标签: North America

北美洲

  • Watch: Three times Trump has promised money to Americans

    Watch: Three times Trump has promised money to Americans

    Following former President Donald Trump’s recent pledge that he would distribute $5,000 direct payments to U.S. adult citizens if Republicans secure control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections, BBC correspondent Samira Hussain has launched a retrospective look at three major unfulfilled monetary promises Trump has made to the American public throughout his political career.

    The examination comes as Trump’s latest commitment has dominated early midterm campaign discourse, with observers questioning whether the new pledge follows a pattern of unmet outreach to voters. Over the years, Trump has positioned himself as a champion of working-class Americans, often tying his policy proposals to direct financial benefits that would reach households across the country. But Hussain’s reporting tracks how those past commitments never came to fruition, leaving voters to question the credibility of his latest announcement.

    As the midterm campaigns ramp up across the nation, control of the House and Senate hangs in the balance, and Trump remains the most influential figure in the modern Republican Party. His latest monetary pledge is seen as a key push to energize his base ahead of election day, but the scrutiny of his past promises has underscored ongoing debates about his track record of delivering on policy commitments to American voters.

  • ‘Slow it down’ – Bernie Sanders speaks to the BBC about proposal to ban AI superintelligence

    ‘Slow it down’ – Bernie Sanders speaks to the BBC about proposal to ban AI superintelligence

    In a wide-ranging interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation, longtime US progressive Senator Bernie Sanders has laid out a bold, precautionary policy agenda for the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence sector, headlined by a call to halt the race to develop advanced superintelligence systems.

    The call comes amid growing bipartisan and expert concern over the unregulated pace of AI advancement, with many leading figures in the technology itself warning that ungoverned development of systems that can outperform human cognition across most domains poses existential and widespread economic risks. Sanders used the platform to amplify these warnings, urging policymakers to rein in the breakneck speed of innovation that prioritizes corporate profit over public safety and equity. His core message to the industry and regulators alike was straightforward: “Slow it down.”

    Beyond the call for a ban on AI superintelligence, Sanders has put forward a groundbreaking structural economic proposal to reshape how the United States engages with the AI boom. The plan would establish a new federal sovereign wealth fund that grants the U.S. government a 50% equity stake in major artificial intelligence companies. The senator argues that this model would ensure that the massive economic gains generated by AI innovation are not concentrated solely in the hands of a small group of corporate executives and wealthy shareholders, but instead are shared broadly across the American public. Proponents of similar models suggest the revenue generated from the stake could fund social programs, infrastructure development, and support for workers displaced by AI-driven automation.

    The proposal marks one of the most aggressive federal policy frameworks for AI governance put forward by a sitting elected official in the U.S., setting up a potential new debate over regulation, public ownership, and equitable distribution of tech sector gains in the lead-up to future congressional policy debates.

  • US airport security weighs major changes 25 years after 9/11

    US airport security weighs major changes 25 years after 9/11

    Twenty-five years after the 9/11 terror attacks triggered sweeping overhauls of American airport security protocols, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is rolling back some of the most restrictive long-standing travel rules, enabled by advances in screening technology that have redefined what air travel safety can look like.

    The first major change comes to gate access: for the first time in decades, non-ticketed individuals will be allowed to pass through TSA security checkpoints to accompany ticketed passengers to their departure gates or greet arriving loved ones. This new pilot program, tied to the TSA PreCheck trusted traveler network, will initially launch at 13 U.S. airports. Eligible participants — individuals who already hold TSA PreCheck approval or a known traveler number — can submit an online application 1 to 3 days ahead of their planned visit to gain access.

    In a statement posted to its official website, TSA framed the policy as a step toward restoring small, meaningful moments that defined air travel for generations: “This new program makes it easier to return to the gate for welcomes and send-offs, meet friends during a layover, and enjoy dining and shopping along the way, bringing back the moments that once defined air travel.”

