Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • What is birthright citizenship and how prevalent is birth tourism in the US?

    What is birthright citizenship and how prevalent is birth tourism in the US?

    Four months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his first attempt to narrow access to U.S.-born citizenship, former President Donald Trump has rolled out a new pair of executive orders targeting what his administration calls “birth tourism” and expanding carve-outs to the longstanding principle of birthright citizenship. Signed during a formal White House ceremony on Thursday, the orders mark the latest high-profile push by the Trump administration to reshape U.S. immigration and nationality policy without congressional approval.

    The first of the two orders expands the legal definition of non-citizen parents whose children born on U.S. soil are excluded from automatic birthright citizenship. Under the new framework, babies born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents will be denied automatic citizenship if one parent falls into any of several specified categories: members of a designated foreign terrorist organization, foreign government officials, individuals who have previously sought U.S. immigration status through fraud, or residents of unincorporated U.S. territories where federal law does not grant birthright citizenship. While some of these categories were already excluded under longstanding rules, the new provision related to terrorist group membership has already sparked legal and policy ambiguity, according to Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI). Putzel-Kavanaugh notes that the order fails to clarify critical procedural details: how terrorist affiliation will be verified, which government body will bear the responsibility of determination, and whether the burden of proof will rest with the government to confirm membership or the individual to disprove it.

    The second executive order directly targets the practice of birth tourism — the process through which foreign nationals travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth, so their child can obtain U.S. citizenship by birth. The order directs the State Department and Department of Homeland Security to tighten existing regulations and ramp up enforcement efforts against the birth tourism industry, which the order argues relies on deceptive marketing to attract expecting parents. The order claims that industry operators frequently advertise guaranteed U.S. citizenship, access to public benefits, and specialized maternity accommodation, but often fail to deliver on these promised services. Notably, traveling to the U.S. for the explicit purpose of giving birth is already classified as a violation of immigration law.

    Birthright citizenship, formally known as *jus soli* (the right of the soil), is codified in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people born in the U.S. Under current longstanding interpretation, almost all individuals born on U.S. soil receive automatic citizenship regardless of their parents’ own citizenship or immigration status, with only a handful of narrow exceptions. These existing exceptions include children born to foreign diplomats on official assignment, children born to enemy occupying forces, and children born in unincorporated U.S. territories where Congress has not extended birthright citizenship. For example, people born in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands receive automatic U.S. citizenship, while those born in American Samoa are classified as “non-citizen nationals” rather than full citizens.

    In announcing the new orders, Trump claimed that “hundreds of thousands” of babies are born in the U.S. each year via birth tourism, offering no evidence to support the figure and no clarification on whether the number reflects an annual total or cumulative count. Official data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that just over 9,500 babies were born in 2024 to women listing foreign residential addresses, accounting for roughly 0.25% of the 3.7 million total births recorded in the U.S. that year. However, MPI analysts argue that official CDC figures are almost certainly an undercount, as birth tourism participants often use a temporary U.S. address to register the birth rather than their permanent foreign address. After a broader analysis of U.S. Census data, MPI estimates that between 20,000 and 26,000 babies are born annually in the U.S. as a result of birth tourism, equal to between 0.5% and 0.7% of total annual U.S. births. Putzel-Kavanaugh emphasized that exact counts are inherently difficult to capture, because birth tourism is defined by the traveler’s private intent to give birth in the U.S. — a detail that is rarely recorded in official administrative data. Some unplanned births also occur when traveling pregnant people experience unexpected medical emergencies that require delivery in the U.S. even if they originally planned to give birth in their home country, she added.

    The Trump administration’s legal challenge to broad birthright citizenship reached the Supreme Court earlier this year, with oral arguments held in April. The administration’s case centered heavily on the argument that unconstrained birthright citizenship has allowed the birth tourism industry to grow, creating a cohort of U.S. citizens with no meaningful connection to the country. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued during arguments that the 14th Amendment’s framers never intended for the provision to enable mass birth tourism, arguing that modern air travel has created a situation where “eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.” When Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether Sauer agreed that birth tourism’s existence has no bearing on the legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Sauer countered that the practice proves the amendment carries unforeseen consequences that its authors would never have endorsed. The Supreme Court’s majority rejected the administration’s interpretation in June, with the majority’s reasoning summed up by Roberts’ remark: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”

    Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. is nearly unique among major nations in granting unrestricted birthright citizenship. In reality, more than 30 countries around the world practice automatic unrestricted *jus soli*, including most nations in Central and South America such as Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. The U.S. and Canada are the only two IMF-classified developed economies that grant nearly unrestricted birthright citizenship; other major countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia use a modified system that only grants automatic birthright citizenship if at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident.

