标签: Asia

亚洲

  • South Korea’s Incheon airport beats Heathrow to become world’s busiest

    South Korea’s Incheon airport beats Heathrow to become world’s busiest

    New preliminary data released by Airports Council International has marked a historic milestone for global aviation: South Korea’s Incheon International Airport, the country’s primary international entry point, has overtaken long-standing industry leaders to become the world’s busiest airport for international passenger traffic in the first half of 2025.

    According to the recently published figures, Incheon handled 38.4 million international passengers between January and June this year. This puts it just ahead of the United Kingdom’s London Heathrow Airport, which secured second place with 37.79 million passengers. Singapore’s iconic Changi Airport follows closely in third position, recording 38.4 million passengers, recording 34.53 million international travelers over the same period.

    The shift in rankings marks a dramatic reversal of position from just a few years ago. Full-year statistics from 2024 and 2025 placed Incheon at 12th and 13th respectively, while London Heathrow sat at fifth in 2024 and seventh in 2025. Most notably, Dubai International Airport — a long-time staple in the top two of this global ranking over the past two years — is now projected to drop out of the top five entirely in this mid-year update.

    Officials from Incheon International Airport Corporation have pointed to two key factors driving the unexpected surge in passenger numbers. First, ongoing geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran have pushed many international travelers to divert transit routes away from major Middle Eastern aviation hubs. “Travelers who previously transited through Dubai en route to European destinations are now choosing to connect through Incheon instead,” the corporation explained. This shift has driven an 18% year-over-year increase in transfer passengers overall, with the number of transfer passengers heading to final destinations in Europe spiking 63.2% to 210,000.

    The second core contributor is Incheon’s years-long investment in expanded infrastructure, which has equipped the airport to accommodate the growing passenger volume. Since opening in 2001, the airport has expanded its route network to connect to 158 international destinations, outpacing other major regional hubs: Hong Kong International Airport serves 139 destinations, while Shanghai Pudong International Airport connects to 92 and Tokyo Narita International Airport serves just 86.

    Expressing gratitude for the achievement, Incheon International Airport Corporation’s acting president Kim Beom-ho credited the result to government backing, public support, and the relentless work of all on-site airport staff. “We are grateful for the South Korean government’s support, the public’s encouragement, and the hard work of everyone stationed at the airport in making Incheon the world’s No. 1 airport,” Kim said. Looking ahead, the corporation plans to build on this new status by further strengthening its competitiveness through targeted improvements to passenger convenience and experience.

  • Japan protests against Putin visit to disputed islands

    Japan protests against Putin visit to disputed islands

    A long-simmering territorial dispute between Russia and Japan has flared back into international focus after Russian President Vladimir Putin made his first recorded visit to the contested Kuril Islands, drawing immediate condemnation from Tokyo. Russian state media confirmed Thursday that Putin traveled to Iturup, one of the four southern Kuril Islands that both nations claim as their own sovereign territory. Japan refers to the island as Etorofu and counts it among what it calls the Northern Territories. Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi swiftly released a formal statement pushing back against the visit, arguing that the archipelago “is inherently Japanese territory both historically and under international law,” adding that the Japanese government formally and strongly protests the Russian leader’s trip.

    The territorial row over the Kuril Islands, which stretch between Japan’s northernmost main island Hokkaido and Russia’s far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, has stretched for nearly 80 years. The dispute traces its roots to the final days of World War II, when the Soviet Union seized control of the entire island chain and forcibly deported roughly 17,000 Japanese civilians who had settled the southern islands. Moscow has maintained administrative control of the territory ever since, and the unresolved conflict remains the primary barrier to Russia and Japan signing a formal post-WWII peace treaty.

    Beyond the territorial disagreement, the islands hold major strategic importance for Russia’s military posture in the Pacific. Iturup itself hosts Russia’s primary military air base in the region, and the archipelago sits along critical maritime shipping lanes that connect the Sea of Okhotsk to the Pacific Ocean. Just last month, joint naval patrols by Russian and Chinese warships transited a strait within the Kuril Islands during a scheduled joint exercise, and Russia conducted large-scale military drills in waters adjacent to the islands last year — moves that already sparked sharp diplomatic pushback from Tokyo.

    During his Thursday visit, Russian state media outlets reported that Putin interacted with local residents, sampled regional seafood including locally harvested fish roe, and highlighted ongoing development of the archipelago. For Moscow, the visit serves as a high-profile assertion of its sovereignty over the strategically critical territory, even as it reignites long-standing tensions with neighboring Japan that have blocked the two nations from normalizing full bilateral relations for decades.