    A second landmark policy shift is also under consideration, multiple U.S. media outlets have reported: the TSA is reviewing whether to reverse the 17-year ban on full water bottles passing through security checkpoints for PreCheck travelers. That restriction was implemented immediately after British authorities foiled a 2006 terror plot that planned to hide liquid explosive mixtures in disposable drink bottles. The BBC requested official confirmation of the proposed change, but the TSA has not yet issued a response.

    Aviation security experts emphasize these changes are not a rollback of safety standards, but a response to dramatic improvements in screening technology. Jeff Price, an aviation security professor at Metro State University Denver, explained that post-9/11 restrictions on non-ticketed gate access were originally designed to reduce the volume of people requiring screening, allowing officers to focus their attention on ticketed passengers. Today, updated technology has eliminated the need for that trade-off.

    “Newer security machines that TSA is installing to replace traditional X-ray machines have computed tomography capabilities, which can do a much better job of detecting liquid-based explosives,” Price told the BBC. These updates follow a 2025 TSA change that ended the 20-year requirement for all passengers to remove their shoes during screening, a policy that was widely unpopular with travelers for decades.

    Public reaction to the announced changes has been split along generational lines on social media. Older travelers who remember air travel before the post-9/11 restrictions have praised the move as a return to normalcy and the personal connections that air travel once enabled. But many younger travelers, who have never known air travel without these strict security rules, have raised questions about whether the shifts could weaken overall safety.

    Price pushed back on concerns about declining security, noting that the policy changes rely on upgraded technology and are limited to pre-vetted trusted travelers, so core safety standards remain intact. “People have a nostalgia for a pre 9/11, it’s a calling back to a normal world, and I can see that part of it. I can see people wanting to get back to something that they feel more comfortable with, which was a pre 9/11 world,” he said. “I don’t want to compromise valid security measures simply for a nostalgic feeling before 9/11. I don’t think we should make those types of decisions so that we feel better. We can make those types of decisions as long as the security measures are not compromised, and that’s always what I look for in these situations.”

  • Trump promises to send $500 to nearly 1 million Americans for Obamacare ‘overcharges’

    Trump promises to send $500 to nearly 1 million Americans for Obamacare ‘overcharges’

    More than three years after his first failed attempt to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA), widely known as Obamacare, former and returning U.S. President Donald Trump has unveiled a new direct policy move targeting the landmark 2010 health care law: one-time $500 rebate checks totaling close to $500 million to nearly 1 million Americans who purchase unsubsidized health plans through the federal ACA insurance marketplace. The Trump administration says the payments represent refunds for what it labels as excessive “overcharges” levied during Joe Biden’s prior presidential term, with mailed checks set to begin reaching eligible households starting this October.

    Per White House guidance released Thursday, the rebates will only go to consumers in 30 states that rely on the federal government to operate their ACA insurance marketplaces, and exclude any buyers who receive income-based premium subsidies to lower their monthly plan costs. Eligible recipients are consumers who pay 100% of their own plan premiums, which can often climb to several hundred dollars per month for unsubsidized coverage. The administration argues that a so-called “user fee” added to monthly marketplace premiums was over-collected under the Biden administration, amassing a surplus far larger than what is actually required to cover operating costs for the federal exchange.

    Notably, the administration’s public fact sheet does not disclose the total size of the alleged surplus, nor does it lay out any concrete plans to permanently lower user fees or overall premium costs for marketplace consumers moving forward. This new rebate promise comes on top of an earlier Trump pledge to send $5,000 one-time payments to Americans if the Republican Party secures majority control of both chambers of Congress in the upcoming November legislative elections.

    First enacted in 2010 under the Obama administration, the ACA expanded health insurance access to millions of previously uninsured Americans by creating standardized public insurance marketplaces where private health plans can be purchased, and introduced new federal rules requiring minimum coverage standards for most individual market plans. The law also made available income-based tax subsidies that cut monthly premium costs for the majority of marketplace enrollees, and expanded the Medicaid public insurance program for low-income households. State-by-state operation of marketplaces varies, with some running their own state-level exchanges and others opting to let the federal government manage plan enrollment and pricing.