  • Hunter Biden opens up to the BBC about father’s cancer battle, pardon and politics

    Hunter Biden opens up to the BBC about father’s cancer battle, pardon and politics

    In a rare, wide-ranging interview with BBC’s flagship current affairs program Newsnight, Hunter Biden, the son of former U.S. President Joe Biden, has opened up on a series of deeply personal and politically charged topics that have dominated headlines in recent months.

    During the conversation, Hunter Biden pulled back the curtain on his father Joe Biden’s ongoing battle with cancer, offering unpublicized insights into how the former president has navigated his health struggle while remaining engaged in public life. He addressed widespread speculation about the former president’s well-being, speaking candidly about the challenges the Biden family has faced behind the scenes as Joe Biden undergoes treatment.

    A central focus of the interview was the controversial pardon that Joe Biden granted to his son before leaving office in January 2025. Hunter Biden discussed his feelings about the decision, responding to critics who have labeled the pardon an abuse of presidential power, and explained how the action resolved years of legal investigations that hung over his personal and professional life.

    Beyond personal matters, Hunter Biden also shared his thoughts on his own potential future in U.S. politics. When asked about whether he would seek elected office in the coming years, he offered clarity on his political ambitions, addressing ongoing rumors that have circulated in Washington political circles about his next career steps.

    The interview marks one of the most extensive public comments Hunter Biden has made since his father left the presidency, giving voters and political observers a rare unfiltered look at the private dynamics of one of America’s most high-profile political families at a pivotal moment in U.S. politics.

  • War on Iran: Saudi Arabia warns of imminent attacks by Iraqi groups and Yemen’s Houthis

    War on Iran: Saudi Arabia warns of imminent attacks by Iraqi groups and Yemen’s Houthis

    As tensions across the Middle East surge to new heights, Saudi Arabia has issued a stark intelligence-backed warning that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is orchestrating coordinated cross-border attacks against the kingdom, carried out jointly by Iraqi armed factions and Yemen’s Houthi movement.

    A senior anonymous Saudi official shared details of the intelligence assessment with Reuters Thursday evening, noting that the collaborative threat assessment was compiled by Saudi authorities, U.S. intelligence agencies, and regional partner nations. According to the official, the planned attacks are set to target high-value civilian and economic infrastructure across the kingdom, with critical energy facilities, commercial ports, and major airports listed as the primary potential targets.

    Saudi security forces have already detected unusual movements of drone and missile systems consistent with pre-attack preparations, the official confirmed, adding that hostile forces are positioning to launch strikes from two directions: Iraq along the kingdom’s northern border and Yemen to the south. In a firm statement of intent, the official added that Riyadh has completed defensive preparations and is prepared to deploy all necessary measures to repel and respond to any act of aggression against its territory.

    This latest warning comes against a backdrop of rapidly escalating regional confrontation tied to the expanding Israeli-U.S. campaign against Iran-aligned groups that launched in late February. Tensions spiked further late last month, on July 29, when joint Saudi-U.S. airstrikes hit positions held by Iran-backed armed groups in Iraq. The strikes targeted command headquarters operated by the Popular Mobilisation Forces, leaving more than 20 fighters dead and at least 30 others injured.

    In the wake of the airstrikes, Iraqi aligned factions publicly vowed to carry out retaliatory attacks against Saudi and U.S. targets. However, Hadi al-Amiri, leader of the prominent Iraqi Badr Organisation, has called for a delay in any retaliatory action. In a televised address carried by Iraqi media outlets, Amiri urged fighters to hold off on responses to what he labeled “American-Saudi aggression” and set aside immediate grievances for the sake of Iraq’s national strategic interests.

    Beyond the northern threat from Iraqi factions, Saudi Arabia has also faced a sharp uptick in cross-border attacks from Houthi forces based in Yemen. The Houthi movement confirmed it launched an assault on Saudi Arabia’s Najran airport earlier this week on Tuesday, part of its ongoing wider campaign targeting Saudi military positions, civilian infrastructure, and commercial shipping connected to the kingdom.

    On Thursday alone, Houthi assaults on Saudi-backed Yemeni government deployments in Yemen’s Marib and Hadramout provinces left at least 17 government soldiers dead, according to Yemen’s internationally recognized government. Multiple independent regional sources have put the confirmed death toll as high as 58. The Houthi movement has also compounded pressure on Saudi Arabia by disrupting the kingdom’s crude oil exports through a de facto blockade of Red Sea shipping lanes, pulling Riyadh deeper into the broad regional confrontation with Iran-aligned groups.

    In response to the growing array of threats, regional diplomatic sources familiar with defense planning confirm that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey are set to sign a new trilateral joint defense agreement during a meeting scheduled Friday in Mecca. As of Friday morning, neither the Houthi movement nor the Iranian government has issued an immediate public response to Saudi Arabia’s warning of planned coordinated attacks.