  • What to know from AP’s report about pregnant women and babies dying in Nepal amid USAID cuts

    What to know from AP’s report about pregnant women and babies dying in Nepal amid USAID cuts

    Grounded in on-the-ground reporting from Nepal, an Associated Press investigation has drawn a direct line between sweeping cuts to United States foreign aid enacted by the former Donald Trump administration and a sharp rise in preventable deaths of pregnant women and newborns across the South Asian nation. The 2023 decision to dissolve the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) — long the world’s largest single provider of humanitarian global health assistance — gutted community-focused maternal and child health initiatives that had spent years reducing mortality rates in some of Nepal’s most impoverished regions.

    While the U.S. State Department maintains that Washington continues to back maternal and child health programming in Nepal, interviews with local health workers, government officials, aid leaders, and affected families tell a far grimmer story: the loss of funding shuttered life-saving outreach and nutrition services, leaving vulnerable communities without the support they relied on to address pregnancy complications and infant care needs.

    The collapse of U.S. funding triggered a domino effect across Nepal’s community health ecosystem. According to World Health Organization data, 60% of local women’s health organizations have been forced to scale back critical services after the U.S. cuts were followed by matching reductions in foreign aid from other donor nations. Before the cuts, USAID and partner aid groups like CARE ran a multi-year initiative that reached 100,000 pregnant women and girls across Nepal. The program provided free nutrient supplements and food to low-income expectant mothers, supplied life-saving equipment and medication to rural birthing centers, and trained a network of local nurses, midwives, and community outreach workers.

    These trained workers made regular home visits to identify risk factors for complications, explain warning signs that required immediate medical care, and often escorted women who lacked transportation or health literacy to prenatal and delivery appointments. Since the program shut down, that on-the-ground support has vanished entirely.

    Global health leaders warn the cuts will have devastating global consequences, not just in Nepal. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation projects that 2025 will mark the first year this century that annual child mortality rates will rise globally, a shift driven in large part by widespread foreign aid cuts to maternal and child health programs.

    In Nepal, the impact is already visible in mortality data that does exist — though many deaths will likely never be counted, as the funding cuts also eliminated jobs for local workers tasked with tracking maternal and newborn mortality across rural regions. Mona Sherpa, country director for CARE Nepal, which lost more than half of its operating budget due to the U.S. cuts, called the surge in deaths catastrophic. “The number of deaths of young mothers during delivery has really increased,” Sherpa said. “The expected number within a year is happening within four to six months.”

    Newborn deaths have followed the same upward trend. In the village of Prempur Gonahi in Nepal’s Rautahat district, local administrative officer Sadho Baitha documented a remarkable public health win after CARE’s program launched in December 2022: prior to the initiative, the village recorded 10 to 15 neonatal deaths per year, a figure that dropped to zero by 2024. But just 10 months after the U.S. funding was cut and the program shut down, newborn deaths have returned: the first post-cut death was recorded in December 2023, with four more following by March 2024.

    The majority of women affected by the program closures live in extreme poverty, have little formal education, and are geographically isolated from major medical facilities. For many, the outreach workers served as more than just health educators — they were translators and advocates who helped women navigate a confusing, often inaccessible public health system.

    That gap had fatal consequences for 20-year-old Kabita Mukhiya, an uneducated woman from a poor village near the Nepal-India border. During her pregnancy, Mukhiya developed severe symptoms: excruciating abdominal pain, extreme swelling, and delirium, worsened by severe malnutrition after the nutrition supplements she had received during her first pregnancy were cut. No outreach workers visited her home to identify her red flags, as they had done before the program shut down.

    Unaware that her symptoms signaled a life-threatening emergency, Mukhiya suffered at home for weeks before her family finally arranged transport to a hospital. By that point, it was too late: both Mukhiya and her unborn child died. Health workers confirmed her death was caused by untreated eclampsia complicated by severe anemia — two conditions that are almost always manageable if caught early through routine prenatal care.

    Rajkumari Patel, a former outreach worker who was laid off when the CARE program shut down, said Mukhiya’s death is exactly the kind of preventable tragedy the program was designed to stop. “I would have asked her, ‘Is the baby kicking? When did you last feel movement?’ I would have checked for swelling in her hands and face. I would have looked at her eyes for signs of anemia,” Patel said. “These are the signs I would have noticed in Kabita and said, ‘This woman needs a hospital today — not tomorrow.’ Maybe we could have saved her life.”

