分类: politics

  • Lula says rival should be disqualified over alleged Meta interference ahead of Brazil vote

    Lula says rival should be disqualified over alleged Meta interference ahead of Brazil vote

    Brazil’s high-stakes presidential run-off is set to take place this Sunday, but the lead-up to the vote has been engulfed in escalating controversy over alleged unequal treatment on Meta’s social media platforms, with both leading candidates filing last-minute petitions calling for each other’s disqualification from the ballot.

    Left-wing incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who is seeking a fourth presidential term, was the first to submit a formal request to Brazil’s top judicial body for elections, the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), on Wednesday. In the filing, Lula’s campaign argues that Meta — the U.S. tech giant that owns widely used Brazilian platforms WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook — has intentionally restricted Lula-aligned content to amplify the campaign of his right-wing challenger, Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. The petition calls for an investigation into claims of abuse of economic power and improper social media manipulation, and asks the court to bar Bolsonaro from holding office for eight years after the 2026 election if the allegations are proven.

    Flávio Bolsonaro quickly pushed back with a counter-petition of his own, also filed Wednesday with the TSE. He accuses Lula’s campaign of abusing political and economic power, claiming the incumbent administration has leveraged personal voter data pulled from official government databases to send mass promotional WhatsApp messages touting Lula’s social programs to millions of Brazilian voters.

    The dispute over Meta’s role in the election emerged earlier this month, when pro-Lula demonstrators gathered outside the company’s São Paulo headquarters on Monday to protest what they called illegal interference in Brazil’s democratic process. Users across the country have also reported anomalous behavior on Meta platforms, including the company’s AI image generation tools failing to produce output related to Lula, and disproportionate reach for Bolsonaro-aligned content.

    These on-the-ground claims were bolstered this week by a statement from United Nations experts, who released a public assessment Wednesday raising formal concerns about unequal access to voters across Meta’s platforms ahead of the run-off. The report, led by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, called on Meta to guarantee a fair level playing field for all candidates during the final voting period. It documented multiple reported irregularities, including temporary suspensions of one candidate’s campaign account, inconsistent performance in user feeds, view counts and overall audience reach, and unnecessary content restrictions on one campaign’s Instagram posts. The report added that even information from Meta employees has pointed to disproportionate content limitations for accounts linked to one of the two presidential tickets.

    Meta has repeatedly pushed back against all claims of bias. The company has issued multiple public denials that it has taken any action to favor either candidate in the election, and has stated it will fully comply with any court order requiring equal treatment for both Lula and Bolsonaro’s campaigns.

    The run-off comes after an unexpectedly tight first round of voting held on October 4. Flávio Bolsonaro secured a narrow lead over Lula in the first round, but neither candidate crossed the 50% threshold of valid votes required to win the presidency outright, forcing the head-to-head second round this Sunday. With 159 million registered Brazilian voters eligible to cast ballots, pre-election opinion polls show the two candidates are virtually neck-and-neck, making the outcome of Sunday’s vote too close to call.

  • ‘This is despicable’: Amy Acton responds to Ohio attack ad featuring her estranged mother

    ‘This is despicable’: Amy Acton responds to Ohio attack ad featuring her estranged mother

    The 2024 Ohio gubernatorial race has been thrown into the national spotlight after a deeply personal attack ad targeting Democratic candidate Amy Acton sparked widespread outrage from politicians across both major parties and voters alike.

    Acton, who is running to replace outgoing Republican governor Mike DeWine, has called the ad released by her Republican opponent Vivek Ramaswamy ‘despicable’ for featuring her estranged mother’s uncontextualized criticism without acknowledging the childhood trauma at the heart of their estrangement. In the ad, Donna Arthur, Acton’s mother, claims Acton ‘lied her entire life,’ but it omits the critical detail that Arthur’s husband was charged with raping Acton when she was a child. Following the indictment, both Acton and her brother were removed from Arthur’s custody. Acton has not seen her mother since a 1978 court hearing, after her stepfather fled the state before standing trial. He died in 2004 without ever facing prosecution for his crimes.

    Since the ad launched on Monday, it has generated immediate bipartisan backlash, and even members of Ramaswamy’s own party have condemned the spot. DeWine, the outgoing Republican governor who endorsed Ramaswamy, has publicly called the ad deeply troubling and called for it to be removed from air. The editorial board of the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio’s largest daily newspaper, withdrew its earlier endorsement of Ramaswamy and instead endorsed Acton, describing the ad as ‘revolting and unsettling.’ Former Republican Congressman Jim Renacci wrote on social media platform X that the ad has fatally damaged the Republican campaign in Ohio, and warned that any GOP official who fails to distance themselves from the spot will also face political fallout.

    On Wednesday, Illinois first lady MK Pritzker announced a $500,000 donation to Acton’s campaign to support her after the controversy. Even former President Donald Trump, while noting the unusual nature of a mother publicly attacking her daughter this way, has downplayed any connection between the ad and Ramaswamy’s candidacy. Conversely, Ohio Senator JD Vance, a prominent Republican, has dismissed intra-party criticism of the ad, saying he is disgusted by fellow Republicans ‘whining’ about the spot and calling on them to stop their criticism.

    Ohio’s top elections official, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, has confirmed his office is reviewing formal complaints about the ad, which initially aired without the legally required disclosure identifying who paid for the advertisement. Ramaswamy quickly took responsibility for the ad on social media the day after its release, and announced his campaign would spend $4 million to air it across every major media market in the state.

