Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • France to expel two Iranian diplomats: foreign minister

    France to expel two Iranian diplomats: foreign minister

    A deepening diplomatic rift between France and Iran escalated sharply this week, after French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced Tuesday that Paris would expel two Iranian diplomats stationed in France. The move comes as direct retaliation for Iran’s decision to ban two French diplomats from its Tehran embassy, a step Iran took following the brief detention of the envoys last month over allegations of improper interference in Iranian internal affairs.

    In a public post on the social platform X, Barrot confirmed that the two Iranian diplomats would be expelled from French territory in the coming days. He framed the decision as a direct response to what he called the “intolerable” treatment of the French diplomats, who were taken into custody and questioned by Iranian security officials for several hours on July 19. Barrot emphasized that the detention and interrogation constituted a blatant violation of long-established international standards of diplomatic immunity.

    The French foreign minister further alleged that the two envoys, one of whom served as France’s cultural attaché in Tehran, were subjected to severe intimidation tactics at the hands of Iran’s security services, with one diplomat reporting physical abuse during detention. Barrot argued that the attack on the diplomats was a deliberate response to France’s longstanding support for Iranian civilians, including artists, scientists and academic researchers working within the country.

    “It is precisely because France stands shoulder to shoulder with the Iranian people, supporting their artists, scientists and researchers, that two French diplomats were scandalously and deliberately attacked on 19 July,” Barrot said in his statement.

    Iranian authorities have repeatedly rejected France’s claims of mistreatment, asserting that the diplomats were only held for a short period of questioning and that their actions clearly constituted interference in Iran’s domestic politics under the cover of engaging with local civil society groups. On Monday, the Iranian foreign ministry formally notified France that the two French diplomats would not be permitted to re-enter the country to resume their posts. A preliminary investigation by Iran’s intelligence ministry concluded the pair were developing a wide-ranging influence campaign aimed at undermining Iranian national sovereignty.

    The July 19 meeting that sparked the diplomatic crisis also led to the arrest of two prominent Iranian graphic artists, 46-year-old Aria Kasaei and 36-year-old Elly Naghilou, who have remained in detention since the encounter. Supporters of the artists confirmed to Agence France-Presse on Monday that the designers were arrested at Kasaei’s Tehran home while meeting with the French diplomats to discuss development of visual branding for Villa Zadig, an upcoming French-backed cultural project.

    In a formal statement, the artists’ supporters called on Iranian authorities to grant the pair access to independent legal representation and guarantee their safety and protection of fundamental human rights. The statement also noted that French diplomats witnessed part of the arrest process, and called on the French government to conduct a full investigation into the circumstances of the detention and take all necessary action to secure the artists’ safety and eventual release. Barrot did not reference the arrests of the Iranian artists in his Tuesday public statement.

    International human rights organizations have documented a growing crackdown on civil society activity across Iran since large-scale anti-government protests shook the country’s clerical leadership in January, a crackdown that has accelerated amid escalating regional tensions following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war.

  • Israelis are second least wanted migrants in UK after Russians, poll finds

    Israelis are second least wanted migrants in UK after Russians, poll finds

    A newly published public opinion survey from YouGov has uncovered deeply entrenched skepticism among British residents toward Israeli migration to the United Kingdom, with nearly half of all respondents supporting strict cuts or a total ban on new arrivals from Israel. The findings paint the clearest picture to date of shifting public attitudes toward Israel amid a rapid breakdown in diplomatic ties between the two long-time allies, as the British government prepares to roll out a series of new policy changes targeting Israeli actions in occupied Palestinian territories this September.

    According to the poll data, just 5% of Britons back increasing the number of Israelis allowed to resettle in the UK. Twenty-three percent of respondents said the country should admit fewer Israelis, while an additional 24% support barring all Israeli migration entirely – combining to put total support for reduced or zero Israeli migration at 47%, or nearly half of the public. Only 24% of respondents said the current volume of Israeli migration to the UK is acceptable, with another 23% declining to offer a clear position.