    Most Democratic lawmakers have not yet issued public responses to Trump’s rebate announcement, but the party has long defended the ACA as a critical pillar of affordable health coverage for U.S. households. Trump first made a full repeal of the law a top priority during his first presidential term, coming within one vote of passing repeal legislation in 2017 before the effort collapsed. Since returning to office for his second term, Trump has continued to push for structural changes to the ACA and repeatedly called for a full replacement of the law, though he has yet to release a detailed alternative health care proposal to replace it. This rebate plan marks the most direct, concrete action the Trump administration has taken on the ACA since returning to the White House.

    Official enrollment data shows that total ACA marketplace and Medicaid enrollment tied to the law has dropped by roughly 8 million people since Trump’s return to office. The administration’s broader changes to the ACA, included as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA), have not yet gone into full effect, with the full implementation timeline expected to stretch over multiple years. Eligible rebate recipients are concentrated in key 2026 swing states including Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all of which rely on the federal ACA exchange.

  • ‘We never recovered him’: Quest to identify remains from Ground Zero continues

    ‘We never recovered him’: Quest to identify remains from Ground Zero continues

    On the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, a new forensic technology is slowly bringing long-awaited answers to hundreds of families who have spent decades waiting for confirmation of their loved ones’ fates.

    For Juliette Scauso, that wait has carried on since she was 4 years old, the youngest of four children growing up on Long Island without her father, Dennis Scauso, a 12-year veteran of the New York City Fire Department’s hazmat unit. Dennis was not scheduled to work on September 11, 2001, but he swapped shifts to pick up extra overtime pay. When the South Tower collapsed, he was inside, and only his dented, damaged firefighter helmet, emblazoned with his badge number, was recovered months after the attack.

    A quarter of a century later, Dennis Scauso remains one of more than 1,000 unidentified 9/11 victims from New York, according to the city’s Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME). For decades, identifying fragmented remains recovered from Ground Zero has stood as one of the most complex forensic challenges in modern history. The jet-fueled fires that burned at the World Trade Center site destroyed most genetic material, leaving only small, fragmented portions of remains for testing. Complications were amplified by shift changes that left many first responders wearing borrowed gear marked with other firefighters’ names, and the sheer scale of the tragedy, which dwarfed the other 9/11 attack sites. While all 40 victims on United Airlines Flight 93 were identified, and only five remains from the Pentagon attack remain unaccounted for, more than a third of the 2,753 World Trade Center victims are still without formal identification.

    But last month, OCME announced a breakthrough: using Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy (FIGG), investigators have identified a previously unknown victim, marking the 1,654th confirmed identification from the attacks. This new technology, which leverages whole genome sequencing to map a victim’s full genetic code, allows investigators to match partial DNA profiles to more distant relatives of victims than older DNA testing methods permitted. Once a distant match is found in genetic genealogy databases, the New York Police Department works to track down closer family members to confirm the match.

    OCME has preserved all unidentified remains in sealed, temperature-controlled packaging for decades, allowing teams to retest samples as new technology emerges. Early identifications relied on fingerprints and dental records, before DNA testing became the standard, and successive generations of DNA technology have allowed teams to extract usable genetic material from samples that were untestable years earlier. This continuous re-evaluation is why new identifications are still being made 25 years after the attacks. Last year alone, three more victims were identified through advanced DNA testing: 26-year-old currency trader Ryan Fitzgerald, 72-year-old Barbara Keating who was aboard American Airlines Flight 11, and a third victim whose family chose to keep their identity private.