    In response to the original attack ad, Acton released her own ad earlier this week, featuring her brother recalling their shared childhood trauma and condemning Ramaswamy for using sexual assault as a political talking point. At a campaign stop on Wednesday, Acton pushed back against Ramaswamy’s tactic, saying ‘I’ve never attacked his family. I would never do that.’ She added that the ad’s release has resonated with countless survivors of trauma and abuse across the country, who have reached out to express their support.

    Political analysts note that while attack ads are a longstanding staple of American electoral politics, they have grown increasingly harsh and personal in recent cycles. David Lublin, a professor of public affairs at American University, told the BBC that the extreme nature of this ad suggests Ramaswamy’s campaign is desperate to shift momentum in his favor ahead of the November 3 election. A pre-ad poll released by VoteHub on Thursday shows Acton holding a narrow 1% lead over Ramaswamy, which falls within the survey’s margin of error. If Acton wins the race, she will become the first Democrat to hold the Ohio governorship in 20 years.

  • Why a student protest movement is challenging 12 years of Vučić rule in Serbia

    Why a student protest movement is challenging 12 years of Vučić rule in Serbia

    As Serbia enters the final stretch of campaigning for Sunday’s snap parliamentary election, mass rallies have erupted across the country, framing the vote as a defining judgment on the Balkan nation’s future after 12 years of populist rule under Aleksandar Vučić.

    What began as a small, justice-focused demonstration two years ago has grown into the most formidable threat Vučić has faced during his time in power. The movement traces its origins to a fatal tragedy in November 2024, when a concrete canopy collapsed outside the main train station in Novi Sad, Serbia’s second-largest city, killing 16 people. The disaster quickly became a symbol of deep-seated government corruption and negligence, with critics tying the shoddy renovation project directly to Vučić, who had positioned himself as the public face of the work.

    What started as weekly campus protests demanding accountability soon expanded into a nationwide grassroots movement, drawing in discontented Serbs from all walks of life: farmers, judges, actors, and professionals joined young demonstrators to challenge the status quo. The spontaneous, leaderless movement organized itself through decentralized student assemblies, rapidly gaining traction to the point that Serbia’s sitting prime minister resigned within weeks of the protests going national. A massive rally in Belgrade in March 2025 cemented the movement’s position as a major political force, culminating in the formation of the electoral bloc “Student List-Students Win” to contest Sunday’s vote.

    In a striking departure from traditional party politics, the movement – driven overwhelmingly by young Serbian students – does not run a single student candidate. Instead, it has assembled a cross-section of respected public figures to stand for office, led by Novi Sad cardiologist and professor Ilija Srdanović. Other high-profile candidates include former basketball star Dejan Bodiroga, acclaimed actor Tihomir Stanić, and former National Bank of Serbia governor Dejan Šoškić. Speaking to supporters during a march to central Belgrade, Srdanović framed the moment as a turning point for Serbia, saying “The energy is unstoppable. We are rewriting history.” Several established opposition parties have stood aside to throw their full support behind the student-led bloc, consolidating anti-government sentiment into a single competing force.

    The movement’s 11-point policy platform centers on root-and-branch reform to overhaul Serbia’s current political system. Key pledges include creating a specialized anti-corruption police unit to prosecute corrupt officials, purging the interior ministry of figures linked to organized crime or the crackdown on protests, breaking state control of public media to create an independent, balanced press, and ending the practice of appointing ruling party loyalists to lead public enterprises.

    For Vučić, who has held either the presidency or prime ministership since 2014, this election marks a new political chapter. Term limits bar him from running for a third presidential term, so he is leading his ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) with the goal of returning to the prime ministership he left in 2017. Vučić has framed the student-led challenge as a foreign plot, doubling down on unsubstantiated claims that the movement is a front for “great powers” seeking to overthrow his government, while vowing to end what he calls the politicization of Serbia’s education system. He has also denied accusations of systemic corruption and improper political influence over media.

    Vučić has maintained a delicate diplomatic balancing act during his tenure: he has kept Serbia on track for European Union membership candidacy, while refusing to join Western sanctions on Russia over its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. His government recently drew sharp condemnation from the EU after multiple cabinet ministers attended the Belgrade funeral of convicted war criminal Ratko Mladić, in what the bloc called an act of glorification of war crimes.

    Foreign policy analysts note that this grassroots movement presents an unprecedented challenge to Vučić’s grip on power. “The students have been able to mobilize the masses in a way traditional opposition parties have never managed,” explained Helena Ivanov, a researcher at the London-based Henry Jackson Society, speaking from Belgrade. “Vučić has won every election Serbia has held since the introduction of multi-party politics, so defeating him will not be simple – but this time, he will not have an easy ride either.”

    Sunday’s vote will see 6.45 million registered voters select from 18 electoral lists competing for 250 parliamentary seats, allocated via proportional representation in a single national constituency, with a 3% threshold to gain seats. Only seven lists are fielding the full slate of 250 candidates. Voting will open at 7 a.m. local time (6 a.m. GMT) and close at 8 p.m.

    While international observers from the Council of Europe are on the ground monitoring the vote, concerns over electoral fairness have already been raised. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has described a “tense and divisive electoral climate” that has taken on a “referendum-like atmosphere. While Serbia’s election commission maintains the vote will be free and confidential, independent domestic election watchdog CRTA has documented widespread irregularities: threats and physical violence against opposition activists, unlawful surveillance of campaigners, and systemic bias that sees state institutions from national ministries to local governments participate in “electoral engineering” to benefit the ruling party. The watchdog also found that nearly 75% of national television news coverage is dedicated to ruling party representatives, leaving little room for opposition voices. The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom has recorded 160 separate attacks on media outlets and journalists in Serbia so far this year, underscoring the tense environment ahead of polling day.