  • USAID fallout: In Nepal, when the aid workers stopped coming, the women and babies started dying

    USAID fallout: In Nepal, when the aid workers stopped coming, the women and babies started dying

    In the parched, poverty-stricken villages of Nepal’s Rautahat district, a preventable tragedy unfolded in late 2025 that encapsulates the global human cost of sweeping U.S. foreign aid cuts. Twenty-year-old Kabita Mukhiya, a young mother of three who dreamed of giving her unborn son the education she never had, suffered for weeks from unexplained abdominal agony and swelling during her 28-week pregnancy. Uneducated, impoverished, and abandoned by the community outreach workers who once monitored at-risk pregnant women in her village, Kabita did not know she was experiencing life-threatening complications. When her aunt finally carried her to a hospital, it was too late: her unborn baby was dead, and Kabita herself died hours later from untreated eclampsia and severe anemia, conditions that routine prenatal care could have detected and managed.

    Kabita’s death is not an isolated incident. It is one of hundreds of preventable maternal and child fatalities documented by the Associated Press across the globe following the Trump administration’s decision to dissolve the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), for decades the world’s largest single provider of humanitarian assistance. The U.S. funding cuts, which shuttered life-saving maternal and neonatal health programs, eliminated nutritional support for pregnant people and young children, and idled thousands of community outreach workers, have been followed by additional aid reductions from other donor nations. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 60% of women’s health organizations globally have been forced to slash critical services as a result.

    Global public health experts are already bracing for a devastating turning point. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation projects that 2025 will be the first year of this century to see an increase in global child mortality, reversing decades of steady progress in reducing preventable deaths. A study published in *The Lancet* warns that the U.S. aid cuts could lead to more than 14 million excess deaths by 2030, including over 4.5 million deaths of children under age 5. WHO’s Rajat Khosla, executive director of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, calls the reversal catastrophic: “It’s heartbreaking to see what’s happening. It’s decades of progress being washed away.”

    In response to AP’s reporting, the U.S. State Department defended the administration’s policy, stating that the restructuring refocuses assistance on efficiency, effectiveness, and global partnership. The department noted that the U.S. still spends more on health and humanitarian aid than any other nation, and continues to support maternal and child health programs in Nepal, adding that “the rest of the world needs to contribute more and share the burden.”

    On the ground in Nepal, however, local health workers and aid organizations say the impact of the cuts has already been catastrophic. CARE Nepal, one of the largest aid groups operating in the country, lost more than half of its funding from the U.S. cuts. “The number of deaths of mothers, young mothers, during delivery has really increased,” said Mona Sherpa, CARE Nepal’s country director. “The expected number within a year is happening within four to six months.”

    Prior to the cuts, USAID funded a five-year, $35 million maternal and child health initiative in Nepal that reached more than 100,000 women and girls in its first three years. The program equipped rural birthing centers with life-saving equipment and medications, trained nurses and midwives, and supported a network of female community health volunteers who made regular home visits to pregnant women. These volunteers identified warning signs of complications, helped women schedule and access prenatal appointments, and explained critical medical information in terms local communities could understand.

    When the program was shut down, the volunteer network collapsed. In Dewahi Gonahi municipality, the head of the local birthing center, Kishori Shah, reports that the number of women attending prenatal checks has dropped by 50% since the cuts. Without early screening, complications that could be easily managed are left to escalate into life-threatening emergencies. “There would have been a decrease in complications if the USAID program was still running,” Shah says.

    In Prempur Gonahi village, the reversal of progress is stark. Before the program launched in 2022, the village saw an average of 10 to 15 neonatal deaths per year. By 2024, that number had dropped to zero. Just 10 months after the program was canceled, newborn deaths began to climb again: one in December 2025, four more by March 2026.

    Many of these deaths will never be officially counted: the aid cuts also eliminated funding for mortality data collection, leaving vast stretches of rural Nepal without anyone to track and report preventable deaths. Campaign Nepal, a local partner of CARE, has documented eight infant deaths in Dewahi Gonahi since the cuts, but official government records list only two. “There must be more than that,” says Shatrudhan Singh, Campaign Nepal’s executive director. “We just can’t identify them.”

    Another young woman from the region, 19-year-old Phula Devi, shared her story of grief with the AP, one she had never told even her own husband. Uneducated and with no outreach worker to guide her, Phula did not understand the warning that her unborn baby had a slow heartbeat, and delayed going to the hospital at the direction of her relatives. When she arrived, doctors urged a C-section to deliver her overdue baby, but Phula did not understand the procedure and was terrified. She delivered the baby on her own, and he was stillborn. “I think of my baby all the time,” Phula says, hiding her tear-streaked face behind a scarf. “She would have done anything to save him, if she’d only known how.”