    Angela Soler, director of forensic anthropology at OCME, says FIGG opens a new frontier of hope for families still waiting for answers. “There is real promise in using this approach,” she said. “There’s hope for more families to receive answers, and hopefully we’ll be able to test more remains in the future using this technology as well.” The work is deeply personal for Soler and many of her colleagues, who responded to Ground Zero in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. While they acknowledge it is unlikely every victim will ever be identified — in some cases, no recoverable remains exist at all — they have no plans to end their efforts. “As long as there’s families looking for answers, we’ll continue searching for them,” Soler said.

    For families, the news of an identification brings a complex mix of emotions. For many, formal identification closes a lingering, unspoken question that has lingered for decades, bringing a sense of closure that allows them to lay their loved one to rest, either in a private burial or in the repository built into the bedrock of the World Trade Center memorial, where many families choose to leave remains close to where their loved ones died. But for others, the news reopens wounds that have taken decades to heal.

    Juliette Scauso says she has made peace with never having her father’s remains, and has built her life around his memory — remembering him as a handyman with a love of jazz who left only his helmet behind. “I’ve spent essentially my entire life knowing my father died, and learning to live with the fact that we never recovered him,” she said. For her, an identification decades later would not bring her father back, but only reopen a grief she has learned to carry. “At this point, an identification wouldn’t change the reality of his death. It wouldn’t give me back my father, and I don’t necessarily want to reopen something that has become part of the way I’ve learned to live and grieve. Especially 25 years later, it’s going to open up the wounds again.” Even so, she acknowledges the profound importance of the new technology for other families still waiting.

    Soler echoes that complexity, noting that for every family that longs for answers, some choose to opt out of notification, finding the confirmation of their loved one’s death too painful to revisit 25 years on. Still, she says, the work continues: every week, OCME receives calls from family members asking for updates, and investigators will keep testing, matching, and searching, as long as there are questions left to answer.

  • Can Trump really pay $5,000 to every American adult?

    Can Trump really pay $5,000 to every American adult?

    With just two months remaining until the 2026 US midterm elections, former and current President Donald Trump has ignited fierce national debate by announcing a sweeping proposal: if Republicans retain control of Congress in November’s vote, every adult American citizen will receive a one-time $5,000 direct payment from the federal government. The announcement drew raucous cheers from conservative supporters gathered at the Republican Party convention in Texas on Wednesday, but it has immediately faced sharp scrutiny over its unclear funding structure, questionable constitutionality, and enormous fiscal cost that would add to already soaring US national debt.

    Trump offered no concrete details during his speech about how the federal government would cover the projected $1.3 trillion price tag of the plan – a figure calculated based on the nearly 270 million adults currently residing in the United States. Vice President JD Vance later attempted to fill the gap in the proposal, suggesting the payouts would be drawn from existing federal tariff revenue and that the checks would not be distributed to the wealthiest American adults. However, available federal data shows that even cumulative tariff revenue collected since the start of 2025 falls drastically short of the sum needed for the plan. According to the nonpartisan Bipartisan Policy Center, the US has collected roughly $475 billion in combined tariff and excise tax revenue since January 2025, but more than $100 billion of that was returned to taxpayers after the Supreme Court struck down a series of controversial tariffs earlier this year, leaving less than $400 billion total on hand – less than a third of the $1.3 trillion required for the proposal.

    The core point of contention surrounding the plan has been its legal status. Under existing US federal law, it is a criminal offense to offer direct cash payments intended to sway a voter’s choice at the ballot box. But legal experts are divided over whether Trump’s pledge crosses that legal line. Dr. Joan Mahoney, a law lecturer at the University of Southampton, explained that the proposal is structured differently from a direct bribe because the payments would be distributed to all qualifying adults regardless of how they cast their ballots. In her view, the pledge is no different than standard campaign promises of tax cuts that are made by every major political party, which are universally recognized as legal. “Politicians don’t usually do it quite this explicitly, but that does not make it illegal,” Mahoney noted.