  • Ilhan Omar says ‘bizarre’ pre-dawn raid on her home is forcing her to move out

    Ilhan Omar says ‘bizarre’ pre-dawn raid on her home is forcing her to move out

    Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Democratic representative from Minnesota, has announced she will abandon her Washington, D.C., residence after federal agents executed a search warrant at her home earlier this month, citing heightened safety risks after her address was compromised during the raid.

    In her first public comments since the pre-dawn search operation, Omar told MSN NOW that continuing to live in the home with her children is no longer practical given the persistent death threats she already faces. The raid, carried out by Homeland Security Investigations agents as part of an ongoing federal criminal probe, resulted in the seizure of more than a dozen personal items, including multiple cell phones, personal notebooks, Omar’s own passport and personal computer, and even a vintage camera belonging to her husband that dates back to the 1960s.

    Federal authorities have not publicly specified what criminal activity Omar is suspected of, only confirming that the search was part of an active investigation. The probe comes amid recent public questioning from government officials over Omar’s 2000 U.S. citizenship, which she obtained after relocating from Kenya. Investigators have also issued more than a dozen subpoenas to members of Omar’s extended family as part of their inquiry.

    Omar recounted the jarring details of the multi-hour raid to MSN NOW, describing how agents began loudly pounding on her front door at approximately 6 a.m. EDT on October 12, waking her and her husband who were asleep in bed. “We were screaming,” Omar said, recalling the moment the couple rushed downstairs to investigate the commotion, which she described as “so bizarre.” She estimated that between 15 and 25 agents surrounded her property, though she acknowledged that the officers themselves conducted themselves professionally during the search. After Omar requested documentation, agents presented a valid search warrant at the door before beginning their operation, which lasted roughly five hours as agents searched each room of her home before departing with the seized items.

    Omar has sharply criticized the federal investigation, framing it as an intentional campaign of intimidation. Immediately after the raid concluded, she released a public statement calling the operation an “outrageous abuse of power” and accusing the government of weaponizing federal law enforcement to target political opponents. Former U.S. President Barack Obama has echoed this criticism, describing the federal probe as “so appalling” in a formal statement.

    Omar, who has represented her Minnesota congressional district since 2018, has been a frequent target of criticism from former President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly made inflammatory comments calling for her to “go back” to Somalia. When asked about the raid at an October campaign rally in Ohio, Trump claimed the investigation had “nothing to do with me,” adding that Omar is “a disaster.” But Omar rejected the former president’s denial, arguing the probe is directly tied to his long-standing criticism of her. “This goes back to 2019 when he was screaming about the fact that I need to be sent back, I need to be deported,” Omar said.

  • US embassy accuses Canada of election meddling ahead of midterms

    US embassy accuses Canada of election meddling ahead of midterms

    A sharp diplomatic dispute has erupted between North American neighbors the United States and Canada, after the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa formally accused Canadian federal and provincial officials of orchestrating interference in the upcoming November 2026 U.S. midterm elections. In an official fact sheet published Wednesday, the embassy alleged that senior Canadian leaders have deliberately dismissed warnings about potential election meddling, even as cabinet ministers and provincial premiers openly lay out plans to shape American political outcomes in both government documents and public statements. The accusation comes amid already strained bilateral relations that have deteriorated further during the second term of the Donald Trump administration, rooted in months of escalating trade friction. The U.S. embassy specifically highlighted multiple high-profile actions to back its claims. It pointed to remarks from Canadian Industry Minister Mélanie Joly, who when asked about her expectations for trade tariffs if Democrats emerged victorious in the midterm contests, responded: “That’s exactly why I’m meeting so many governors and potential presidential candidates.” The embassy also called out Ontario Premier Doug Ford, claiming Ford had pressured the federal government in Ottawa to implement additional retaliatory tariffs targeting imports from key U.S. states that form the core of the current Trump administration’s political support base. The 2026 U.S. midterm elections will decide which party holds a majority in both chambers of Congress, an outcome that will shape the legislative agenda and political trajectory for the remainder of Trump’s current presidential term. When confronted with the allegations during a public appearance Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney forcefully rejected the interference claims, framing Canada’s actions as a measured, defensive response to unilateral U.S. trade policy. Carney pointed out that the U.S. was the first party to initiate restrictive trade measures against Canada, noting that all Canadian countermeasures have been designed solely to protect domestic employment, support Canadian businesses, and safeguard the national economy. “We’ve responded to those to protect Canadian jobs, to protect Canadian companies and develop our economy,” Carney stated during the event, where he alongside Joly and Ford unveiled a nearly C$9 billion ($6.2 billion) aid package to offset economic damage from U.S. tariffs. “Our response has been in the interests of Canadian workers, Canadian families and the future of this economy.” Ontario’s Doug Ford also flatly denied the accusation of election meddling, stating he has no intention of influencing U.S. domestic political outcomes. “I have no interest at all in interfering in US elections,” Ford said. “I’ll tell you what the American people want. They want certainty, they want stability. The people of the United States will make that determination in the midterms, and my focus remains entirely on delivering for the people of Ontario and all Canadians.” This is not the first time Joly has pushed back on these claims; according to Canadian public broadcaster CBC, she denied any interference last week, noting that Canadians would never accept foreign meddling in their own domestic politics, and that her recent trips across the U.S. border have solely focused on attracting new business investment to Canada – a mission she plans to continue. Tensions over trade and political interference have been building for months, ever since the Trump administration implemented new tariffs on Canadian goods, prompting Ottawa to roll out proportional retaliatory measures. Earlier this month, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra publicly warned that American officials were closely monitoring Canadian politicians for any signs of election interference. In a tit-for-tat development this week, Trump administration officials have been accused of making inappropriate comments regarding the ongoing separatist referendum movement in the Canadian province of Alberta. That incident has sparked a public petition calling for Hoekstra to be removed from his post for undermining long-standing bilateral diplomatic relations, which has already gathered more than 280,000 signatures from Canadian citizens, amplifying the already fraught diplomatic standoff between the two allies.