    For Kabita Mukhiya, the collapse of outreach services proved fatal. When she was pregnant with her third child, Yubraj, she received free nutritional supplements from the U.S.-funded program that helped offset her family’s meager diet, which provided barely enough to eat. By the time she became pregnant with her fourth child, the supplements were gone, along with the regular mother’s health meetings she had attended. She missed her first-trimester checkup entirely, and only showed up for her first screening at 16 weeks. Her nurse noticed she was dangerously pale and urged her to get a blood test to check for anemia, but Kabita did not understand why the test was necessary, and never got it. By the time she arrived at the hospital, her condition was irreversible.

    Rajkumari Patel, one of the community health volunteers who lost her job when the program was cut, says Kabita’s death is exactly what she was trained to prevent. “I used to know every pregnant woman in her village, visiting them at home,” Patel says. “I would have asked her, ‘Is the baby kicking? When did you last feel movement?’ I would have checked for swelling in her hands and face. I would have looked at her eyes for signs of anemia. These are the signs I would have noticed in Kabita and said, ‘This woman needs a hospital today — not tomorrow.’ Maybe we could have saved her life.”

    Nutrition data from the region confirms the widespread damage of cutting support programs. Before the U.S. cuts, the prevalence of life-threatening wasting (severe malnutrition) among children under five in Kabita’s province was 7.4%. A national screening conducted in May 2026 found that rate has jumped to 12.3% after the cuts eliminated most local nutrition support programs.

    In the months since Kabita’s death, her family has been left to pick up the pieces. Her husband, who was working construction in India when she died, arrived home three days after her funeral, and has been inconsolable, often refusing to work for days at a time. Kabita’s 60-something mother-in-law and aunt are now left to care for her three young children, ages 1, 3, and 5, with barely enough income to put rice on the table. “How will I feed them? I’m old,” says Lachhiya Devi, Kabita’s mother-in-law, as she strokes the leg of her sleeping 4-year-old granddaughter. “You can see how desperately I’m trying to get by.”

    Kabita’s aunt Shraddha, who carried her to the hospital and watched her take her final breath, says the tragedy could have been avoided entirely if outreach workers had still been in place to guide the village’s vulnerable women. “We don’t have anyone to help us out here, to tell us about these things. If there was someone, we would ask them, follow their advice,” she says. “It would have saved her life. She was too young to die.”

  • BTS star V reveals hearing loss battle during livestream

    BTS star V reveals hearing loss battle during livestream

    Global K-pop phenomenon BTS has sent waves of concern across its worldwide fanbase after member V, born Kim Tae-hyung, opened up for the first time about a long-running hearing impairment that has progressed during his mandatory South Korean military service. The surprising disclosure came during a recent livestream with bandmate Jungkook, held just after the group wrapped a string of reunion tour shows in Baltimore, Maryland, and comes halfway through the group’s first full seven-member world tour since ending their military service hiatus.

    The 30-year-old vocalist shared that he has been managing partial hearing loss in his right ear for approximately two and a half years, marking the first time he has shared the personal health issue with the group’s loyal ARMY fanbase. In candid comments during the stream, V explained the stark discrepancy in his hearing ability: while his left ear retains full functionality, he estimated his right ear only operates at around 30% capacity. He added that his condition worsened noticeably during his time in mandatory military service, a requirement that applies to nearly all able-bodied adult men in South Korea.

    V admitted that when he first noticed changes in his hearing, he dismissed the issue, mistakenly attributing it to a test of “mental strength” rather than a medical concern that required intervention. Today, he says he is prioritizing treatment, regularly attending hospital appointments and taking prescribed medication to manage the condition.

    V enlisted in the South Korean military in 2023, and completed his 18-month service to receive his discharge in June 2025. He was one of the final BTS members to complete mandatory service: all seven members of the record-breaking group paused their high-flying music careers at the peak of their global fame in 2022 to fulfill their national service requirements. Their long-awaited reunion tour, dubbed the Arirang World Tour, launched in South Korea this past April, marking the first time all seven members have performed together for a full global run in years.

    During the same livestream, fellow member Jungkook also opened up about a persistent health issue he has been navigating throughout the tour: a nagging shin injury that he says is on the cusp of developing into a stress fracture. The 27-year-old performer noted that he is focused on careful injury management to ensure he can continue meeting fans on the remaining tour dates. The Arirang World Tour is scheduled to travel to dozens of major global cities in the coming months, including Los Angeles, Buenos Aires, Bangkok, Sydney, and Hong Kong, with hundreds of thousands of tickets already sold to enthusiastic fans worldwide.