    Other analysts argue the pledge represents a departure from standard campaign rhetoric that crosses ethical and legal boundaries. Laurel Rapp, director of the US and North America program at the international affairs think tank Chatham House, characterized Trump’s offer as a “very different, very transactional agreement” that has few parallels in modern US electoral politics. Beyond legal questions, fiscal experts warn the plan would exacerbate the US’s already unsustainable long-term deficit trajectory, which has been worsened in recent years by massive government spending on foreign conflicts including the war in Iran. Erica York, a senior economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation based in Washington DC, called the proposal one of the least responsible possible uses of $1.3 trillion in public funds. “We’re on a very unsustainable track, with deficits only projected to grow and grow,” York said, adding that she would be “extremely surprised” if congressional lawmakers from either party approved such a massive expenditure. Under US legislative rules, Congress holds the sole constitutional authority to authorize federal spending, and political observers widely agree Trump could not implement the plan via executive order even if he wanted to.

    Additional questions remain unanswered about the fine print of the proposal: Trump said the $5,000 payments would be required to be spent within the United States, but the administration has offered no explanation of how that requirement would be enforced or monitored. The White House pushed back against criticism in a statement to the BBC, dismissing detractors as “doomers and naysayers” who have consistently underestimated the president. “With the continued support of the American people, President Trump will keep delivering real results,” said White House spokesman Davis Ingle.

    Many political strategists frame the announcement as a calculated last-minute campaign push rather than a serious policy proposal, given Republicans face tightening polling ahead of the midterms. Robert Moran, a former Republican strategist and pollster, noted the extraordinary pledge comes as election day draws near: “It is an extraordinary promise, and I’m not sure where that money is going to come from – but it is campaign season.” Rapp echoed that analysis, arguing Trump is prioritizing short-term electoral gains to help Republicans keep control of Congress during his final two years in office, turning to direct cash appeals because polling has been underperforming for the party. This is not the first time Trump has floated such a large direct payout proposal: during a prior term, he pledged $2,000 checks funded by tariff revenue, a promise that was never implemented. The proposal also echoes past controversies over vote buying: former President Joe Biden faced similar accusations in 2021 when he promised $2,000 Covid stimulus checks to voters if Democrats won two critical US Senate runoffs in Georgia, and in 2024, Trump supporter Elon Musk drew legal scrutiny for offering cash incentives to voters in key swing states who signed a political petition. Democrats have already dismissed Trump’s 2026 pledge as nothing more than an “empty promise” designed to win votes without any intention of following through.

  • Pilot warned Amazon cargo plane going too fast before deadly crash, data shows

    Pilot warned Amazon cargo plane going too fast before deadly crash, data shows

    On a Sunday in Miami, Florida, a fatal crash involving an Amazon Prime Air cargo plane has yielded new critical details from recently released flight data, shedding light on the chaotic final moments before the aircraft overshot a runway and killed five people. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is leading the ongoing investigation into the incident that also left five others injured, published an update containing the aircraft’s flight data and a summary of cockpit communications between the two pilots.

    According to the NTSB’s findings, one pilot repeatedly alerted the other that the Boeing 767-300 was traveling at excessive speed as it approached the runway for landing. Despite multiple warnings and the activation of an altitude alarm, investigators noted the second pilot did not provide consistent verbal responses to the cautions. Recorded data shows the jet touched down at 158 knots, equal to 292 kilometers per hour, a landing speed aviation experts have characterized as being at the high end of safe operating ranges.

    In the final minutes of the flight, two automated safety alarms triggered in the cockpit: first, a repeated “sink rate, sink rate” callout that warns pilots of an unsafe rate of descent, followed by a “too low terrain” alert, which notifies the crew that the aircraft is flying dangerously close to the ground without proper landing configuration. The NTSB’s release also included data on wing flap deployment, a key system that helps reduce aircraft speed and enable a gentle, controlled landing.