  • ‘Null and void:’ Egypt condemns Turkey-Libya maritime deal, reaffirms pact with Greece

    ‘Null and void:’ Egypt condemns Turkey-Libya maritime deal, reaffirms pact with Greece

    Fresh geopolitical fault lines have re-emerged across the Eastern Mediterranean after Egypt issued a formal, categorical rejection of the recently ratified maritime boundary agreement between Turkey and eastern Libya, labeling the pact entirely null and void while reaffirming its own 2020 demarcation deal with neighboring Greece.

    In an official statement released Wednesday, Egypt’s foreign ministry doubled down on its position, stating that the memorandum of understanding between Turkey and eastern Libya carries no legal weight, and that its recent ratification by the Libyan House of Representatives holds no legal ramifications for Cairo whatsoever.

    The sharp rebuke comes just one day after the Libyan House of Representatives — based in the Haftar-controlled eastern region of the divided North African country — delivered a surprising unanimous vote to approve the agreement, a deal that the body had publicly opposed for nearly five years. The accord was first signed in 2019 with Libya’s UN-backed Tripoli-based Government of National Accord, and its ratification marks a significant shift in eastern Libya’s foreign policy amid shifting power dynamics within the region.

    Libya has remained politically split since 2014, with eastern authorities led by veteran general Khalifa Haftar opposing the Tripoli-based central government. Back in 2019, Haftar launched a major military offensive to seize Tripoli, a campaign that ultimately failed after Turkey deployed military advisors, weapons, and mercenary support to prop up the Tripoli government. At the time, Egypt, alongside the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, threw its backing behind Haftar. But in recent years, Haftar’s son and designated political heir Saddam Haftar has actively cultivated closer bilateral ties with Ankara, as the general’s family pursues new alliances to solidify their hold on power in any future Libyan power-sharing arrangement. Saddam Haftar personally welcomed the deal’s ratification in a social media post Tuesday, and regional diplomatic sources indicate he is actively seeking Turkish backing for a broader national power-sharing agreement with Tripoli’s current leaders.

    The 2019 Turkish-Libyan agreement sparked immediate alarm across Athens and Cairo from its inception, as the deal enshrines sweeping Turkish territorial claims to large swathes of the Eastern Mediterranean, a region rich in untapped offshore energy reserves. To counter the Turkish-Libyan pact, Greece and Egypt moved quickly to sign their own mutually agreed maritime boundary demarcation agreement in 2020, a deal that directly contradicts the territorial terms laid out by Ankara and Tripoli in 2019.

    Cairo’s latest rejection of the eastern Libya-Turkey deal holds particular significance because Egypt has long been aligned with eastern Libya’s leadership. While Egypt and Turkey have pursued a gradual rapprochement in recent years, coordinating policy on regional flashpoints including the Horn of Africa, the maritime dispute remains a core sticking point between the two former rivals. Last year, Athens formally requested Cairo’s support to prevent eastern Libyan lawmakers from moving forward with ratification of the agreement, and just days before Egypt’s latest statement, an Egyptian diplomatic delegation traveled to Athens to hold in-depth consultations with Greek officials on the Libyan situation.

    Though Cairo was ultimately unable to block the ratification, diplomatic observers note that Wednesday’s statement will be well received by Athens, which has long counted Egypt as a key partner in its decades-long maritime dispute with Ankara.

    The broader confrontation between Greece and Turkey over Eastern Mediterranean maritime rights stretches back decades, rooted in conflicting interpretations of international maritime law. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — the global framework governing ocean sovereignty — coastal states are permitted to claim up to 12 nautical miles of territorial sea, and up to 200 nautical miles of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where they hold exclusive rights to exploit offshore resources including fishing stocks and fossil fuel deposits.

    Greece, which controls hundreds of islands across the Aegean Sea, has long avoided extending its territorial waters to the full 12 nautical limit permitted under UNCLOS after Turkey’s parliament issued a formal declaration in 1995 that any such move would be considered a casus belli, or a formal justification for war. On the issue of EEZs, Greece holds that all of its islands — regardless of size — are legally entitled to their own exclusive economic zones, a position Ankara has repeatedly rejected. Turkey is one of the only United Nations member states that has not ratified UNCLOS.

    The 2020 agreement between Greece and Egypt recognizes Greek EEZ claims around large Greek islands including Rhodes and Crete, but intentionally excluded smaller islands like the 12-square-kilometer Kastellorizo, in a compromise designed to leave space for future negotiations between Cairo and Ankara. Greece has repeatedly offered to resolve the full EEZ and continental shelf dispute through arbitration at the International Court of Justice, but has stated it will not negotiate over the sovereign territory of its islands, including their territorial waters and airspace — an offer Turkey has repeatedly refused.