  • Pentagon tells Congress US killed 153 civilians in Yemen air strikes

    Pentagon tells Congress US killed 153 civilians in Yemen air strikes

    A confidential internal assessment from the United States Department of Defense, submitted to congressional lawmakers, has confirmed that U.S. military attacks on Yemen carried out last year left hundreds of civilian bystanders dead and injured, according to disclosures that have recently entered the public sphere.

    In a 12-page report transmitted Monday to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, the Pentagon formally documented that 153 Yemeni civilians were killed and an additional 243 sustained wounds across the campaign of airstrikes launched by former President Donald Trump. Trump authorized the bombing campaign targeting Houthi militant positions in March 2025, a retaliatory measure launched after the group launched a series of attacks on commercial shipping transiting the Red Sea. The Houthis have stated their attacks on Red Sea vessels are an act of solidarity with Palestinian communities under siege in Gaza.

    The report lays out specific details of multiple airstrikes that the Pentagon acknowledges “more likely than not” resulted in unintended civilian harm. One strike carried out on April 6 in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa left five civilians dead and 25 more injured, according to the document. A separate U.S. attack on the coastal city of Hodeidah on April 17 killed no fewer than 80 civilians, a strike that Human Rights Watch concluded in a June analysis should be probed as a potential war crime.

    Niku Jafarnia, a researcher specializing in Yemeni and Bahraini affairs at Human Rights Watch, condemned the strike targeting Ras Issa Port, a vital hub for humanitarian aid entering Yemen that was hit while hundreds of port workers were on site. “The U.S. government’s decision to strike this critical aid entry point, while hundreds of workers were present, demonstrates a callous disregard for civilians’ lives,” Jafarnia said. Another late-April airstrike in Yemen’s northwestern Saada province killed at least 68 African migrants who were staying in the area, the report confirms.

    To date, Pentagon officials confirm that 15 additional strike-related incidents remain under active review to assess whether civilian casualties occurred. Beyond the casualty disclosures, the launch of the Trump administration’s military campaign was initially overshadowed by a major security breach that has become known as SignalGate, when Atlantic magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a private Signal group chat planning the military operation. The chat included 19 senior U.S. national security officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, and special envoy Steve Witkoff. The accidental inclusion of an outsider journalist provided an unprecedented look into the administration’s internal deliberations around the campaign, which largely focused on grievances that Europe and Egypt were not compensating the U.S. for its military involvement.

    Over the course of the two-month campaign, the U.S. carried out more than 1,000 airstrikes against Houthi positions across Yemen. The campaign was ultimately halted in May 2025, just ahead of a planned visit by Trump to the Gulf Cooperation Council region. Investigative reporting by Middle East Eye has revealed that Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. partner in the region, pushed American officials to end the strikes ahead of Trump’s visit.

    Regional officials who spoke to Middle East Eye noted that while the U.S. bombardment inflicted significant damage to the Houthis’ stockpiled military equipment, the impact of the campaign was short-lived. In the months since the strikes ended, the Houthi movement has resumed its attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and even expanded its operational reach to target energy infrastructure sites within Saudi Arabia itself.

  • Why do US elections cost so much money?

    Why do US elections cost so much money?

    The United States stands alone among global democracies in the massive scale of money that flows through its political elections. Washington D.C.’s political ecosystem is uniquely molded by cash infusion and lobbying influence, and the billions poured into state and federal contests are not merely used to cover administrative costs for voting access — they are deployed to control public narrative and swing electoral outcomes.

    According to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan organization that tracks U.S. campaign finance, total spending by individuals, organized groups, and independent outside spenders for the 2024 presidential and congressional election cycle is approaching nearly $5 billion — a staggering jump from pre-2010 levels when the figure never exceeded $1 billion.

    This explosive growth in campaign spending traces directly back to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court *Citizens United v. FEC* ruling, which eliminated longstanding caps on independent political spending by corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups. The court’s majority argued that political spending qualifies as protected free speech under the First Amendment, writing that “the Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” and that “no sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

    The ruling cleared the way for the creation of Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs), independent groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums from corporations, wealthy individuals, and organizations to support or oppose political candidates. While traditional PACs face strict federal contribution caps of $5,000 per election cycle from individual donors and cannot accept corporate funds, Super PACs face no such limits — they are only barred from formally coordinating spending with the candidate they support, a restriction that campaign finance experts say is often loosely enforced.