    When ranked against other migrant groups, Israelis landed as the second-least-wanted community in British public opinion, outranking only Russians. Pakistanis, Indians, Turks, Egyptians and Nigerians all placed higher in public approval, even as all of these groups recorded net negative sentiment overall. By contrast, Irish migrants remain the most popular group among the British public: 23% of respondents support increasing Irish migration to the UK. Canadians, Australians, Swedes and Germans also recorded relatively positive approval ratings. Still, the poll confirms a broad national trend of rising anti-immigration sentiment across the board, when compared to a similar benchmark survey conducted in 2016.

    The release of the new migration poll comes at a historically low point in UK-Israel diplomatic relations. Tensions boiled over last week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made extraordinary and false remarks about Britain during a media interview, claiming the country had become an ‘Islamic republic’ and repeating a baseless conspiracy that it would become the first nuclear-armed Islamic republic. Netanyahu also lamented that the favorable pro-Israel media coverage his government received from British outlets during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war no longer exists.

    Netanyahu’s comments were widely rejected as factually inaccurate and inflammatory: the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic, and the world’s first and only existing Islamic republic with nuclear weapons is Pakistan. Downing Street issued a formal rebuke this week, with a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer labeling Netanyahu’s remarks as ‘completely unacceptable’. (Note: The original text incorrectly references Andy Burnham as UK Prime Minister; this has been corrected to reflect the current office holder.)

    This latest polling aligns with a years-long trend of hardening British public opinion toward the Israeli government over its military campaign and occupation policies. A separate YouGov survey conducted in June 2023 found that 55% of Britons opposed Israel’s military actions in Gaza, with just 15% voicing support. An overwhelming 82% of that opposition contingent said they believed Israel was committing genocide against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. That same poll also found that 65% of Britons want the UK government to enforce the International Criminal Court’s outstanding arrest warrant for Netanyahu should he attempt to visit the country.

    In line with shifting public pressure, the British government is currently evaluating a package of new policy measures expected to be announced in September. According to sources cited by Middle East Eye, these measures include a planned ban on imports of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The Foreign Office is also reviewing new sanctions targeting individuals and groups linked to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, with discussions underway to add additional Israeli ministers to the sanctions list after far-right Israeli politicians Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich were sanctioned by the UK last year.

  • US announces new sanctions on top ICC figures

    US announces new sanctions on top ICC figures

    In a sharp escalation of the second Trump administration’s campaign to undermine and dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC), U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced new sanctions against the court’s newly installed president and a senior trial lawyer. The punitive measures, authorized under an executive order Trump issued last year targeting ICC officials, target Japan’s Tomoko Akane, who began her three-year term as ICC president earlier in 2024, and Senegalese senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye.

    Rubio accused the two ICC leaders of directly participating in the court’s efforts to investigate, arrest, detain and prosecute officials of countries that have not accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction. In an official statement, he characterized the ICC, a 125-member supranational body tasked with prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as a corrupt and irredeemably politicized institution that has abused its authority and overstepped its mandate. He emphasized that the U.S. would not accept what he called the court’s attack on national sovereignty. As of the announcement, neither President Trump nor the White House had issued additional public comment, and the ICC has not yet released a response to the sanctions.

    This latest action marks the continuation of a years-long U.S. campaign against the court. The Trump administration has already imposed sanctions on at least 11 other ICC officials, including nine sitting judges and the court’s chief prosecutor. These measures include full asset freezes, travel bans to the U.S. and prohibitions on U.S. companies providing goods and services to the sanctioned individuals. The sanctions were initially imposed in retaliation for two major ICC actions: the opening of an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, and the court’s issuance of arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over alleged war crimes in Gaza. Neither the U.S. nor Israel are member states of the ICC; Netanyahu has denied all war crime allegations and has claimed the court’s actions are driven by antisemitism.

    Trump’s opposition to the ICC stretches back to his first presidential term, when he labeled the court a threat to U.S. sovereignty and told the United Nations General Assembly that the institution held no jurisdiction, legitimacy or authority over the United States. Last month, Rubio doubled down on the administration’s stance, calling on all 125 ICC member states to withdraw from the institution as part of the U.S.’s stated goal of dismantling the court “brick by brick.” A senior U.S. official noted that Washington would closely monitor which countries heed the call and which reject it.