    Egypt is far from the only regional power to condemn the newly ratified deal. Israel’s foreign ministry issued its own statement Wednesday accusing Turkey of actively working to destabilize the Eastern Mediterranean region. The ratification also comes just weeks after a high-profile, controversial meeting between Saddam Haftar and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the United Arab Emirates, a meeting that sent shockwaves across the region. The European Union also issued a formal condemnation, stating that the Turkish-Libya deal violates the terms of UNCLOS.

    Responding to widespread international criticism on Wednesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan defended the agreement as entirely legitimate under both international and domestic law. “There are countries reacting to this. We know why they are reacting. Some are doing so because they need to; some really do have strategic problems with this issue. However, this is an entirely legitimate deal, both from a legal and a statutory perspective. There is no need to argue this,” Fidan told reporters.

  • Trump’s attacks on Ilhan Omar highlight concerns about normalisation of racism in US politics

    Trump’s attacks on Ilhan Omar highlight concerns about normalisation of racism in US politics

    In a recent appearance at the White House on Tuesday, former President turned incumbent Donald Trump escalated his years-long verbal assault on Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, openly floating the possibility that the naturalized citizen could face both deportation and imprisonment over unproven questions about her immigration records.

    Trump, who has targeted Omar since she took office in 2019, repeated his inflammatory attacks, calling Omar “a very dishonest person” who “hates our country.” He went on to denigrate Omar’s country of birth, Somalia, describing it as “a real shithouse” and repeating long-debunked tropes about Somali immigrants damaging the state Omar represents. The comments represent a new high water mark in Trump’s sustained campaign against Omar, and they have amplified broader national concerns about the normalization of racist and xenophobic rhetoric in mainstream American political discourse.

    Omar’s biography frames the entire controversy: she fled civil war in Somalia as a child refugee, arrived in the U.S. in 1995, and gained American citizenship in 2000. As one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, Omar has been a consistent critic of Trump’s restrictive immigration policies and hawkish foreign policy positions, making her a top target for Trump and his conservative allies. This pattern of attack is not new: during his first term in office, Trump repeatedly insisted that Omar and three other progressive minority congresswomen—collectively known as “the Squad”—should “go back” to the countries they came from, even though all four are U.S. citizens. At a 2019 campaign rally, Trump’s supporters even chanted “send her back” directly targeting Omar, sparking national outrage and widespread accusations of racism.

    This is not the first time Trump has used derogatory language to describe majority-non-white nations. Back in 2018, he faced widespread international condemnation after reports emerged that he referred to Haiti and multiple African countries as “shithole countries.” At that time, Trump’s White House staff tried to downplay and deny the remarks. Now, Trump openly repeats the same language on camera—a shift that has not gone unnoticed by political commentators. “During [Trump’s] first term his whole White House denied that he used this language to describe foreign countries, now he just says it on camera,” journalist Zaid Jilani noted on social media, echoing fellow commentator Mehdi Hasan’s observation that open bigotry that once sparked national controversy has now become normalized in American politics.

    The current controversy comes amid an active federal investigation into Omar’s immigration and naturalization records. Federal authorities searched Omar’s Washington, D.C. home on October 12 as part of an inquiry into whether Omar or her family provided false information when entering the U.S. as refugees and applying for citizenship. The investigation has also revived longstanding, unsubstantiated conservative allegations that Omar married her brother to commit immigration fraud, a claim Omar has repeatedly denied. Just this month, the New York Post reported that federal prosecutors are examining DNA evidence tied to the allegations, but no public proof of wrongdoing has been released, and no court has upheld the claims. Notably, the Washington Post confirmed that officials in Trump’s first administration reviewed Omar’s immigration history back in 2019 but declined to open a full investigation due to a lack of evidence. The decision to revive the inquiry has led to widespread accusations that the Trump administration is weaponizing federal law enforcement to target a political opponent. Omar’s legal team has publicly denounced the probe as politically motivated, while the Department of Justice has defended its actions, stating all investigative steps complied with federal legal requirements.

    The escalating attacks on Omar have also put the Democratic Party under increased scrutiny over its response. Critics of top Democratic leaders have argued that the party has not done enough to push back against attacks that target Omar’s identity as a Black, Muslim, refugee-born American lawmaker. One progressive commentator went as far as accusing the Democratic National Committee of cowardice for its perceived lack of public support for Omar. Still, Democratic leadership has not been entirely silent: after the FBI raid on Omar’s home, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other senior House Democrats released a joint statement condemning the search and accusing the Trump administration of abusing federal power to target political opponents. Even former President Barack Obama weighed in, criticizing the administration’s push to potentially revoke Omar’s citizenship and warning about the dangerous long-term precedent this sets for all elected officials.

    As the November midterm elections approach, the controversy over Omar has crystallized growing national anxiety about three overlapping issues: the use of political intimidation against minority elected officials, the erosion of independence for U.S. law enforcement, and the normalization of virulent bigotry in mainstream presidential discourse. Trump’s latest comments do not merely question a political opponent’s policy stances; they call into question the legitimacy of Omar’s citizenship, her patriotism, and her fundamental right to serve in the U.S. Congress. As one democracy activist asked on social media, “Are we all seriously just letting him talk about imprisoning a sitting duly elected member of Congress because he doesn’t like her?”