    “Basically they can take over $100 million if they wanted to from a single individual, and spend all that money in support of a candidate,” explained Anna Massoglia, a campaign finance expert, in an interview with Middle East Eye. “And as long as they disclose the spending, and whoever the donor is — at least the immediate donor — then that is perfectly legal.”

    Direct individual donations to official candidate campaigns remain capped at $3,500 per federal election cycle, and individual contributions to national party committees are capped at $44,300. But earlier this year, the Supreme Court further loosened campaign finance rules by allowing candidates to control independent party funds allocated to their races, a decision former President Donald Trump hailed as a major victory for political speech.

    Even with disclosure rules on paper, a massive share of independent political spending comes from so-called “dark money” groups that hide their original donors. Since the *Citizens United* decision, these anonymous actors have spent more than $4 billion on federal elections alone, according to Massoglia’s research. Dark money groups often avoid formal disclosure requirements by running issue ads that praise or criticize candidates without using explicit phrases calling for a vote for or against them, allowing them to shield their funding sources. Many route donations through nonprofits or shell companies to further hide the identity of major contributors.

    The role of unlimited independent spending played a central role in a stunning 2024 Democratic Senate primary upset in Michigan, where progressive first-time candidate Abdul El-Sayed defeated centrist incumbent Congresswoman Haley Stevens. If El-Sayed wins the general election in November, he will become the first Muslim U.S. senator in American history.

    Stevens, backed by the Democratic Party establishment and Michigan’s sitting governor, attracted more than $50 million in outside corporate and special interest spending to defeat El-Sayed — with the pro-Israel lobby’s United Democracy Project (UDP), a Super Pac affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), alone contributing $30 million to her campaign. By contrast, El-Sayed received just over $5 million in outside spending, mostly from progressive advocacy groups. That figure does not include direct donations raised by each candidate’s official campaign, all spent on a single primary contest rather than the general election.

    Conventional political wisdom holds that overwhelming spending almost always guarantees victory: Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for consumer advocacy non-profit Public Citizen, notes that candidates who outspend their opponents win roughly 95% of the time. El-Sayed’s victory, therefore, marked a rare exception to the rule that has defined post-*Citizens United* U.S. elections.

    In the 2024 cycle, outside spending by Republican-aligned groups has already far outpaced Democratic spending, accounting for 65% of total independent expenditures compared to 29% for pro-Democratic groups. The Make America Great Again Super PAC, formed to support Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential bid, has raised more than $410 million, making it the cycle’s top fundraiser. Nearly 91% of all 2024 outside spending comes from ideological or single-issue groups focused on causes ranging from gun rights and anti-abortion policy to oil and gas development and defense policy.

    For years, consistent top spenders in U.S. elections have included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which advocates for corporate interests, the National Association of Realtors, which works to shape property law, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which lobbies on health policy. Big tech giants including Meta and Amazon have rapidly increased their election spending in recent cycles. AIPAC, already the third highest-spending PAC in the 2024 cycle, counts its Super PAC arm UDP among the top 15 highest-spending independent groups across all industries — making it the most influential foreign interest-focused group in U.S. electoral politics. For the 2026 election cycle, an Americans for Tax Fairness report found that as of March 1, nearly 80% of all billionaire contributions to Super PACs go to Republican candidates and causes, with top donors including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Wall Street fund manager Jeffrey Yass, and tech entrepreneur Greg Brockman.

    Critics argue that the current system of unlimited campaign spending fundamentally undermines American democratic representation. Because U.S. House terms last only two years, presidential terms four, and Senate terms six, elected officials are forced to fundraise continuously from the earliest days of their terms to prepare for their next campaign. “It allows wealthy individuals, wealthy groups, corporations, and even foreign interests to invest heavily into who is elected to our government. If [candidates] want to remain in office, they know where the money is coming from,” Holman said.

    Northwestern University law professor Michael S Kang, who studies campaign finance regulation, noted that while fundraising can help grassroots unknown candidates get on their feet, the outsized role of money systematically favors wealthy interests. “There are people who say that fundraising is kind of a proxy for popularity, but that’s not really true, because we come from different communities and different communities have different amounts of wealth, and so the way that the role and the importance that money plays in politics has a way of favouring the wealthy [gives them] outsized influence,” he explained.

    Not all analysts agree that money distorts election outcomes: a 2016 paper from conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute argued that political donations rarely change candidates’ policy positions, noting that donors typically give to candidates who already share their ideological views and are already positioned to win.

