnation if directed at any other group, highlighting what they call growing normalization of anti-Muslim racism in British public life.

    The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) released an official statement condemning the rally, questioning why such inflammatory rhetoric is tolerated when directed at Muslim communities. “We ask a simple question of the authorities, political leaders, and broadcasters: why is this rhetoric tolerated and even defended when it comes to Muslims, when the equivalent, directed at any other group, would rightly be met with prosecution, condemnation, and unequivocal political consequence?” the MCB asked, calling on the Home Office to launch a formal investigation into the speeches as incitements to religious hatred.

    Human rights experts echoed these criticisms. Alonso Gurmendi, a human rights fellow at the London School of Economics, noted that the stage stunt perpetuates dangerous false narratives that frame the oppression of Muslim women as “liberation,” putting all Muslim women at greater risk of targeted harassment and violence. Multiple Muslim members of the public also shared their distress online, with one Muslim woman writing that the “sickening behaviour” had no place in her home country of England.

    Critics also targeted the UK government and Prime Minister Keir Starmer for what they see as a deliberate silence on the rally’s hate speech. While Starmer’s administration did block 11 far-right figures from entering the UK to attend the event – including high-profile anti-Islam campaigner Valentina Gomez – no senior government official has publicly condemned the content of the speeches. Social media users have specifically called out Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who previously labeled pro-Palestine protests “hate marches”, for her silence on the far-right rally. As of publication, the Home Office and Mahmood have not responded to requests for comment from Middle East Eye.

    Police officials noted that while the events were largely contained, officers again faced targeted abuse from attendees of the Unite the Kingdom rally, in particular Muslim officers. “yesterday we saw more of the same” abuse targeting Muslim officers, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson said, referencing a similar pattern of abuse recorded at prior far-right gatherings.

  • Trump admin creates $1.7 bln fund to compensate allies prosecuted under Biden

    Trump admin creates $1.7 bln fund to compensate allies prosecuted under Biden

    In a controversial move that has ignited fierce partisan backlash, the U.S. Department of Justice, now led by former personal lawyer of President Donald Trump Todd Blanche, announced Monday the creation of a $1.7 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” designed to compensate political allies who were prosecuted during the prior Biden administration. The new fund is the centerpiece of a settlement agreement that ends a high-profile $10 billion damages lawsuit Trump and his two eldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, brought against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) earlier this year over the unauthorized leak of the president’s personal tax returns.

    The legal dispute stemmed from a 2023 case in which a former IRS contractor pleaded guilty to leaking confidential tax records of Trump and dozens of other high-net-worth individuals to major media outlets, ultimately receiving a five-year federal prison sentence for the offense. Under the terms of the settlement, the DOJ confirmed that Trump will not receive any financial compensation or damages from the fund, though he will be issued a formal apology for the privacy breach. Blanche, who currently serves as acting attorney general, framed the initiative as a long-overdue correction of past government overreach. “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a formal statement. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.” Blanche will personally appoint a five-person panel to oversee the fund’s allocation and claims process, according to department officials.

    Critics across the political aisle, however, have blasted the initiative as an unprecedented abuse of power and a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars to reward Trump’s loyalists. Democratic lawmakers and government watchdog groups were quick to label the initiative a brazenly corrupt “slush fund,” with top Democratic leaders leading the charge against the plan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the scheme one of the most depraved acts of corruption in modern American political history. “Donald Trump sued his own government. Trump’s DOJ settled with Trump. And now Trump gets a nearly $2 billion slush fund to reward his own allies, loyalists, and insurrectionists,” Schumer said in a scathing statement. “Of all the corrupt things he has done, this is one of the most depraved.”

    Nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen echoed the criticism, describing the fund as a “monstrous theft of taxpayer resources” and calling on Congress to immediately block any disbursements from the account. Even former 2016 presidential opponent Hillary Clinton weighed in, condemning the move as an outrageous misuse of public funds. “Trump didn’t just pardon his followers who stormed the US Capitol. He’s now set them up for payments through a slush fund he created to reward his allies — out of your tax dollars. You could not make this up,” Clinton posted on social media.