  • The real reasons there are so few young politicians in the US

    The real reasons there are so few young politicians in the US

    At 88 years old, Republican Hal Rogers is set to run in November’s midterm elections, seeking a historic 24th term representing Kentucky’s 5th Congressional District, a seat he has held continuously since 1981. Rogers, who first won office the same night Ronald Reagan secured his first presidential term, is far from an outlier. A growing number of top U.S. politicians are serving well into their 80s and beyond: former President Donald Trump is 80, ex-President Joe Biden left office at 82, former House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi stepped down at 82, and 93-year-old Chuck Grassley remains an active senator, having entered politics back in 1958 — before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as U.S. states.

    This concentration of political power among senior leaders has pushed the question of age in U.S. politics back into the national spotlight, sparking widespread debate across both major political parties over whether mandatory age limits or regular health screenings should be required for elected officials. The U.S. political system is increasingly defined as a gerontocracy: rule by older leaders, who are significantly older than the majority of the adult population. Compounding this trend is data from the Inter-Parliamentary Union that shows the U.S. has one of the lowest shares of lawmakers under 45 among all developed democracies.

    Against this backdrop, 27-year-old Republican Riley Owen stands as one of the few Gen Z candidates running for a congressional seat in the November 3 midterm elections. Owen is campaigning in a newly drawn Utah district that analysts favor Democrats, and he has built his platform on issues that typically resonate with younger and independent voters, including paid parental leave, restrictions on stock trading by members of Congress, and urgent action on climate change. After securing the Republican nomination, Owen took the stage to Billy Joel’s *We Didn’t Start the Fire*, arguing that his generation must step up to renew the American Dream.

    For Owen, the dominance of senior leaders is a bipartisan problem. “We’ve got people who have become career politicians, and they spend their lives in Congress,” he explains, arguing this entrenched dynamic has created a system that fails to deliver results for ordinary Americans. One of the biggest structural barriers Owen faces is the outsized role of money in U.S. elections. Campaign donors overwhelmingly favor incumbent candidates, and his Democratic rival, 51-year-old former congressman Ben McAdams, had raised more than $2.6 million by mid-October, compared to just $150,000 for Owen, according to Federal Election Commission records.

    Owen pushes back against the common critique that younger candidates lack sufficient experience, pointing to his own background as a military officer and former White House policy analyst. He argues that Gen Z candidates bring a unique, necessary perspective on modern policy challenges — particularly those tied to technology — and that U.S. politics needs the “disruptive innovation” that younger candidates can bring.

    Age has long been a conversational centerpiece in U.S. politics. Back in 1984, then-73-year-old President Ronald Reagan, at the time the oldest person to hold the office, famously defused concerns about his age by joking about the “youth and inexperience” of his 56-year-old opponent Walter Mondale. Today, the upward trend in congressional age is clear: according to Congressional archives, the lowest median ages for the House and Senate were recorded in the early 1980s, at 48 and 52 respectively. By the start of the current congressional session, Pew Research Center analysis puts the median age at 58 for House members and 65 for senators — far above the 39-year median age of the overall U.S. population.

    Recent high-profile health events have amplified public and political scrutiny of older leaders. 84-year-old Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell faced new questions after a lengthy absence from Congress for medical treatment. On the Democratic side, 88-year-old Maxine Waters is facing a leadership challenge for her role as top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, with many observers noting her age as a contributing factor.

    Critics of the current gerontocratic dynamic often come from the left of the political spectrum, particularly among democratic socialist candidates, whose policy platforms focused on cost-of-living issues tend to resonate strongly with Millennial and Gen Z voters. A key demographic factor reinforcing the status quo is that voter turnout also skews heavily older. Pew Research data shows the share of non-voters who are young adults (18 to 29 years old) has risen from 25% in 2020 to 30% in 2024. While voters under 30 make up 20% of the eligible voting population, they only cast 15% of all votes in recent elections, meaning their policy priorities are often underrepresented on the legislative agenda.

    Grace Mausser, co-chair of the New York City branch of the Democratic Socialists of America, explains that when older voters make up the majority of the electorate, it not only leads to more older candidates winning, it also shifts which issues politicians prioritize. “Yes, that might result in older people being elected, but I think it really skews, too, what issues are important; what issues politicians are incentivised to talk about and to take care of,” she says. Mausser worked on the successful 2024 campaign of 34-year-old Zohran Mamdani, who became New York City’s youngest mayor since 1892, but she argues that age alone is not the determining factor of good governance. She points to 85-year-old progressive Senator Bernie Sanders as an example of a long-tenured older leader who has consistently pushed for new ideas and resonates across all age groups. She explains that the real problem is not how long someone has served, but whether they remain stuck in the outdated norms of the political establishment and closed to new perspectives.

    A 2025 Pew survey underscores just how deep young adult distrust in politicians runs. In the U.S., 62% of 18-34-year-olds believe few or no elected officials are honest, compared to just 45% of adults over 50. Among all 25 countries surveyed, only young adults in Greece held a more pessimistic view of political honesty.

    James Sloam, a political scientist from Royal Holloway, University of London who studies political engagement across the U.S. and Europe, argues that this widespread youth disengagement is a core reason for the lack of young representation. Compounding this issue are the minimum age requirements for federal office: candidates must be 25 to serve in the House and 30 to serve in the Senate. Sloam notes that many young people today also see opportunities to wield influence outside of formal elected politics, which reduces their incentive to pursue careers as lawmakers.