    Pablo Rojas, an aviation attorney speaking to CBS News, the BBC’s U.S. partner, noted that without access to the full unedited cockpit recording, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions about what led to the inconsistent responses between the pilots. Even so, Rojas said the released details confirm the landing attempt was essentially doomed from an early stage. He added that the flap deployment data raises additional questions: the flaps were extended much later in the approach sequence than standard procedure, a delay Rojas suggested may have been a reaction to the crew already aware the plane was moving far too fast for a safe landing.

    After overshooting the end of the runway, the aircraft, operating as Amazon Prime Air Flight 7598, crashed through ground support equipment on the airfield before striking a white Ford van carrying a five-person plane-cleaning crew. The jet continued off airport property, crashing through a perimeter fence and colliding with a Toyota Corolla before coming to a stop roughly 394 meters, or 1,300 feet, beyond the runway threshold. All five people in the van were killed in the crash and subsequent fire; Miami authorities released the victims’ identities earlier this week, naming them as 55-year-old Rolando Aleman Leon, 53-year-old Yoel Rodriguez Naranjo, 75-year-old Julio C Pineda, 53-year-old Carlos Acosta Fajardo, and 47-year-old Javierkys Reyes Quevedo. The NTSB’s investigation remains ongoing as investigators work to piece together the full sequence of events that led to the crash.

  • 9/11: What happened and how many people died in September 11 attacks?

    9/11: What happened and how many people died in September 11 attacks?

    This September, the United States will mark a somber milestone: the 25th anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack ever carried out on American soil, the September 11, 2001 attacks. A full schedule of commemorative events is set to open across the country this Friday, honoring the thousands of lives lost forever on that clear Tuesday morning.

    The coordinated attacks, carried out by 19 hijackers affiliated with the Islamist extremist network al-Qaeda, unfolded in less than two hours that day, leaving shock and devastation across the U.S. Northeast. Four commercial passenger jets traveling over the eastern United States were seized simultaneously by small groups of hijackers, who repurposed the large aircraft into lethal, guided weapons targeting iconic American landmarks.

    Two of the hijacked planes were deliberately flown into the 110-story Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, with the second impact hitting 17 minutes after the first. Intense infernos ignited across the upper floors of the skyscrapers, trapping hundreds of people above the crash sites and shrouding New York City in thick, toxic smoke. By mid-morning, both towers had collapsed into massive plumes of dust and debris, leaving a gaping hole in the city’s skyline and collective consciousness.

    A third plane crashed into the western facade of the Pentagon, the U.S. military’s sprawling headquarters located just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth jet, whose hijackers reportedly intended to target the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, crashed into a rural field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after passengers and crew fought back against the attackers, preventing further loss of life in the nation’s capital.

    When the dust settled, the final death toll stood at 2,977 people, not including the 19 hijackers who carried out the plot. All 246 passengers and crew across the four planes were killed, 125 people died at the Pentagon, and 2,606 perished at the World Trade Center – either in the collapse itself or from long-term injuries and illnesses related to the attack. Victims ranged in age from two-year-old Christine Lee Hanson, the youngest, to 82-year-old Robert Norton, the oldest, both of whom were passengers on the hijacked flights. Citizens of 77 different nations were counted among the dead, and 441 first responders from New York City made the ultimate sacrifice responding to the attack.

    While an estimated 17,400 people were inside the two towers when the first plane struck, no one above the impact zone in the North Tower survived. In the South Tower, 18 people managed to escape from floors above the impact zone before the building collapsed. The long-term health toll of the attack has been staggering: thousands of survivors, first responders, and nearby residents have developed chronic illnesses linked to exposure to toxic dust and smoke from the towers’ collapse, and to date, these secondary health complications have claimed more than three times the number of lives lost in the original attack.

    The plot to carry out the 9/11 attacks was masterminded by al-Qaeda, the extremist network led by Osama bin Laden, which operated from a base in Afghanistan. The group’s ideological leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an engineer who had studied in the United States and fought in Afghanistan during the 1980s, was the architect of the attack, and he helped recruit and train the hijackers, several of whom completed flight training inside the U.S. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, like bin Laden, with two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.