  • Senate confirms Hamilton to lead FEMA and clears more than 70 other Trump nominees

    Senate confirms Hamilton to lead FEMA and clears more than 70 other Trump nominees

    In a Friday vote that capped months of uncertainty for one of the federal government’s most critical public safety agencies, the U.S. Senate has approved Cameron Hamilton’s nomination to serve as the permanent administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The confirmation marks an extraordinary political comeback for the former Navy SEAL, who was fired from the same top post in an acting capacity 16 months prior after publicly opposing the Trump administration’s push to eliminate the agency entirely.

    Hamilton’s confirmation was part of a batch of 74 presidential nominations advanced by the Senate in a single voting session. Other high-profile picks approved Friday included David Cummins, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Daniel Perez, the administration’s controversial choice for U.S. ambassador to Brazil.

    When Hamilton is sworn in, he will inherit an agency that has faced years of existential uncertainty, organizational upheaval, and lingering accusations of political bias. Just days into Trump’s second term, the president openly threatened to dissolve FEMA entirely, a proposal that led to Hamilton’s firing last year when he pushed back against the plan in congressional testimony. While Hamilton’s nomination signals the administration has backed away from scrapping the agency entirely, the White House and top Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leaders have made clear that sweeping overhauls to federal disaster response are still on the agenda.

    The agency Hamilton takes over is still recovering from the chaotic tenure of former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, whose leadership triggered mass staff exodus, widespread disruptions to FEMA’s federal grant programs, and crippling delays to life-saving disaster aid. A 2025 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that more than 4,300 FEMA employees left the agency in the 2025 budget year alone, with over 1,500 taking voluntary buyouts. The exodus resulted in a substantial loss of institutional knowledge and experienced disaster response personnel that the agency is still working to replenish. Current DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who took over from Noem in March, has already moved to reverse some of the most damaging changes: he has re-filled hundreds of eliminated positions and rescinded a burdensome rule that required all FEMA expenditures over $100,000 to gain direct approval from the secretary’s office, a policy that created a backlog worth billions of dollars in delayed disaster aid.

    Even with these fixes, new controversies continue to roil the agency. Last month, 25 U.S. states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over new election security mandates attached to FEMA counterterrorism grants, a policy that critics call an overreach of executive power. Congressional Democrats have also raised alarms over what they call widespread politicization of disaster relief under the Trump administration. A July analysis from The Associated Press found that the White House has approved roughly 80% of disaster declaration requests from Republican-led states, but only 60% of requests from Democratic-led states, a gap that critics argue leaves vulnerable communities in political opposition shortchanged.

    Hamilton’s path to permanent leadership is a rare story of a fired acting official returning to lead the agency he once defended. Before being tapped as FEMA’s acting head in January 2025, Hamilton had limited formal emergency management experience and was initially an open critic of the agency. But during his short tenure, he said he grew to appreciate FEMA’s core mission, and broke sharply with Noem and the White House over the plan to eliminate the agency. In May 2025, he told a House panel that eliminating FEMA would be against the best interests of the American people, and was fired the very next day.

    His public stand against scrapping the agency won him broad support from many emergency management professionals. Pete Gaynor, who served as FEMA administrator during Trump’s first term, released a statement supporting Hamilton’s confirmation, saying, “It tells you exactly who he is and how he will lead when the pressure is highest and the easy answer is the wrong one.” The National Emergency Management Association also issued a statement welcoming his confirmation. Still, some current FEMA employees remain wary of Hamilton, pointing to his role in the controversial 2025 cancellation of a multibillion-dollar national climate resilience grant program.

    Hamilton takes office at the height of an active 2026 North American summer disaster season, which has already brought destructive wildfires across the West and dangerous flash flooding across the Midwest and South, leaving FEMA managing more than 1,000 open active disaster declarations. He will be the first permanent FEMA administrator to take office in Trump’s second term, a role that comes with the dual mandate of implementing the Trump administration’s planned overhaul and bringing long-term stability to a workforce that has faced years of turnover and uncertainty.

    Top administration officials have laid out clear priorities for the overhaul: shifting more disaster response responsibility back to state and local governments, and restricting FEMA’s role to only the most catastrophic events, rather than responding to every localized weather event. In a recent meeting of U.S. governors, Mullin described FEMA as “bloated” and reiterated that shift in responsibility, saying, “The biggest reform you’re going to see is more responsibility is going to go back to your states, FEMA there for worst of the worst, not every storm.” A Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council issued a set of recommendations in May that would speed up federal assistance delivery but could also reduce the scope and frequency of federal support, with many changes requiring congressional approval to take effect.