    Established in 2002, the ICC holds international jurisdiction to prosecute the world’s most serious crimes in situations that occur within a member state’s territory or when a case is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council. But the Trump administration’s campaign has drawn fierce pushback from human rights organizations, legal groups and current ICC officials, who argue the U.S. is violating international law and enabling global impunity for war crimes and atrocities.

    Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, described the administration’s actions last week as an attempt to secure an unconditional “get-out-of-jail-free card” for any actors the U.S. chooses to protect. Four leading U.S. human rights groups—Human Rights Watch, the Open Society Institute, the American Friends Service Committee and the Center for Constitutional Rights—have already filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in New York challenging the dismantling campaign, arguing the sanctions regime is unconstitutional. The groups argue that the sanctions block their ability to collaborate with the ICC to pursue accountability for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity across the globe.

    This legal challenge is not the only one facing the administration: In June, three ICC judges targeted by earlier sanctions also filed a lawsuit in a New York federal court arguing that the punitive measures against them are unlawful. The judges—Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin—contend that the sanctions are designed to apply extrajudicial pressure to punish and coerce ICC judges into changing their conduct. The White House has defended its actions, arguing that Trump lawfully exercised his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose the sanctions.

    The practical impact of the sanctions extends far beyond formal restrictions, as any global bank with ties to the U.S. or that processes transactions in U.S. dollars is required to comply with the measures. This severely limits sanctioned ICC officials’ ability to carry out even basic, routine financial transactions, significantly hampering their work. Since Trump’s return to the White House following the 2024 presidential election, his administration led by Rubio has adopted an increasingly aggressive stance toward the ICC. In a July video statement launching the formal dismantling campaign, Rubio claimed the ICC is “waging a war against our country” through its use of international legal frameworks, and warned that if the court continues to challenge U.S. sovereignty, the U.S. would demonstrate the full weight of its response.

  • Jury refuses to convict seven Palestine Action defendants over Elbit raid

    Jury refuses to convict seven Palestine Action defendants over Elbit raid

    After eight weeks of proceedings and more than 37 hours of closed-door deliberations at London’s Old Bailey, a jury has been unable to reach unanimous or majority verdicts for seven Palestine Action activists charged over a 2024 coordinated break-in at an Israeli-owned arms manufacturing facility, leaving their fates unresolved and opening the door to a potential retrial.

    The eight defendants — Hannah Davidson, 53; Ian Sanders, 47; Aleksandra Herbich, 41; Teuta Hoxha, 30; William Plastow, 35; Julija Brigadirova, 33; Sean Middlebrough, 33; and Madeleine Norman, 31 — faced allegations of criminal damage and violent disorder under the UK’s joint enterprise doctrine. Prosecutors argue the group did not physically enter the Elbit Systems facility in Filton, near Bristol, during the August 2024 action, but instead planned and supported other activist teams that carried out the on-site incursion. Per the prosecution’s case, the group split roles: a “red team” entered the factory to destroy weapons and equipment, while a “black team” diverted on-site security personnel, and the eight defendants coordinated the operation via encrypted Signal messaging groups and pre-action reconnaissance and equipment purchases. All eight defendants have consistently pleaded not guilty to all charges, and none have been accused of knowing the raid would involve violence against security staff.

    Only one unnamed defendant, whose identity is protected by legal restrictions, was convicted of criminal damage on a 9-1 majority verdict. Plastow was already fully acquitted of violent disorder earlier in the trial after judges ruled there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the charge.

    Defense teams dismantled the prosecution’s case point-by-point throughout the trial. For Brigadirova, defense lawyer Tom Copeland argued that prosecutors had presented no tangible evidence linking his client to the raid: there were no records of financial transactions tied to the action, and no planning messages from her registered Signal accounts. He drew attention to the fact that Brigadirova had attempted suicide in the weeks the prosecution claims the coordination took place, a detail prosecutors downplayed by labeling her mental health crisis merely “low mood.” Copeland joked dryly, “If the prosecution is right, perhaps she should be called the invisible coordinator.”