    Within weeks of the attacks, then-U.S. President George W. Bush launched an international coalition invasion of Afghanistan with two core goals: dismantle al-Qaeda and capture or kill bin Laden. The manhunt for the al-Qaeda leader stretched on for a decade: it was not until 2011 that U.S. special operations forces located and killed bin Laden during a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been captured years earlier, during a 2003 raid in Pakistan.

    After his arrest, Mohammed was held for three years in secret CIA detention facilities, where U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee investigations confirmed he was subjected to brutal interrogation tactics. He was later transferred to the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has remained in custody ever since. Legal proceedings to try Mohammed and three co-defendants for their role in the 9/11 attacks have dragged on for more than a decade, delayed by disputes over the admissibility of evidence obtained through coercive interrogation. A 2025 plea deal that would have seen Mohammed and two other co-accused plead guilty in exchange for avoiding the death penalty – receiving life without parole instead – was scrapped in July 2025 after federal officials objected to the agreement. The trial is now scheduled to begin in June 2028.

    Nearly 20 years after the U.S.-led invasion, American troops completed their full withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2022, a move that sparked widespread concern that al-Qaeda – which still operates today, with its strongest presence in Sub-Saharan Africa and residual membership inside Afghanistan – could rebuild its operational capacity and launch new large-scale attacks.

    The 9/11 attacks triggered lasting changes to global security and infrastructure in the decades that followed. Governments around the world enacted sweeping reforms to tighten commercial aviation security. In the U.S., the attacks led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, tasked with preventing future terrorist attacks, and the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees security protocols at all American airports.

    Cleanup operations at the World Trade Center site, known widely as Ground Zero, took more than eight months to complete. Today, the site has been reborn: a permanent memorial and museum honoring the victims sits at the foot of the new World Trade Center complex, anchored by One World Trade Center – also called the Freedom Tower. Standing at 1,776 feet, the skyscraper rises 400 feet higher than the original North Tower it replaces, a symbol of resilience and renewal. Reconstruction of the damaged section of the Pentagon was completed in less than a year, with military staff back in their offices by August 2002.

  • Year after Charlie Kirk’s death, conservative students struggle to fill void he left

    Year after Charlie Kirk’s death, conservative students struggle to fill void he left

    It has been exactly one year since prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot on the campus of Utah Valley University (UVU) while preparing for one of his signature live debates, and the aftershocks of his assassination continue to reshape both his organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), and American campus political culture.

    Jeb Jacobi, a third-year UVU student and volunteer at that fateful September 10 event, still carries vivid memories of the attack. The echo of the sniper’s gunshot that felled Kirk remains with him, and for witnesses like Jacobi, who saw the conservative leader as a hero, his killing on campus left an indelible mark. “It feels like there’s a forever stain on us here,” Jacobi told the BBC in an interview marking the anniversary. “This is where Charlie Kirk was killed.”

    In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, many supporters expected TPUSA — the youth conservative organization Kirk founded — would grow exponentially, fueled by the rising tide of sympathy and martyr status for its fallen leader. Just five days after Kirk’s death, a TPUSA spokesperson announced on X that the group had received more than 32,000 inquiries from students seeking to launch new campus chapters in just 48 hours, confirming a brief surge of grassroots support. But one year on, the organization has struggled to fill the void left by Kirk’s charismatic leadership.

    “It’s not the same organisation,” Jacobi said of current TPUSA. “It just doesn’t have the same power, the same impact.” Current members confirm that internal friction between moderate and far-right factions has slowed the group’s momentum, with one Arkansas chapter completely rebranding to cut ties with the national organization over disagreement with its current direction. The BBC reached out to TPUSA for comment on this report but did not receive a response. Kirk’s widow Erika Kirk has since taken over as CEO of the organization, and the group has launched a new campus outreach initiative called Pick Up the Mic, which sends debaters to high schools and colleges across the U.S. to continue Kirk’s tradition of public political debate.