    During his June confirmation hearing before the Senate, Hamilton laid out his own priorities, pledging to advocate for FEMA and its workforce while committing to running the agency free of political bias. “I will ensure FEMA is objective, is fair and reasonable, follows the law, and is consistent in the approach to how we adjudicate and process claims and requests for disasters,” he told lawmakers. He also acknowledged longstanding concerns about bureaucratic bloat within the agency, arguing that FEMA cannot be expected to respond to every disaster, and that policymakers must strike a new balance that encourages cost reasonableness and cost savings. Gaynor, the former FEMA head, said he expects Hamilton will prioritize cutting red tape to make the disaster recovery process simpler for survivors and state and local officials.

    Alongside Hamilton’s confirmation, the Senate advanced two other controversial nominees. David Cummins, a former senior vice president at government contractor Serco, which operates air traffic control towers at 60 U.S. airports, was confirmed to lead TSA. The agency is still recovering from massive staffing disruptions following this year’s record-long partial government shutdown, which left thousands of TSA officers working weeks without pay, prompting thousands of call-outs and roughly 1,100 resignations. Cummins takes over as the Trump administration pushes to expand private airport screening and cut thousands of existing TSA positions.

    The Senate also confirmed Daniel Perez, former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives and a close ally of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to serve as U.S. ambassador to Brazil. Perez’s nomination has already sparked a major diplomatic rift between the Trump administration and the government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, which has refused to approve his appointment. Earlier this week, the State Department announced it had revoked the visa of Brazil’s sitting ambassador to the U.S. in response, a move that escalated tensions between the two countries. Under international diplomatic protocol, host nations have the right to approve or reject foreign ambassador nominees before they take office.

  • Senate passes sweeping Russia sanctions bill negotiated by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham

    Senate passes sweeping Russia sanctions bill negotiated by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham

    On a historic Friday vote in Washington, the U.S. Senate delivered an overwhelming bipartisan endorsement of a sweeping new sanctions package targeting Russia, capping a year-long advocacy campaign led by the late South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham to tighten U.S. backing for Ukraine amid its drawn-out defensive war against Russian invasion.

    Passing by a lopsided margin of 86-11, the legislation is crafted to cut off critical war funding for Russian President Vladimir Putin by penalizing nations that continue to purchase Russian oil, natural gas and other key exports. The vote carries deep personal and political resonance: just one week prior, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sat in the Senate gallery to watch initial procedural votes on the bill, just hours after attending Graham’s funeral in Washington and holding bipartisan talks with U.S. senators. Graham, who had only just returned from a visit to Ukraine when he secured a final agreement on the legislation with the White House on July 10, died suddenly the next day from an aortic tear.

    Standing on the Senate floor ahead of the final vote, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — who co-led negotiations on the package with Graham — reflected on the moment. “Today, President Zelenskyy is watching from Ukraine — and Putin is watching from Moscow,” Blumenthal said. “I would like to think Lindsey Graham is watching, too. Today we say to the people of Ukraine: You are not alone. And today we say to Vladimir Putin: You will not conquer Ukraine.”

    This broad show of Senate unity marks the most consequential shift in U.S. policy toward the three-year-plus war during President Donald Trump’s second term, a conflict that has now lasted longer than the entirety of World War I. For months, Congress had grappled with gridlock over sustaining U.S. funding and military supplies for Ukraine, but Trump has publicly backed the sanctions package, building pressure for the House of Representatives to bring the bill to a vote and send it to the White House for signing.

    Named in Graham’s honor, the bipartisan measure grants the president authority to impose tariffs on the world’s five largest buyers of Russian oil and natural gas — a list that includes major emerging economies China and India. Exceptions are carved out for nations that import less than 15% of their natural gas from Russia and are actively working to cut their reliance on Russian energy exports. Beyond secondary penalties for third-party buyers, the package expands direct sanctions to target Putin, his top political and military allies, major Russian financial institutions, and key Russian energy infrastructure projects. It also closes a longstanding loophole in existing sanctions by cracking down on the aging, reflagged oil tankers Russia has used to evade export restrictions and keep its energy revenues flowing.

    The legislation includes built-in flexibility: it grants the president waiver authority to lift specific sanctions or restrictions if he formally certifies to Congress that such a move serves U.S. national interests. Still, the grant of new tariff authority to Trump sparked opposition from across the ideological spectrum, with progressive Democrats forming the core of the 11 “no” votes. Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raised concerns that broad tariff power could drive up import prices, worsen ongoing inflation, and raise cost-of-living burdens for American households.

    Appointed by South Carolina’s governor to fill her late brother’s Senate seat, Republican Sen. Darline Graham reaffirmed her commitment to advancing his final policy priority. “This legislation hits Putin where it hurts,” she said in remarks on the floor.