    Among those eligible to file claims for compensation are hundreds of Trump supporters who faced prosecution for their role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an insurrection aimed at blocking the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory. Shortly after winning re-election in 2024, Trump issued a sweeping mass pardon for all January 6 defendants on his first day back in office, and the new fund would allow those individuals to seek financial compensation for their prosecutions.

    The creation of the fund marks the latest in a series of retaliatory actions Trump has taken against perceived political opponents since returning to the White House for a second term. His administration has already moved forward with plans to pursue new criminal cases against political rivals, purged thousands of career government officials deemed insufficiently loyal to the president, targeted private law firms that previously worked on legal cases against him, and pulled federal research and education funding from universities across the country that Trump has criticized for being too liberal. Both of the high-profile criminal cases that special counsel Jack Smith brought against Trump prior to the 2024 election — one centered on efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and another related to improper handling of classified national security documents — were dropped immediately after Trump’s inauguration.

  • Bolivia protesters allied with ex-leader Morales march on capital as unrest widens

    Bolivia protesters allied with ex-leader Morales march on capital as unrest widens

    LA PAZ, Bolivia – Six months into the tenure of Bolivia’s first conservative head of state in nearly 20 years, widespread protests led by supporters of influential former socialist president Evo Morales have plunged the Andean nation into political and social upheaval, sparked by the worst economic crisis the country has faced in a generation. What began as scattered demonstrations and road blockades more than two weeks ago has grown into the most formidable threat to the administration of President Rodrigo Paz, who took office last year amid a regional conservative wave linked to the former Trump administration in the United States.

    After trekking for six days across the rugged Andes mountain range, thousands of Morales’ loyal supporters converged on the capital La Paz on Monday, where they faced off against lines of riot police. Many demonstrators carried visible dynamite sticks and slingshots, with repeated dynamite blasts echoing through downtown La Paz. In response, security forces deployed tear gas canisters that drifted over crowds united in chants of “Homeland or death, we will win!” and unified demands for Paz’s immediate resignation.

    Paz inherited a 40-year economic low when he took office, and has faced mounting pressure to address persistent gaps: scarce fuel supplies, a crippling national budget deficit, and a critical shortage of U.S. dollars. The president has also had to navigate tensions with powerful Morales-aligned groups that have a long history of leveraging mass action to disrupt sitting governments. In recent days, Paz’s administration has secured tentative deals to end protests with striking miners and teacher unions, but core demonstrations led by Morales supporters have continued.

    Road blockades, a longstanding protest tactic for Morales’ social movement bloc which claims to represent Bolivia’s majority rural Indigenous population, have paralyzed key transportation routes across the country over 16 days. Thousands of freight trucks have been stranded on major highways, triggering cascading shortages of food, fuel, and critical medical supplies in La Paz and other major urban centers.

    Over the weekend, the Bolivian government deployed national police and military personnel to clear blockades. As of Monday, Bolivia’s public prosecutor’s office confirmed an unspecified number of injuries and at least 90 arrests stemming from the crackdown. Deputy Interior Minister Hernán Paredes defended the government’s actions Monday, stating that peaceful demonstrations are permitted, but authorities will respond forcefully to any criminal activity connected to the unrest.

    Paz has directly accused Morales of orchestrating the current wave of unrest in a deliberate bid to destabilize and overthrow his democratically elected administration. Morales, for his part, has organized the massive march from a remote tropical hideout in Bolivia, where he has evaded an outstanding arrest warrant for 18 months. The arrest warrant stems from allegations stemming from his sexual relationship with a 15-year-old minor, charges Morales have repeatedly dismissed as politically motivated fabrication.

    The unfolding crisis has drawn international attention and intervention. Last week, eight Latin American governments spanning from Argentina to Panama released a joint statement rejecting any action intended to destabilize Bolivia’s democratic order. The U.S. State Department added its condemnation of the unrest Sunday, confirming U.S. support for Paz’s government and its efforts to reestablish peace, security, and stability for the Bolivian people.

    At Paz’s formal request, neighboring Argentina has launched a weeklong humanitarian airlift operation to ease the acute shortages of critical goods that are currently impacting Bolivian cities.

  • Ex-Everton director loses Russian sanctions challenge

    Ex-Everton director loses Russian sanctions challenge

    A former senior official at English Premier League football club Everton has failed in a High Court legal bid to overturn UK government sanctions imposed over his family connection to a Kremlin-aligned Russian oligarch, a court has ruled.