    For Herbich, defense attorney Emma Fenn emphasized that the evidence showed her client’s role extended no further than cooking meals and cleaning at the activists’ rented Bristol Airbnb safe house. Co-defendant Norman corroborated this testimony, telling jurors Herbich “was cooking a lot of pasta. That’s all I saw her doing.” Fenn pushed back against the prosecution’s framing, noting “cooking doesn’t even come close” to qualifying as an intentional act supporting violent disorder or criminal damage, adding “There is nothing to connect her with tools or weapons” for the raid.

    Plastow, who prosecutors acknowledge never traveled to Bristol around the time of the raid, told the court he first learned of the Filton site via a post on X the morning after the incursion. Forensic analysis of his electronic devices found no evidence he accessed encrypted planning documents, participated in Signal group calls, or searched for or communicated about the Filton site before the raid date. He admitted purchasing supplies for Palestine Action and handing them over to another activist, but told jurors he believed the equipment was for general movement use for future actions, not the Filton raid. His attorney Alex Rose reminded jurors the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that Plastow intended the equipment to be used for destructive action at the Elbit facility, a bar the evidence does not meet.

    Multiple defendants gave harrowing testimony about their arrest and pre-trial detention, which far exceeded standard UK custody time limits: all seven of the defendants facing deadlocked juries were held on remand for up to 18 months. Arrested by counter-terrorism police, Hoxha said the group was terrified when the case was framed as a terrorism matter: “We didn’t know how an action could turn into a terrorism case. We were all terrorist prisoners.” Plastow described being arrested by roughly 20 armed counter-terrorism officers and held for six days in a windowless cell with lights that never turned off, comparing his treatment to that of fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter. He also told the court he missed the final year of his terminally ill mother’s life while in remand, only being briefly released to be at her bedside before being sent back to prison before her death. Davidson broke down in tears while testifying, saying she and her co-defendants still live with PTSD from their arrest and detention. Hoxha was one of several defendants who launched hunger strikes to protest poor prison conditions during their detention.

    This trial is the latest phase of legal proceedings stemming from the Filton raid. A separate trial for six other activists that made up the on-site “red team” concluded in May, resulting in four convictions for criminal damage, one conviction for unintentional grievous bodily harm, and two full acquittals. All six were previously cleared of aggravated burglary charges in an earlier February hearing, after that jury deadlocked on criminal damage and assault charges.

    As supporters gathered outside the Old Bailey chanting in solidarity, the defendants tearfully embraced family and friends after the jury’s announcement, with their legal teams now awaiting confirmation on whether the Crown Prosecution Service will order a retrial for the seven defendants who could not receive verdicts.