    For Ukraine, the package carries both strategic and symbolic weight, Zelenskyy has said. During his closed-door meeting with senators last week, the Ukrainian leader noted that Kyiv’s forces have made incremental battlefield gains but continue to depend on sustained U.S. support. Publicly, he thanked the Senate for the vote, saying the package sends a “big signal” of American solidarity to Ukraine and its global allies.

    Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, who attended the meeting with Zelenskyy, echoed that framing, calling the legislation “important as a moral signal to a country that is weary and tired, though holding its own.”

    Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democratic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noted the timing of the vote, ahead of Russia’s scheduled national elections. Advancing the package now, she argued, will increase pressure on Putin to enter serious negotiations toward a negotiated peace deal. She warned that every time the U.S. hesitates to take strong action against Russia, Moscow responds by ramping up its offensive attacks. “If we can’t shut down the funding for the war machine that Russia is using against Ukraine, then they’re going to keep at it,” Shaheen said.

    Criticism of the bill centered on the expanded tariff authority, with lawmakers from both parties arguing it grants too much unchecked power to the executive branch. The Senate defeated an amendment sponsored by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon that would have stripped the new tariff authority from the bill. Paul argued the measure would impose unnecessary costs on U.S. taxpayers, while Wyden noted that many American households are already struggling with persistent economic strain. “We’ve got folks who are walking an economic tightrope here in America,” Wyden said.

    Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, who had delayed consideration of the package over his concerns about tariff authority, secured a written guarantee from the Trump administration via U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that establishes clear guardrails for the use of tariffs. Under the commitment, tariffs will be lifted once a country is no longer listed as a major purchaser of Russian energy or a facilitator of sanctions evasion. “We should not have to choose between putting a check on Putin’s aggression and putting a check on this president’s tariffs regime,” Warnock said, adding that if Trump “oversteps his power, we will see him in court.”

    Many other Democrats who hold reservations about granting Trump new executive powers ultimately supported the bill, saying they would not risk undermining critical support for Ukraine. “Weighing that against the boost for Ukraine, I think it’s important to support Ukraine right now,” said Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

    The sanctions package will now head to the House of Representatives, where Senate momentum is expected to push for a swift vote when lawmakers return from recess at the end of the month. The House already passed a separate Ukraine aid and Russian sanctions package in June, which included security assistance and reconstruction funding for Kyiv alongside penalties for key sectors of the Russian economy. That earlier measure drew bipartisan support despite objections from Republican leaders, who argued it undercut negotiations to produce a stronger, more unified piece of legislation.

  • Exclusive: ICC judges order Taliban case split from Afghanistan probe that covers US troops

    Exclusive: ICC judges order Taliban case split from Afghanistan probe that covers US troops

    Exclusive reporting from Middle East Eye (MEE) has uncovered a landmark decision by International Criminal Court (ICC) pre-trial judges, who have ordered prosecutors to launch a fully standalone investigation into accusations of systematic gender persecution at the hands of the Taliban. The order splits this inquiry from the court’s decades-old overarching Afghanistan war crimes probe, which previously included allegations against United States nationals.

    Court documents acquired by MEE via independent channels confirm that a three-judge panel from Pre-Trial Chamber II issued the formal directive to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor in mid-July 2025. If prosecutors move forward with the order, the investigation into Taliban conduct will be formally separated from the broader Afghanistan inquiry, which has examined alleged war crimes dating back to 2003 involving multiple parties: the former Afghan National Security Forces, U.S. military and CIA personnel, the Taliban, and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (IS-K).

    Legal observers note the move is almost certain to fuel speculation that the court is seeking to de-escalate tensions with Washington, signaling a potential end to active pursuit of allegations against U.S. forces and their Afghan former allies. The judicial directive comes just days after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly threatened to “dismantle the ICC, brick by brick” in remarks criticizing the court’s 2020 decision to greenlight the full Afghanistan investigation.

    Since February 2025, the U.S. has enforced retaliatory financial and visa sanctions against multiple ICC officials linked to the Afghanistan and Palestine investigations, justifying the measures as a response to efforts to prosecute U.S. nationals or U.S. allies. The first high-profile target was Karim Khan, the ICC’s former chief prosecutor, who was controversially removed from office by ICC member states last month following an 18-month misconduct investigation. Eight additional ICC judges have also been sanctioned, including three members of the 2020 Appeals Chamber that authorized the full Afghanistan investigation: Kimberly Prost, Solomy Bossa, and Luz Ibanez.