    Sarvar Ismailov, who once served on Everton’s board of directors, and his brother Sanjar were first added to the UK’s sanctions register in 2022, shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The designation stemmed from their close familial tie to Alisher Usmanov, an Uzbek-Russian billionaire with long-documented links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    After the initial imposition of sanctions, Ismailov requested a formal government review of his designation in 2023. While minor wording adjustments were made to his sanction listing in 2024, the restrictive measures against him remained in place, prompting him to launch a judicial challenge against the Foreign Office.

    During the High Court hearing held earlier this month, Ismailov’s legal team argued that the continued sanctions were inherently unfair. They asserted that Ismailov was being penalized solely for his biological relation to Usmanov, a position they described as “outrageously unfair”.

    In defending the government’s decision, barristers representing the Foreign Office told the London court that sanctioning individuals connected by family to targeted oligarchs serves multiple clear, rational and legitimate policy goals within the broader sanctions regime.

    Delivering his 46-page ruling, Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini dismissed Ismailov’s legal challenge. The judge found that the Foreign Office holds unique institutional insight and position to evaluate whether sanctions measures will meet their intended policy objectives, and concluded that the department’s decision to maintain sanctions against Ismailov was not irrational.

    Justice Saini further accepted that it was reasonable for the Foreign Office to infer that Ismailov retains the ability to exert influence over his uncle, Alisher Usmanov. He noted that the decision to keep Ismailov under sanction is clearly tied to the core objectives of the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, one of which is to demonstrate that any association with individuals linked to the Russian government will carry tangible negative consequences.

    “The question is not whether the claimant’s designation will of itself bring the conflict to an end,” Justice Saini wrote. “Rather, the question is whether the measure is capable of contributing to the stated objective as part of the overall sanctions regime. The decision to maintain the designation of the claimant is so capable.”

    He added: “The claimant’s designation, and others like him who are ‘associated with’ [Mr Usmanov], makes an important contribution to the overall cumulative impact of sanctions and enhances pressure on Russia in respect of its actions in Ukraine.”

    Ismailov, who was born in Uzbekistan, joined Everton’s organizational structure in 2019 and was elevated to the club’s board of directors in mid-2021. However, he stepped down from all his positions at the club just months later that November, after facing a criminal charge that was ultimately dismissed.

    Hugo Keith KC, Ismailov’s lead barrister, told the court that his client moved to the United Kingdom at the age of 13, has never resided in Russia as an adult, holds no political influence or connections within Russia, and has no personal relationship or access to President Putin or any senior member of the Russian government. Keith also stressed that there is no evidence to show Ismailov has ever supported the Russian government or its invasion of Ukraine, calling the continued sanctioning of his client “utterly purposeless,” “plainly irrational” and “capricious.”

    Jason Pobjoy KC, representing the Foreign Office, countered that the department acted well within its legal authority in choosing to maintain sanctions against Ismailov. Even acknowledging the significant personal impact the measures have on Ismailov, Pobjoy argued that the decision advances the overarching policy goals of the UK’s sanctions regime against Russia. He added that the Foreign Office is granted a broad margin of discretion in making sanction designations, and there is no valid legal basis to overturn the department’s ruling.

  • Alex Murdaugh sues court clerk over jury tampering after murder convictions overturned

    Alex Murdaugh sues court clerk over jury tampering after murder convictions overturned

    The high-profile legal saga of disgraced South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh has entered a new chapter, days after the state’s Supreme Court threw out his 2023 convictions for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. On Wednesday, Murdaugh filed a civil lawsuit against Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill, the court official at the center of the judicial misconduct that invalidated his original guilty verdict.

    Last week, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a unanimous 5-0 ruling ordering a new trial for Murdaugh, concluding that Hill had deliberately undermined his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The high court documented multiple inappropriate interactions between Hill and seated jurors during the six-week 2023 trial, including statements where she urged jurors not to be swayed by evidence presented by the defense.