    In the wake of El-Sayed’s Michigan primary win, grassroots groups such as Mop Up Michigan have gained traction pushing for campaign finance reform, calling for bans on corporate donations to candidates and greater transparency for political ad funding. A small number of U.S. states, including Arizona, have implemented stricter disclosure rules to shine a light on dark money, but experts say these efforts have had limited success, as dark money groups continuously develop new tactics to hide their funding sources.

    While both major political parties have introduced campaign reform bills in recent Congresses, no major federal reform legislation has been signed into law. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law has proposed small donor public financing, a system that would match small individual campaign contributions with public funds to incentivize candidates to court widespread grassroots support rather than a small number of wealthy mega-donors. Still, the system requires more outreach work from candidates, who often find it easier to rely on unlimited ad spending from supportive Super PACs.

    Holman argues that current U.S. campaign finance regulation is effectively useless, pointing to the large legal loophole for unlimited spending by independent nonprofit groups opened by Supreme Court rulings. “The biggest effort is to reform the court system, because it’s the courts that have destroyed our campaign finance laws,” he said.

  • Flyhalf Richie Mo’unga to join the New Zealand All Blacks on rugby tour of South Africa

    Flyhalf Richie Mo’unga to join the New Zealand All Blacks on rugby tour of South Africa

    WELLINGTON, New Zealand – Three years after stepping away from full-time international rugby, and following an injury crisis that hit the New Zealand All Blacks squad ahead of their high-stakes four-test rivalry tour against South Africa, veteran playmaker Richie Mo’unga has been called back to the national side as an injury replacement.

    The 32-year-old flyhalf, whose last appearance in the black jersey came in the 2023 World Cup final – a heartbreaking 1-point defeat to the Springboks that capped his 56-test international career to that point – spent the past three seasons playing club rugby in Japan with the Toshiba Brave Lupus. He returned to his home country earlier this year to get match fit in New Zealand’s domestic National Provincial Championship (NPC) turning out for his longtime provincial side Canterbury.

    Under All Blacks selection rules, Mo’unga was not eligible for national team selection until he completed a required stint of domestic NPC play, a barrier that was only cleared recently ahead of the tour, which has been billed as a new chapter in rugby’s greatest modern rivalry between the All Blacks and Springboks.

    Mo’unga departed Christchurch on Thursday to link up with the touring squad, which is already in South Africa ahead of three tests against the world champion Springboks on home soil, followed by a fourth test to be played in the United States. His call-up comes in response to two separate injury concerns in the All Blacks touring group: starting center Billy Proctor was forced to withdraw with a shoulder injury, while Damian McKenzie – one of four flyhalves originally named to the touring party – is carrying a minor ankle injury that has raised selection questions for the test series.

    The All Blacks have already gotten their tour off to a strong start in warm-up matches, picking up two lopsided wins against South African franchise teams. They opened the tour with a 38-21 victory over the Stormers in Cape Town, then followed that performance with a dominant 54-0 shutout of the Sharks in Durban, building momentum ahead of the first test against the Springboks.