    These U.S. sanctions were imposed even after Karim Khan’s 2021 decision to deprioritize the segment of the Afghanistan probe focused on U.S. military and CIA personnel, as well as forces of the former Afghan government, in order to refocus investigative resources on the Taliban and IS-K. A year ago, the ICC issued high-profile arrest warrants for Taliban Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada and the group’s Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani, charging both with the crime against humanity of gender persecution against Afghan women and girls. Those warrant applications were drafted by a legal team led by Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan, who oversees the overall Afghanistan investigation, and Professor Lisa Davis, the court’s Special Adviser on Gender Crimes and the author of the prosecutor’s office policy on gender-based violence. Both officials have faced U.S. pressure: Nazhat Shameem Khan is among the sanctioned ICC leaders, while Davis successfully won a court case in New York to block potential punitive action from the U.S. administration.

    MEE previously reported in December 2024 that diplomats attending the ICC’s annual Assembly of States Parties meeting in The Hague revealed the Trump administration had pressured the court to abandon both the Afghanistan and Palestine investigations as a precondition for lifting U.S. sanctions. The U.S. also demanded ICC member states amend the court’s founding document, the Rome Statute, to block prosecution of nationals from non-member states including the U.S. and Israel. In a rebuke of these demands, the assembly issued a public declaration rejecting calls to amend the Rome Statute, resisting U.S. pressure without explicitly naming the country in the final text.

    The ICC’s involvement in the Afghanistan situation traces back to November 2017, when then-Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda first requested authorization to investigate alleged crimes committed after 2003 across all involved parties. The request was initially rejected by a differently composed pre-trial chamber in 2019, but the Appeals Chamber overturned that ruling in March 2020 and authorized the full investigation to move forward. Just months later, Bensouda was sanctioned by the U.S. government for her efforts to bring Americans under the court’s jurisdiction.

    The probe was suspended later in 2020 following a deferral request from the then-sitting Afghan government, and only resumed in late 2022, with that decision upheld on appeal in April 2023. In November 2024, six ICC member states—Chile, Costa Rica, Spain, France, Luxembourg, and Mexico—submitted a joint referral detailing allegations of widespread crimes against women and girls committed after the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan in August 2021, asking prosecutors to incorporate these claims into the existing Afghanistan investigation. Weeks later, in January 2025, then-Prosecutor Karim Khan applied for arrest warrants, arguing the gender persecution allegations already fell within the scope of the 2020 investigative authorization. The warrants for Akhundzada and Haqqani were issued shortly after.

    In the latest judgment obtained by MEE, Pre-Trial Chamber II found that the Taliban’s post-2021 conduct is “materially different” from the armed conflict-related violence that formed the core of the original 2020 conflict-linked investigation. The panel, led by presiding judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala alongside members Sergio Gerardo Ugalde Godinez and Haykel Ben Mahfoudh, directed prosecutors that if they determine the legal threshold for an investigation is still met, they must open a fully separate probe rooted in the 2024 state referral, and formally notify the ICC Presidency of the referral—a step that had not yet been taken as of the court’s order.

    “The Referral concerns allegations of gender and political persecution through the adoption, implementation and enforcement of discriminatory decrees, policies and restrictions made possible by the Taliban’s exercise of de facto governmental authority, rather than conduct allegedly committed by the Taliban as an insurgent armed group during the armed conflict,” the judges wrote in their ruling. They echoed a prior recognition from the prosecution that after seizing power in August 2021, the Taliban’s actions did not center on armed attacks against civilian populations, but instead on imposing “discriminatory rules and prohibitions on the population directly” and punishing people who “did not conform” to the group’s policies.

    “The allegations in the Referral therefore arise in a materially different factual and institutional context, involve distinct alleged modes of commission, do not appear to be related to any armed conflict, and concern conduct occurring after the Taliban’s assumption of governmental de facto authority,” the ruling continued. “In light of the above, the Chamber considers that the conduct identified in the Referral constitutes a sufficiently distinct subset of alleged events that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice and the orderly management of the Court’s proceedings, warrants a separate investigation.”

    The judges also drew attention to the fact that the original overarching Afghanistan investigation, which nominally covers alleged crimes by all parties, has remained dormant for years. They directed prosecutors to a newly implemented court procedure that allows for formal closure of inactive situation records. In a footnote, the chamber noted: “Considering that more than three years have elapsed since the Chamber authorised the resumption of the investigation into the Situation in Afghanistan and that no proceedings are presently pending in relation to the conduct covered by that authorisation, the Chamber draws the Prosecution’s attention to the recently implemented regulation 66 ter of the Regulations of the Court, which allows the Prosecution to request the closure of a situation record when it does not anticipate any further investigatory or prosecutorial activities in relation thereto.”

    As of the publication of MEE’s reporting, the Office of the Prosecutor has not yet announced a decision on either closing the original Afghanistan investigation or opening the new standalone probe into Taliban gender persecution. When contacted by MEE for comment, a court spokesperson stated the office “does not comment on investigations.”