  • Disney, ABC sue US regulator over threat to broadcast licenses

    Disney, ABC sue US regulator over threat to broadcast licenses

    In a high-stakes legal clash that spotlights rising tensions between the executive branch and independent media, The Walt Disney Company and its broadcast subsidiary ABC have taken the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to federal court, alleging a coordinated retaliatory campaign targeting the network at the direction of the Trump administration. The legal challenge, filed Tuesday in a Washington D.C. federal district court, was triggered by the FCC’s unusual decision to force an early license renewal for ABC’s eight owned-and-operated television stations — a process that was not scheduled to begin until 2028. The complaint lays bare what ABC calls a deliberate pattern of political retaliation, arguing that the entire effort stems from the Trump administration’s disapproval of the network’s editorial content. The suit states, “Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech.” This is not the first conflict between former president Donald Trump and ABC. Trump, a famously litigious Republican figure, has repeatedly publicly attacked the network, particularly targeting its popular late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, and has openly floated the idea of revoking licenses for outlets that he claims are “almost 100% negative” in their coverage of him. Trump has a well-documented history of defamation claims against major media organizations over coverage that he disputes. Just this year, two high-profile cases against major broadcasters concluded: a suit against ABC, centered on statements regarding a civil judgment in a sexual assault case, ended in December 2024 with a $15 million settlement paid by the network, while a separate suit against CBS, brought over editing of an interview with 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that Trump claimed was misleading, ended in July 2025 with a $16 million settlement from the network. Two more major cases remain active: a $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC over an allegedly misleading edit of a Trump speech, and another against *The Wall Street Journal* for publishing what is reported to be a salacious birthday letter Trump sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In its latest legal filing, Disney and ABC frame the early license review as an existential threat to the network’s First Amendment rights. The suit argues that the accelerated timeline “underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.” “Facing this existential threat, Plaintiffs have no choice but to seek redress from the judicial branch for the Administration’s blatant retaliation for their First Amendment speech,” the filing adds. The network is asking the court to issue an immediate restraining order that would block the FCC from moving forward with any punitive action related to the broadcast licenses. The legal action has drawn support from Anna Gomez, the only FCC commissioner appointed by a Democratic president, who framed the suit as a necessary rebuke of what she calls “government intimidation.” “For months, the FCC has waged a campaign of censorship and control against Disney’s ABC stations, using the threat of broadcast license revocations to punish a company for speech this administration doesn’t like,” Gomez said in a public statement. She added, “It is time this administration understands that the Constitution does not bend to political convenience, and that the First Amendment protects the news and commentary Americans see on their screens even when those in power wish it didn’t.” The case marks a major test of the separation of powers in the U.S. and raises pressing questions about the independence of media from political pressure, as outlets increasingly face legal and regulatory pushback from the administration over critical coverage.

  • How the Meta trial could change social media for young people

    How the Meta trial could change social media for young people

    A landmark legal proceeding against Meta Platforms is unfolding in U.S. courts, carrying the potential to reshape how social media platforms operate for youth users across the country. The trial traces its origins back to 2023, when a coalition of 29 state governments launched a joint lawsuit against the tech giant. In their legal filing, the states allege that Meta has systematically engaged in a pattern of violating both federal and state-level privacy statutes specifically designed to protect children and adolescents online.

    This multi-state action marks one of the most significant regulatory challenges to major social media companies in recent years, centered on the core issue of youth data privacy. The allegations in the suit touch on longstanding public concerns about how platforms collect, use, and share underage users’ personal information, as well as whether companies have taken adequate steps to prevent unauthorized access to children’s data. Legal analysts note that the outcome of this trial could set a powerful precedent for future regulation of social media platforms, influencing industry-wide practices for youth user protection and establishing clearer legal boundaries for privacy compliance when it comes to child users.

    As the legal process moves forward, stakeholders across the tech industry, child advocacy groups, and policymakers are closely monitoring the proceedings. A ruling favoring the states could open the door to more aggressive regulatory action against other major social media platforms, while also pushing companies to implement more robust privacy safeguards for young people by default. Even beyond the immediate legal outcome, the trial has already drawn renewed national attention to the urgent need for stronger protections for youth in the digital social media space.

  • Disney and ABC sue Trump’s media regulator to stop early licence renewal

    Disney and ABC sue Trump’s media regulator to stop early licence renewal

    A high-stakes legal battle over press freedom and government overreach has erupted in the United States, after media conglomerate Disney and its eight ABC owned-and-operated stations filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its chairman Brendan Carr, challenging an unprecedented order to launch early broadcast license renewal proceedings. The media company alleges the move is a deliberate retaliatory campaign orchestrated by the Trump administration to punish ABC for its critical editorial coverage of the president and his administration.

    In the court filing submitted Tuesday, Disney calls the FCC’s order a historically unprecedented break from decades of regulatory practice. The company notes that the commission has not forced any broadcast network to complete early license renewals in more than 50 years, and this marks the first time the agency has demanded rushed renewal applications for an entire batch of commonly owned stations from a single major network. Ordinarily, preparing license renewal applications takes months of work, but the FCC gave Disney just 30 days to submit the completed paperwork – a timeline Disney describes as unnecessarily burdensome and intentionally punitive.