    For the young people who do break into national politics, structural barriers remain, particularly when it comes to balancing public office with family life. This summer, two high-profile young female politicians sparked new debate about the compatibility of congressional service with parenthood. 37-year-old Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who first took office at 29, announced she had begun the process of freezing her eggs. Just days later, 29-year-old Karoline Leavitt, who became the youngest White House Press Secretary in history two years prior, announced she would leave the Trump administration to focus on raising her young children, explaining that the role demands constant time and energy that would take away from being the parent she wants to be. Very few women have given birth while serving in Congress, and the U.S. federal government does not mandate paid parental leave for lawmakers, leaving many young working parents in politics at a disadvantage. Even 42-year-old Vice President JD Vance, one of the youngest people to hold the office, has acknowledged that raising four young children may impact his decision to run for president in 2028.

    The structure of the U.S. two-party system is another widely cited barrier to youth political participation. Sloam explains that the two major parties tend to represent a narrow range of policy views, and young people are often more engaged in issue-based campaigns and social movements than traditional party politics. While there have been exceptions — such as Zohran Mamdani’s progressive challenge outside the Democratic mainstream, and Donald Trump’s MAGA movement energizing young conservative men over the last decade — these breakthroughs remain sporadic. By contrast, Sloam points to multi-party Scandinavian democracies, where political systems are more pluralistic and parties regularly integrate social movements and youth voices into formal politics, creating a cycle of higher youth turnout, greater trust, and more young people running for and winning office.

    While many experts agree that incumbent leaders should know when to step aside, they also warn against writing off older politicians purely based on their age. Tracey Gendron, a gerontology professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, argues that age alone is a poor predictor of political competency. “You can have a 45-year-old who is experiencing depression or substance abuse who may not have the cognition necessary for the job,” she says. “And equally: You can have an 85-year-old with incredible integrity and political judgement and wisdom who is fully capable of doing the job.” Gendron acknowledges that Congress does not reflect the age diversity of the U.S. population, but notes that a lack of demographic diversity is not unique to age — Congress also underrepresents women, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities, and people of color across the board.

    Back in Utah, despite his opponent’s far larger campaign budget, Riley Owen remains optimistic about his chances in the midterm. He says he is energized by the issues that matter most to Gen Z, including the role of technology in public life, immigration reform, and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Like Mausser, Owen agrees that what matters most is a candidate’s ideas, not their age. Echoing a growing cross-partisan sentiment among younger voters, he argues that the broken “us versus them” partisan framework in Washington is not working for most Americans, regardless of their age or political affiliation.

  • Property sales of illegal Israeli settlement lands challenged in complaint in Canada

    Property sales of illegal Israeli settlement lands challenged in complaint in Canada

    A coalition of human rights organizations and six anonymous complainants has submitted an official complaint to Canada’s Competition Bureau, calling for a full investigation into deceptive marketing practices by four Israeli real estate developers and one Canadian marketing agency that sells properties in illegally occupied Palestinian territory to Canadian homebuyers. The filing, submitted in Ottawa Wednesday, comes amid growing international scrutiny of unregulated settlement expansion that undermines global efforts to establish a sovereign Palestinian state. The complaint was brought jointly by the Global Echo Litigation Center, an organization founded in 2018 to pursue strategic legal action against entities complicit in violations of Palestinian human rights, and Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights. The six complainants, who include both Palestinian and Jewish individuals, have chosen to keep their identities private for personal safety concerns. The 127-page filing centers on a series of real estate promotional events held between March 2024 and May 2025 in two major Canadian cities: Montreal and Toronto. According to the document, the marketing materials used at these events deliberately create a misleading impression for average, first-time international property buyers that all showcased projects are located within Israel’s internationally recognized borders. In reality, the complaint alleges, each of the four named Israeli firms – Tivuch Shelly, Noam Homes, Meny Group, and Effi Capital – actively promotes developments built in illegal Israeli settlements across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. This is territory that Canada itself formally recognized as part of a future Palestinian state just over one year ago. Effi Capital, one of the developers named, partners on Canadian marketing outreach with a domestic firm called the Cohen Group. The complaint argues that these deliberate misrepresentation to the Canadian public qualify as reviewable deceptive conduct under Section 74.01(1)(a) of Canada’s Competition Act, which prohibits false or misleading marketing for commercial gain. Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man, executive director of Global Echo, emphasized that while the complaint follows formal consumer protection processes, the stakes go far beyond routine cases of misleading product labeling. Comparing the issue to everyday consumer fraud such as false sugar-free labeling, she drew a clear line between routine consumer protection violations and this case. “This is not just a mislabeled consumer product. Buying property in occupied territory that is the site of an illegal occupation and ongoing armed conflict puts Canadians at risk of being complicit in war crimes,” she explained. The filing also highlights a stark contradiction between Canada’s stated foreign policy and its lack of domestic regulatory action. Just last month, the Canadian government publicly stated that unregulated Israeli settlement expansion and rising settler violence are actively destroying any chance of a two-state solution. Yet to date, Ottawa has not implemented any rules or enforcement actions to block the marketing and sale of occupied Palestinian land to Canadian citizens. One high-profile example cited in the complaint is Adumim Towers, a luxury residential development located in the illegal settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, roughly seven kilometers east of Jerusalem. The settlement sits directly along the route of the proposed E1 settlement project, a plan that would cut off contiguous Palestinian access between the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem – effectively eliminating any possibility of a geographically connected sovereign Palestinian state, mirroring the separation of the besieged Gaza Strip from the West Bank. In August, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly condemned Israeli plans to advance construction tenders for the E1 project, saying “the decision to publish these tenders is unacceptable.” He warned businesses that “they should not consider bidding, and they should be aware of legal and reputational consequences, including the risk of involvement in serious breaches of international law.” Following widespread international outcry, Israel postponed the tender to avoid it becoming an election issue ahead of its October 27 national vote. Even as Adumim Towers is marketed to Canadian buyers as an eco-friendly development with panoramic views of Jerusalem, the complaint reveals discriminatory screening practices for event attendees. Schaeffer Omer-Man told Middle East Eye that most of these promotional events require attendees to answer intrusive questions before entry, such as which synagogue they attend and who their rabbi is. While organizers frame this as a security measure, investigations found the practice is overwhelmingly used to exclude non-Jews, and specifically bar Palestinian attendees from entering. Basel Adra, a prominent Palestinian lawyer, Academy Award-winning filmmaker and head of community engagement at Global Echo, argues that enforcement of international law by Western nations can reverse the accelerating erasure of Palestinian territorial sovereignty. “Many say the two-state solution is dead, and it’s true that the Israeli government has worked tirelessly to change facts on the ground to make it impossible,” Adra told Middle East Eye. “But Western nations hold enormous power to enforce international law. The problem is not that no solution exists – it’s that global decision-makers have not been willing to act. International law is clear, and countries like Canada, the U.S. and Europe have the power to enforce it through targeted measures.” The complaint comes amid a dramatic escalation of violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza. Data from international charity Oxfam shows more than 1,200 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli military crackdowns in the West Bank – a death toll higher than the total number of Palestinian fatalities in the territory over the previous 17 years combined. An additional 4,600 Palestinians have been displaced by Israeli raids and home demolition orders, and violent attacks on Palestinian civilians, farmers, activists, and journalists by Israeli settlers have grown exponentially. Just last month, Awdah Hathleen, Adra’s collaborator on his Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land, was killed by an Israeli settler. Just last week, veteran Washington Post photojournalist Heidi Levine suffered broken bones after being repeatedly kicked by settlers during a reporting trip. Adra argues that settlement expansion depends on international financing and consumer demand, so cutting off access to Western buyers is a critical point of leverage. “Settlers keep stealing more land, building hundreds of illegal outposts and never stopping construction. They claim the land was given to them by God, but without money, they cannot continue this project,” he said. One unnamed Palestinian-Canadian complainant, who withheld their name to avoid being barred from entering the occupied West Bank to visit family, said grassroots legal action is needed to force change even after Canada’s formal recognition of a Palestinian state. “I don’t trust Canadian institutions to follow through on their own stated commitments now that they recognize Palestinian statehood. This is just opportunistic, following shifting global public opinion against Israeli occupation, and without grassroots pressure, it will go nowhere. Small, targeted actions like this complaint are what turn policy statements into real change,” the complainant said.