  • FIFA chief Infantino travels to Colombia for presidential inauguration

    FIFA chief Infantino travels to Colombia for presidential inauguration

    Embattled FIFA president Gianni Infantino touched down in the Colombian city of Cali on Friday, marking his arrival to attend the inauguration of new hard-right Colombian president Abelardo de la Espriella — all while a growing crisis roils the top leadership of global football’s governing body.

    Infantino finds himself at the center of a growing controversy that has engulfed FIFA in recent weeks. The firestorm was sparked by a heavily criticized plan to open the World Cup up to private investment, a proposal that was ultimately walked back in the face of widespread backlash from major football bodies across the globe. Despite the withdrawal of the investment plan, tensions remain high, with Europe’s governing football body UEFA reaffirming its threat to boycott future World Cup tournaments just one day before Infantino’s arrival in Colombia. The FIFA chief is currently gearing up to run for a fourth and final term as president, with the election set to take place in Rabat, Morocco, next March.

    During a public event with dozens of children dressed in full football kit in the southwestern Colombian city, Infantino leaned into his usual messaging around the sport, framing football as a unifying, joyful force. “It is a joy to be here today,” he told the gathered crowd. “Football is joy, football is happiness, football is unity. So many champions were born in this part of the world, in this part of Colombia.”

    When approached by an Agence France-Presse reporter on the ground in Cali, Infantino declined to respond to questions about whether he believed FIFA’s recent string of controversies had been fully resolved.

    Infantino has long-standing ties to prominent right-wing political figures, including former United States president Donald Trump, making his attendance at the inauguration of Colombia’s new hard-right leader unsurprising. In a break with longstanding Colombian political tradition, de la Espriella has chosen to host his inauguration ceremony in Cali — widely known as the global capital of salsa music — rather than holding the traditional swearing-in before the national Congress in the capital city of Bogota.

  • US appeals court halts Trump ballroom project paving way for Supreme Court showdown

    US appeals court halts Trump ballroom project paving way for Supreme Court showdown

    In a landmark ruling that tests the boundaries of U.S. presidential executive authority, a federal appeals court has ordered the Trump administration to immediately halt all above-ground construction of a controversial $400 million ballroom extension at the White House, delivering the latest major blow to the unauthorized project and setting up a potential high-stakes showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The three-judge panel’s majority ruling upholds an earlier preliminary injunction secured by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a non-profit advocacy group that filed suit after the administration demolished a portion of the White House East Wing in 2025 to launch the project without securing the mandatory approval from Congress required for alterations to the iconic federal property.

    In its written opinion, the panel emphasized that decisions about large-scale structural changes to the White House — widely referred to as the “People’s House” — fall exclusively to the legislative branch, not unilateral action by the executive. “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help,” the opinion stated. It added, “Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House … to fit a particular President’s desires.”

    The legal challenge stems from the Trump administration’s move to advance the project without congressional appropriations or authorization. A lower federal judge had already twice blocked above-ground construction work on the extension, though the ruling allowed limited underground site work to continue. The administration immediately appealed that lower court order to the federal appeals circuit, setting up Friday’s ruling.

    In a procedural carveout, the appeals court delayed the enforcement of its construction halt for 14 days to give the Trump administration time to file an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, should the White House choose to do so. The BBC has reached out to White House officials for official comment on the ruling, and had not received a response as of this update.

    President Trump has publicly defended the costly project on multiple occasions, arguing the new expanded ballroom is necessary to accommodate large events including state visits and official gatherings, and has gone so far as to frame it as a critical national security priority. Trump doubled down on these justifications following an assassination attempt at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April 2026, though critics have questioned the link between the new construction and any credible security threat.

    This is an ongoing developing breaking news story, with additional details expected to be released in the coming days as the administration considers its next legal move.

  • Mexico and Peru restore diplomatic relations after asylum row

    Mexico and Peru restore diplomatic relations after asylum row

    A months-long diplomatic rift between Mexico and Peru has come to an end, with the two Latin American nations announcing the full restoration of bilateral relations on August 7, just one week after new Peruvian President Keiko Fujimori took office. The breakdown in ties stemmed from Mexico’s November 2025 decision to grant political asylum to former Peruvian Prime Minister Betssy Chávez, a close ally of ousted president Pedro Castillo who faced decades-long prison sentences over allegations of involvement in a 2022 coup attempt.

    In a joint bilateral statement released simultaneously by both governments, Lima and Mexico City emphasized that longstanding “historic ties of brotherhood, friendship and cooperation” between the two peoples provided the foundation for reconciliation. The statement also included a mutual reaffirmation of commitment to upholding international law and the core principles outlined in the United Nations Charter.