    Not all members share the view that TPUSA has faltered. Macy Gunnell, who finally secured approval to launch a new TPUSA chapter at Indiana’s St Mary’s College after Kirk’s death — a goal she had pursued for years without success — says predictions of the group’s demise are wrong. “While there are flying accusations out there that Turning Point is dead, Turning Point’s become something that it never was, Turning Point became everything Charlie hated – that could not be further from the truth,” said Gunnell, now a 22-year-old media professional in Washington D.C. After meeting Erika Kirk and TPUSA leadership at the organization’s headquarters this summer, Gunnell remains optimistic: “I’m confident that Turning Point’s not going anywhere, and this is quite literally just the beginning.”

    Beyond the internal struggles of TPUSA, Kirk’s assassination has deepened political polarization on and off the UVU campus, which is located in a deeply conservative Utah county where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than seven to one. Jacobi says the campus climate is more divided than ever, with rising hostility across ideological lines. “The culture has gotten more hostile,” he said. “I love for everyone to have their own viewpoints and [be] sharing them. The debate is good for society. It’s what Charlie did.”

    Critics of Kirk have long argued that his high-profile campus debates were less about constructive discussion and more about stoking outrage to generate social media attention, while advancing misogynistic, racist and homophobic rhetoric. Since his death, some UVU students have protested a planned campus memorial to Kirk and attempted to block an anniversary commemoration event scheduled for Thursday. Conflicts between the campus TPUSA chapter and socialist student groups are now regular occurrences.

    Anthony Shinkle, another 20-year-old UVU student, warns that the graphic, public killing of a beloved political leader has pushed vulnerable young conservatives in two dangerous directions: some now fear sharing their ideological views openly, while others have drifted toward more extreme, fringe political positions. “These are impressionable people, impressionable youth,” Shinkle said. “They watched their political hero be murdered very, very graphically. I feel like the assassin got exactly what he wanted.” Like Jacobi, Shinkle says no current conservative figure can step into Kirk’s unique role.

    Political scientists note that the dip in momentum TPUSA is experiencing is far from unusual for a movement built around a single charismatic founding figure. “You have a movement that was started and led by this kind of charismatic figure, and the charismatic figure goes away,” said Mark Brewer, chair of the political science department at the University of Maine. “A little bit of loss of momentum isn’t exactly surprising.”

    Brewer added that while a leadership vacuum remains, Kirk’s legacy and status as a conservative martyr remain powerful. “Kirk’s personal status as a martyr remains very strong. You can see plenty of folks on the right who are trying to claim affiliation with Kirk. In some ways, that maybe has only increased,” he said. “Kirk himself, in his own influence of his legacy, I don’t think that’s going anywhere.”

    For many students who witnessed the attack, the killing has also prompted deep personal change. Shinkle, who moved to Utah from Alabama because his family believed it would be safer than his home state, says he carries a persistent, unshakable guilt: “I kind of feel a weird sense of guilt. I feel like it’s a common sentiment, that everyone wishes they could have done something.” Jacobi, for his part, has pulled back from political engagement and deepened his Christian faith, a path that mirrored Kirk’s own beliefs. “When Charlie died, I took a look at myself,” he said. “There are so many people who make politics their entire identity. It’s so unhealthy for you. It really made me realise I needed and wanted a relationship with Christ like Charlie had. Ever since I got more involved, I’ve felt much happier and more peaceful of a person.”

    As the first anniversary of Kirk’s death approaches, the trial of the accused shooter, Tyler Robinson, is set to move forward after a Utah judge cleared legal hurdles earlier this month. Robinson has pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder — a capital offense in Utah — and six additional charges. For TPUSA, Brewer says the organization’s long-term trajectory remains unclear, and its future will be shaped in the coming year and a half. “The final part of the story hasn’t been written yet,” he said. “So I think a lot will be determined over the next six, 12, 18 months.”