  • Azerbaijan bans 31 Turks from entering country as headscarf ban dispute escalates

    Azerbaijan bans 31 Turks from entering country as headscarf ban dispute escalates

    Once defined by deep ethnic, religious, cultural and historical kinship, the diplomatic relationship between Azerbaijan and Turkey is facing its most significant strain in recent years, sparked by a dispute over a domestic education policy that quickly escalated into a full-blown bilateral crisis. In the latest punitive measure from Baku, authorities have banned 31 Turkish citizens from entering the country, accusing the group of posting social media content that endangers Azerbaijani national security and promotes the violent overthrow of the national government. The Azerbaijani Ministry of Internal Affairs added that many individuals on the entry ban list also employed violent rhetoric tied to religious radicalism. The roster of barred individuals cuts across Turkey’s political, media and academic spheres, including several high-profile conservative and ultraconservative figures. Top among them is Fatih Erbakan, leader of Turkey’s far-right New Welfare Party, who openly criticized Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on social media platform X following Aliyev’s meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Baku last week. “After hosting the Zionist murderer Herzog in Baku, you became blind to your true friends,” Erbakan wrote in the post that drew Baku’s ire. Other banned individuals include sitting Turkish Member of Parliament Omer Gergerlioglu, deputy chairman of the right-wing Free Cause Party Yahya Ugras, prominent journalists Adem Ozkose, Ismail Kilincarslan and Hakki Eren, well-known conservative writer Yusuf Kaplan, and theology professor Mehmet Boynukalin. The vast majority of those named hold explicit conservative religious or political views, aligning with their public criticism of Baku’s new policy. The current crisis traces back to last month, when Azerbaijan implemented a ban on headscarves in primary and secondary schools. The policy immediately sparked widespread public protests across Turkey, turning a domestic education rule into a major diplomatic flashpoint between the two traditionally allied nations. Beyond the entry ban, Azerbaijan’s Prosecutor General’s office announced on Monday that a Baku district court has issued in absentia international arrest warrants for seven Turkey-based residents who organized or participated in anti-ban demonstrations outside Azerbaijani diplomatic missions in Turkey. Those targeted in the warrants include Ridvan Kaya, head of the conservative Turkish association Ozgur-Der, Abdullah Imamoglu, a writer for conservative news outlet Haksoz, and Fatih Tezcan, a prominent commentator with well-documented Islamic conservative views. The Azerbaijani interior ministry has made clear that additional restrictive measures remain on the table, vowing further action against any actors it deems to be engaging in threatening activity against the state. Even as tensions surge, the two countries maintain deep economic ties, holding billions of dollars in mutual investments across key sectors including energy, transportation, construction and agriculture. That has not stopped pro-Baku Azerbaijani news outlets from launching sharp new attacks this week, however, with multiple outlets accusing Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan of orchestrating efforts to incite an insurrection against Aliyev’s government. With reciprocal public criticism and punitive measures piling up, the once-close bilateral partnership now faces one of its most challenging periods in modern history.