    Within months of the guilty verdict, Hill released a commercially published tell-all book about the high-profile proceedings, which drew international media attention and drew crowds of true crime observers to the televised trial. In his new civil filing, Murdaugh’s legal team argues that Hill’s improper jury interference was driven entirely by personal financial gain. Court documents allege Hill sought a guilty verdict specifically to boost book sales, with the end goal of purchasing a lake house. The suit quotes the Supreme Court’s own finding that Hill believed a conviction would maximize profits from her planned publication.

    Murdaugh is seeking monetary damages to cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars he spent on his criminal defense during the first trial, totaling $600,000 in claimed compensation for the harms he suffered as a result of Hill’s actions. This is not Hill’s first run-in with legal consequences: Last December, she pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges including misconduct in public office, obstruction of justice, and perjury connected to unrelated allegations that she misappropriated public funds during her tenure as clerk and leaked sealed court records to a journalist.

    Murdaugh, once a prominent member of a powerful local legal family, has maintained his complete innocence in the 2021 killings of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Prosecutors have announced plans to retry the double murder case, though no new trial date has been scheduled. He is currently serving consecutive 27-year and 40-year sentences for separate state and federal convictions for financial crimes, including years of stealing millions of dollars from his law firm and clients to fund an opioid addiction and extravagant lifestyle. Prosecutors argued at the original trial that the killings were an attempt to cover up this years-long pattern of financial corruption. The case has drawn global public interest, spawning multiple documentaries, podcasts, and book deals long before Hill entered the publishing space.

  • Trump drops $10bn lawsuit against IRS in exchange for a settlement fund

    Trump drops $10bn lawsuit against IRS in exchange for a settlement fund

    In a surprising legal development that has ignited fierce partisan controversy across Washington, former president and current U.S. President Donald Trump has agreed to dismiss his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the 2020 leak of his personal tax returns. The settlement paves the way for the creation of a $1.776 billion federal fund to compensate individuals who claim they were improperly targeted by government law enforcement actions.

    Trump first launched the legal action in January, arguing that the IRS failed to intervene to stop a former agency contractor, Charles “Chaz” Littlejohn, from leaking years of confidential tax documents to national media outlets during his first term in office. The dismissal came just 48 hours before a critical May 20 court deadline, where both sides were scheduled to argue over whether a valid legal standing for the case even existed — a question raised given Trump now leads the executive branch that oversees the IRS.

    Almost immediately after Trump’s legal team filed the motion to dismiss, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the terms of the broader settlement agreement. Under the deal, a new “anti-weaponisation fund” will be established to create a formal process for reviewing and resolving claims from people who say they were harmed when government law enforcement was improperly politicized. Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization, all named plaintiffs in the original suit, will receive a formal apology from the department but no financial compensation, officials confirmed.

    The fund will be managed by a five-member commission, four of which will be appointed directly by the U.S. Attorney General, and is allocated nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funding to resolve eligible claims. Quarterly public reports on all disbursements from the fund will be submitted to the Attorney General, per the agreement. “The machinery of government should never be weaponised against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement announcing the deal.

    A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team framed the president’s decision to settle as a move driven by public interest, saying “the president is entering into this settlement squarely for the benefit of the American people. He will continue his fight to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable,” the spokesperson added.

    However, congressional Democrats have decried the agreement as an unconstitutional abuse of power, labeling the new fund an unaccountable “slush fund” that will be used to reward Trump’s political allies. More than 90 House Democrats have already filed a legislative motion to block the settlement from taking effect. Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin issued a blistering statement calling the deal a corrupt racket, arguing it would divert $1.7 billion in public funds to pay allies of Trump, including people convicted for their role in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot and supporters of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

    Legal experts consulted by the judge overseeing the original suit last week had already described Trump’s legal action as historically unusual. “This case is unprecedented: A sitting president seeks monetary damages for alleged harm to his personal interests from an executive agency that he controls,” the experts wrote in their analysis, noting that Trump has publicly acknowledged he exercises control over both the IRS and the Department of Justice attorneys handling the litigation.

    The controversy traces back to the 2020 leak of Trump’s tax records, which formed the basis of a landmark New York Times investigation published weeks before that year’s presidential election. The investigation confirmed that Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016, the year he won the presidency, and paid no federal income tax at all in 10 of the 15 years prior to that election. Trump voluntarily released his tax records publicly in 2022, two years after the leak. Littlejohn, the contractor responsible for the leak, pleaded guilty in 2023 to stealing confidential tax data from Trump and thousands of other high-income Americans, and was sentenced to five years in federal prison in 2024.