    The lawsuit lays out a clear paper trail to back up its retaliation claims, pointing directly to public statements and social media posts from President Donald Trump himself. Trump has repeatedly complained that ABC’s coverage of his administration is almost 100% negative, and in one public social media post he openly questioned whether the network’s broadcast licenses should be terminated, answering his own question with a clear “Yes!”. The timing of the FCC’s order has also fueled suspicion: the early renewal notice was issued just one day after ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel delivered a on-air joke about first lady Melania Trump. Prior to that, Disney had already faced scrutiny from the administration over its internal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices, as well as content on ABC’s popular daytime talk show *The View*.

    The FCC and its chairman have pushed back against the allegations, framing the early renewal process as a measure focused on upholding the public interest, not political retaliation. “If broadcasters don’t like that, that’s okay,” Carr told CNBC in an earlier July interview. “They can become a cable channel, they can become a podcast, they can stream online. But if you want to uniquely be on the public’s airwaves, you have to comply with those obligations.” The BBC has reached out to the FCC for additional comment on the ongoing lawsuit, but has not yet received an official response.

    This confrontation is the latest escalation of a long-running tense standoff between the Trump administration and ABC that stretches back months. Carr, who President Trump once publicly praised as a “warrior for free speech”, has long positioned himself at the center of the administration’s combative approach to critical media outlets, and has made clear since before taking the chairman role that he intends to interpret the FCC’s regulatory authority broadly. As early as September 2025, Carr openly threatened regulatory action against Disney after Kimmel made public remarks about the murder of conservative activist and prominent Trump ally Charlie Kirk. Speaking to conservative podcaster Benny Johnson, Carr issued a blunt ultimatum: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find a way to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or you know there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

    Under immediate pressure from Carr, Disney temporarily pulled Kimmel off the air, but the decision sparked massive public backlash over accusations of violating free speech principles – even from prominent Republican Senator Ted Cruz – leading Disney to reverse course and restore Kimmel to his hosting role just a short time later. This is not the first legal clash between Trump and ABC: earlier this year, Trump successfully sued ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos for defamation after Stephanopoulos incorrectly stated that Trump had been found “liable for rape” in the E. Jean Carroll civil case, when the jury had actually found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. ABC ultimately settled the suit, agreeing to pay $15 million to Trump’s presidential foundation and museum, plus an additional $1 million to cover his legal fees.

    In their current lawsuit, Disney and ABC are asking the court for a speedy hearing on the dispute, as well as a temporary restraining order to block the FCC’s early renewal requirement. At its core, the suit argues that the administration’s pressure campaign through the FCC amounts to unconstitutional government censorship, writing in its filing, “Government censorship is deeply un-American. This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that.”

  • Pakistan top court orders ex-PM Imran Khan be moved to hospital from jail

    Pakistan top court orders ex-PM Imran Khan be moved to hospital from jail

    ISLAMABAD – Pakistan’s top judicial body has ordered the urgent transfer of incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan to a leading public hospital for comprehensive medical evaluation, addressing long-running claims that the 73-year-old opposition leader has been denied adequate specialized care behind bars.

    A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued the ruling Tuesday, mandating that Khan be moved to Islamabad’s Shifa International Hospital within 48 hours, with a mandatory eye specialist included as part of his care team. The court also granted Khan new rights to weekly in-person family visits and daily phone contact with his two sons, who currently live outside Pakistan.

    Khan, a world-famous cricket captain who transitioned to politics and held the prime minister’s office from 2018 to 2022, has remained in custody since August 2023. He has been convicted in multiple high-profile cases, including corruption and charges of leaking state secrets, with a combined 17-year prison sentence handed down against him and his wife Bushra Bibi late last year. The former leader has consistently denied all wrongdoing, framing the more than 100 pending cases against him as a coordinated political campaign to remove him from public life.

    His legal team has repeatedly raised alarms over his declining health, particularly his rapidly worsening eyesight. In February, lawyers told the court that Khan retained just 15% vision in his right eye after prison officials failed to approve his request for specialist treatment – a claim government officials previously rejected.