  • Palestinian students and staff sue Columbia University over discrimination

    Palestinian students and staff sue Columbia University over discrimination

    A high-profile legal challenge has been brought against Columbia University by a cohort of current and former Palestinian students, faculty, and staff, who accuse the elite Ivy League institution of systemic anti-Palestinian discrimination and targeted repression of pro-Palestinian speech and organizing on its New York campus. The lawsuit was formally filed this week with the New York State Supreme Court, centered on allegations that unequal and punitive treatment of Palestinian community members began after the October 7, 2023 attacks led by Hamas in southern Israel and the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
    In the legal complaint, plaintiffs argue that Columbia has actively taken part in and amplified what they frame as racially, ethnically, and politically targeted targeting of Palestinians connected to the university. Prominent Palestinian activist and former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil publicly amplified the lawsuit via social media platform X, confirming that the action is rooted in the university’s discriminatory response to demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians and Gaza. In his public post announcing the suit, Khalil expressed solidarity with fellow plaintiffs, noting that Columbia chose to reward critics of pro-Palestinian speech and silence campus community members while Gaza faced Israeli bombardment and widespread food insecurity.
    Core allegations in the filing outline two contrasting failures by the university: that administrators declined to adequately shield Palestinian students, faculty and staff from on-campus harassment, while simultaneously subjecting pro-Palestinian activists to disciplinary processes riddled with bias and inequity. One key incident cited in the suit is the 2024 “Resistance 101” campus event, where Columbia reportedly hired private investigators to conduct surveillance on participating students. Following that surveillance, six students were suspended and removed from university-owned housing, per the complaint.
    The legal filing also calls out Columbia’s failure to respond meaningfully to documented physical targeting of Palestinian students on campus. These incidents include multiple cases where students had their traditional keffiyeh scarves forcibly removed, and a January 2024 incident where a irritant, foul-smelling substance was sprayed at a peaceful pro-Palestinian gathering. Additionally, the lawsuit challenges Columbia’s controversial 2024 decision to request deployment of New York City Police Department officers to campus to clear pro-Palestinian protest encampments and arrest participating demonstrators.
    The list of plaintiffs includes a range of current and former university affiliates: Hadeel Assali, a lecturer and former anthropology graduate student; Bahia Munem, a former lecturer; Mahdi Sabbagh, a current PhD candidate; Maryam Alwan, a 2025 graduate and former student organizer; and Layla Saliba, a 2025 graduate of Columbia’s School of Social Work. Saliba is no stranger to accusations of anti-Palestinian discrimination at the institution: she was among the students who brought an earlier federal civil rights complaint against Columbia in 2024, when she stated Palestinian students faced disparate poor treatment and called on the university to formally recognize anti-Palestinian racism on campus.
    This new legal action comes after years of growing controversy surrounding Columbia’s management of pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. In July 2025, Columbia struck a deal with the U.S. federal government to end multiple federal investigations into alleged violations of anti-discrimination law and unfreeze billions in federal research funding that had been paused by the administration. Under the terms of that agreement, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million to the U.S. government and an additional $21 million to resolve investigations opened by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over antisemitism allegations from Jewish employees. Notably, the university did not admit to any wrongdoing nor accept the federal government’s finding that it had violated Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act.
    Columbia had also previously resolved a separate 2026 lawsuit brought by Jewish plaintiffs, who alleged the university failed to protect Jewish and Israeli students from antisemitic harassment on campus. Despite these settlements, Palestinian activists and free speech advocates have consistently argued that Columbia imposes disproportionately harsh punishment on students and faculty who voice opposition to Israeli policy. Reuters reporting has confirmed that over the course of the university’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian organizing, dozens of students have faced arrests, suspensions, expulsions, and even revocation of their earned degrees.
    The new lawsuit pursued by the Palestinian plaintiffs seeks monetary damages under the New York City Human Rights Law, a local statute that explicitly prohibits discrimination and harassment based on protected characteristics including race and national origin. As of press time, Columbia University has declined to issue any comment on the ongoing litigation, per local New York media, and did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Reuters.

  • Australia struggling at 74-4 after 1st session of Top End cricket test series against Bangladesh

    Australia struggling at 74-4 after 1st session of Top End cricket test series against Bangladesh

    DARWIN, Australia — In a stunning opening to Bangladesh’s first test match on Australian soil in 21 years, the visitors’ fast-bowling trio of Hasan Mahmud, Taskin Ahmed and Ebadot Hossain turned favorable pitch conditions in the Top End to their advantage, leaving host Australia in a precarious position at 74 for four wickets at the close of Thursday’s first session.

    Australian captain Pat Cummins won the coin toss and elected to bat first, a decision that looked solid early as the hosts raced to 45 unbeaten without losing a wicket. But Hasan Mahmud turned the tide dramatically in two consecutive overs, starting with the dismissal of Darwin-born opener Jake Weatherald. Backed by a loud, partisan local crowd, Weatherald never found rhythm on the green-tinged wicket, and he threw away his wicket with a reckless slash at a wide delivery from Hasan, departing for 23 off 37 deliveries.

    In Hasan’s next over, Australia lost their second opener, Travis Head, who chopped a round-the-wicket delivery back onto his stumps for 22, sliding the home side to 52 for two. Ebadot Hossain followed up with the key wicket of Australian star batter Marnus Labuschagne, caught by Bangladesh captain Najmul Hossain Shanto. The quick also came close to dismissing Steve Smith, but a dropped catch at third slip let the former captain off the hook.

    All-rounder Cameron Green became Bangladesh’s fourth wicket just before the lunch break, as the visitors capitalized fully on their strong start to the opening match of the two-test Top End series. At the first interval, Steve Smith remained not out on seven.

    This series also marks a key milestone for Australia’s pace attack, with captain Pat Cummins — playing just his second test in 13 months — reuniting with regular frontline fast bowlers Josh Hazlewood and Mitchell Starc. The group is backed by veteran off-spinner Nathan Lyon, along with all-rounders Green and Beau Webster, as Australia prepares for a grueling 12-month calendar packed with 20 test matches. After the Top End series against Bangladesh, Australia will embark on away tours to South Africa, India and England as part of this heavy schedule.