  • What to know about the political chaos engulfing the UK’s Labour Party and efforts to unseat Starmer

    What to know about the political chaos engulfing the UK’s Labour Party and efforts to unseat Starmer

    LONDON — Just two years after securing a historic landslide general election victory, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds himself fighting to save his job, grappling with an unprecedented internal rebellion triggered by the Labour Party’s catastrophic performance in the May 7 local and regional elections. On Monday, Starmer rallied party staff at Labour’s London headquarters, seeking to shore up his crumbling support amid growing calls for his resignation from dozens of sitting party members.

  • Judge rules gun and writings are admissible in Luigi Mangione’s New York murder trial

    Judge rules gun and writings are admissible in Luigi Mangione’s New York murder trial

    In a landmark pre-trial ruling released Monday, New York State Supreme Court Judge Gregory Carro has carved out a narrow middle ground in the high-profile murder case against Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in late 2024. The judge approved the admission of a handgun and handwritten writings found in Mangione’s backpack during a post-arrest search at a Pennsylvania police station, but barred prosecutors from using multiple other pieces of evidence collected during an initial warrantless search at a local Altoona McDonald’s, citing constitutional violations.

    The 26-year-old suspect stands accused of fatally shooting Thompson on a busy Manhattan street in December 2024, just days before law enforcement tracked him to the western Pennsylvania McDonald’s following a multi-state nationwide manhunt. When officers responded to a tip from a member of the public who recognized Mangione from publicly released suspect photos, they approached the suspect to question his identity. Roughly 48 minutes after the initial interaction began, officers read Mangione his Miranda rights, the standard U.S. criminal procedure warning that informs suspects of their right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination.

    During the pre-Miranda interaction at the restaurant, an officer conducted an unwarranted search of Mangione’s backpack, uncovering a loaded gun magazine, a passport, a cellphone, a wallet, a computer chip, and a Faraday bag designed to shield electronic devices from external signal monitoring. After Mangione was taken into custody, law enforcement conducted a second, more comprehensive inventory search of his belongings at the Altoona police station, where they found the handgun that prosecutors intend to present as the murder weapon, along with a red journal containing Mangione’s writings.

    Mangione’s defense team launched an aggressive pre-trial motion to suppress all evidence collected from the McDonald’s encounter, as well as all statements Mangione made to officers during the initial questioning. They argued that the warrantless search of the defendant’s personal property violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the pre-Miranda questioning violated his due process rights. Prosecutors countered that all police actions followed lawful protocol and that the evidence should be admissible at trial.

    After hearing several days of pre-trial arguments in late 2024, Judge Carro ruled in favor of the defense on multiple key points. All evidence recovered during the initial McDonald’s search—including the loaded magazine, cellphone, passport, wallet, and computer chip—must be suppressed, he ruled, because the search was deemed improper and conducted without a valid warrant. In addition, all statements Mangione made to officers before he was read his Miranda rights, including answers to questions about lying about his identity and whether he carried fake identification, are also excluded from the state trial.

    However, the ruling handed prosecutors a critical victory by clearing the way for them to present the handgun and red journal found during the police station inventory search—two of the most high-stakes pieces of evidence in the case. While the suppression of multiple pieces of evidence marks a significant win for the defense, the ability to introduce the murder weapon and the defendant’s own writings leaves prosecutors with core evidence to present to the jury.

    Mangione has pleaded not guilty to all state charges, which include second-degree murder, multiple firearms offenses, and stalking. He also faces separate federal charges in connection with Thompson’s killing, and has entered a not guilty plea in that case as well. During Monday’s brief hearing, Mangione appeared in court dressed in a navy blue suit, whispering to one member of his legal team as lead defense attorneys Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Marc Agnifilo conferred with the judge and prosecution at the front of the courtroom. The back of the courtroom was filled with multiple rows of spectators and supporters of Mangione, several of whom wore printed shirts calling for his exoneration.

    The state murder trial is scheduled to begin in September 2025, and the ruling has now cleared up the major pre-trial evidence dispute that had dominated procedural proceedings in the case for months.