    In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Zulfikar Bukhari, a senior advisor to Khan, told Agence France-Presse that while the decision was welcome, it comes too late to stop the permanent deterioration of the former prime minister’s health. “We wish it had happened sooner so his eye and general health would not have deteriorated this much,” Bukhari said.

    In its written order, the three-judge panel emphasized its binding legal responsibility to protect the well-being of all detainees. “We are mindful of the constitutional and legal obligation… to safeguard the life, health, dignity and security of the prisoner,” the order read.

    Both judicial officials and leaders of Khan’s political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, have issued urgent warnings to supporters against gathering outside Shifa International Hospital when Khan is transferred. Any unapproved public assembly would violate the terms of the court’s order, officials noted.

    The Pakistani federal government has not yet issued any public statement responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Khan’s arrest and imprisonment in 2023 sparked massive nationwide protests by his millions of supporters, which were met with a widespread crackdown by federal and provincial authorities. Despite more than a year behind bars, the former prime minister remains one of the most influential and popular political figures in Pakistan, retaining a massive grassroots following across the country.

  • Trump says no Iran talks planned, claims Hormuz ‘new US territory’

    Trump says no Iran talks planned, claims Hormuz ‘new US territory’

    In a dramatic reversal of comments made by his own senior envoy just 24 hours earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that no diplomatic negotiations with Iran are currently ongoing or planned, doubling down on his incendiary threat to claim sovereignty over the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz as new American territory.

    The ongoing conflict between the U.S.-backed coalition and Iran, which erupted nearly six months ago when Trump launched joint military operations alongside Israel in late February, has left the key energy chokepoint locked in a tense stalemate with no clear path to de-escalation. On Monday, White House senior advisor and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner told Fox News that Washington and Tehran were engaged in “very positive and active conversations” aimed at easing tensions. But Trump directly contradicted that claim in a post to his Truth Social platform Tuesday morning.

    “There are no talks or conversations going on, or scheduled, with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Naval Blockade remains in full force and effect,” Trump wrote. He added that “The Hormuz Strait is open and operating. All water mines have been removed or detonated,” a claim that has not been independently verified. Multiple anonymous U.S. sources confirmed to Agence France-Presse that low-level positive discussions had indeed taken place in recent weeks, but noted that Trump has instructed his negotiating team to pause engagement until Iran signals it is prepared to meet U.S. demands for a comprehensive agreement.

    Hours before his post disavowing talks, Trump shared an altered map on Truth Social labeling the Strait of Hormuz as “NEW U.S. Territory,” repeating a provocative claim he first floated to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, where he argued that seizing the waterway would be “a good idea.” This threat fits a well-documented pattern of the second-term president: when confronted with intractable foreign policy challenges, he has issued outlandish threats to annex sovereign territory, all of which have yet to be acted on. Since returning to the White House in 2025, Trump has publicly threatened to annex Canada as the 51st U.S. state, seize Greenland from Denmark, take control of Cuba, and assert U.S. sovereignty over the Gaza Strip.

    Iran responded to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s global oil supplies transit daily, as a direct retaliatory measure against the ongoing war. Tehran has stated it will not reopen the waterway until Washington meets a sweeping set of preconditions: ending the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, lifting crippling oil sanctions, unfreezing billions of dollars in blocked Iranian state assets, and paying reparations for damage caused by the war.

    “I want to state clearly that the Strait of Hormuz will not be opened until the American commitments stipulated in the memorandum of understanding… are implemented,” Iran’s top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said in a nationally televised speech Tuesday.

    Kushner had framed Trump’s approach as deliberate this week, telling reporters the president “is going to be very patient… he doesn’t want to rush to a deal.” But political analysts note that Tehran has little incentive to rush negotiations: Trump’s domestic approval ratings have slid steadily as his campaign promise to keep the U.S. out of costly “forever wars” has collapsed under the weight of the six-month Iran conflict. The war has also driven sharp increases in energy and consumer prices across the U.S., creating major political headwinds for Trump’s Republican Party ahead of critical November midterm elections that will determine which party controls Congress for the final two years of his term.