    The diplomatic standoff began shortly after Chávez, who had been released on bail in September 2025 while appealing her conviction, sought refuge inside Mexico’s embassy in Lima. Peruvian authorities granted Chávez safe passage to leave the country for Mexico, Peruvian Foreign Minister Carlos Espá confirmed to local outlet RPP, noting that the former prime minister has already exited Peruvian territory. In an official addendum to its public remarks, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry clarified that while the government approved Chávez’s travel to Mexico, it retains full legal authority to pursue an extradition request for her at a future date.

    At her regular daily press briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly welcomed Chávez to Mexico, and used the occasion to reiterate her administration’s longstanding support for Pedro Castillo, the former Peruvian president at the center of the 2022 political crisis. Castillo’s December 2022 attempt to dissolve the Peruvian congress and install an emergency government triggered his immediate impeachment by legislative authorities, and he was arrested on rebellion charges just hours after the attempted power restructuring.

    Chávez was first taken into custody in June 2023 on charges tied to her alleged role in Castillo’s dissolution plan. After maintaining her innocence throughout multiple court proceedings, she was ultimately convicted alongside Castillo in November 2025, with both men and women receiving prison sentences exceeding 11 years. Granted bail three months prior to the final ruling, Chávez moved to seek asylum in the Mexican embassy shortly after the conviction was handed down.

    The breakthrough in bilateral relations follows the inauguration of Fujimori as Peru’s new president, which took place just seven days before the reconciliation announcement. Analysts view the new government’s willingness to negotiate a resolution to the asylum dispute as a clear break from the previous Peruvian administration’s hardline stance toward Mexico over the issue.

  • Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan to sign defense pact on Friday, sources say

    Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan to sign defense pact on Friday, sources say

    An anonymous senior source based in Turkey’s capital Ankara has confirmed to independent outlet Middle East Eye that three major Muslim-majority nations — Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan — are scheduled to sign a historic joint defence agreement on Friday.

    Negotiations over the framework have been underway for more than a year, and the final deal comes at a moment of cascading crisis across the Middle East, sparked by recent joint Israeli-U.S. strikes on Iranian territory. The signing ceremony will be hosted in Mecca, one of the most sacred sites in Islam, with the heads of state of all three countries in attendance.

    One senior Ankara-based insider described the pact as a development that will reshape regional geopolitics. “If successfully implemented, the deal will enhance the stability and security of people living in this part of the world,” the source stated.

    According to insider accounts, the agreement will cover all domains of defence collaboration between the three nations. Crucially, officials have emphasized that the new trilateral framework will not supersede or weaken any existing bilateral or multilateral alliance commitments that each country currently holds.

    Officials have declined to publicly confirm whether the text includes a binding mutual defence clause, which would codify that an armed attack on one signatory counts as an attack on all three. A second anonymous source noted that such a clause is likely to be included, but added that final negotiations over the agreement’s text are still ongoing, so no details can be formally confirmed.

    In the lead-up to the signing, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will depart for Saudi Arabia early Friday, where he will be received by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif already arrived in the Saudi port city of Jeddah, a short distance from Mecca, on Thursday to prepare for the ceremony.

    A completed pact would unite three of the most strategically significant powers in the broader Middle East and South Asia, each bringing unique geostrategic strengths to the alliance. Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, holds the distinction of being the only Arab nation with a seat in the G20, and it hosts Islam’s two holiest cities: Mecca and Medina. Pakistan stands as the only nuclear-armed state in the global Muslim community, while Turkey, which bridges Europe and Asia, boasts the second-largest standing military within the NATO alliance. Both Pakistan and Turkey have also rapidly grown into major independent weapons manufacturers and defence exporters in recent years.

    Historically, Pakistan has maintained warm, stable relations with both Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but ties between Riyadh and Ankara have long been strained by geopolitical disagreements. During the 2011 Arab Spring, Erdogan publicly supported popular pro-democracy uprisings that Saudi Arabia’s leadership viewed as an existential threat to its monarchical governance model. A decade ago, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates backed opposing forces to Turkey in Libya’s civil war, and Riyadh supported current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after his 2013 coup — a move that drew fierce condemnation from Erdogan at the time.

    However, regional alliance dynamics have shifted dramatically in recent years, driven by shared alarm over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which the United Nations, leading human rights organizations, and dozens of historians have formally recognized as a genocide, as well as escalating Israeli attacks on Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Erdogan and el-Sisi have since moved to repair bilateral ties over these shared concerns, and Saudi Arabia and Turkey began a gradual process of normalizing relations starting in 2021, laying the groundwork for the new defence pact.

    Middle East Eye, the outlet that first reported this development, provides independent, on-the-ground coverage of the Middle East, North Africa, and surrounding regions.