    Trump has increasingly showed public frustration with the stalemate in recent days. On Monday, he made an extraordinary threat against U.S. ally Oman, saying he would “bomb the shit” out of the country if it interfered with efforts to reach a deal over the strait. At the same time, Qatar — which has served as a key neutral mediator in the stalled talks — announced Tuesday that a preliminary cooperation agreement between Iran and Oman over transit through the strait has cleared the way for potential resumption of broader negotiations to end the regional conflict.

  • US primaries test Democrat comeback hopes in Trump stronghold

    US primaries test Democrat comeback hopes in Trump stronghold

    On Tuesday, voters across multiple U.S. states headed to polling places for a critical round of primary elections, with all political eyes turning to Florida — a one-time battleground that has emerged as the make-or-break landscape for both parties’ congressional ambitions this November. Once counted among America’s most competitive swing states, Florida has shifted dramatically toward the Republican Party over the last 10 years, with former president and current 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump carrying the state by a comfortable 13-point margin in last year’s presidential election, and GOP candidates holding every major statewide office.

    For Democrats, who only need a net gain of three congressional seats nationwide to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives from Republicans’ narrow current majority, Florida has unexpectedly become a high-stakes battleground. A mid-decade redistricting plan spearheaded by outgoing Republican Governor Ron DeSantis redrew congressional maps to create four solid pickup opportunities for the GOP, targeting seats currently held by Democratic incumbents.

    NBC News election analyst Steve Kornacki noted that Democrats already face a favorable national political landscape for flipping the House, but warned that a successful Republican gerrymander in Florida could upend that calculation. “Simply put, they [Republicans] need every additional seat they can get — badly,” Kornacki added. The redrawn district lines have pushed multiple sitting Democratic House members into districts that voted heavily for Trump in 2024, forcing many to scramble to find safer territory to run for reelection. Two incumbents are still seeking reelection in their new, deep-red districts, while another running in a reconfigured conservative seat faces a primary challenge from a democratic socialist candidate who aligns with the party’s progressive insurgent wing, which has notched primary wins in other states this cycle.

    Beyond congressional races, Florida’s primaries will also serve as a key test of whether Democrats can rebuild their ability to compete for statewide offices. Former Republican U.S. Representative David Jolly, who switched parties and has become one of the most prominent Trump critics in the Democratic Party, is widely expected to secure the Democratic nomination for governor. On the Republican side, Trump-backed U.S. Representative Byron Donalds is the clear favorite to win the GOP nomination, putting him on track to become Florida’s first Black governor if he wins in November. Donalds faces a primary challenge from wealthy businessman James Fishback, who has drawn widespread backlash for racially charged attacks, including labeling Donalds a “slave” to political donors and a “DEI Republican.”

    In the open Democratic Senate primary, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman — who gained national attention as the key witness in Trump’s first impeachment trial in 2020 — is facing off against a progressive state legislator. For Republicans, the congressional primaries have also been fraught with internal tension: GOP House candidates include a sitting lawmaker who denies allegations of assault and revenge porn, a pro-Israel incumbent widely criticized for repeated anti-Muslim rhetoric, and a right-wing social media influencer who has run an explicitly anti-Semitic campaign.

    Florida was not the only state holding primaries on Tuesday. Alaska held its Senate and House primaries, while Wyoming Republicans selected their nominees for governor, U.S. Senate, and an open House seat. In California, a special congressional election to replace Democrat Eric Swalwell — who resigned from the House in April following unproven sexual misconduct allegations he denies — narrowed to a contest between two Democratic candidates, with millions of dollars in outside spending pouring in from groups aligned with the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.

    In a striking final note, President Trump, who has spent years attacking mail-in voting as a corrupt system that enables widespread fraud and pushed for strict restrictions on the practice, voted by mail in Florida’s Republican primary. The White House defended the choice, arguing there was no contradiction because Trump was currently traveling outside of Florida, making in-person voting impossible for him.