Arsenal FC have been crowned Premier League champions for the first time in 22 years after Manchester City failed to win at AFC Bournemouth, ending a long wait for the north London club.
Arsenal’s title triumph was confirmed without them playing, as City needed a victory on Tuesday to keep the race alive but could only manage a draw. A late goal from Erling Haaland was not enough to overturn an earlier strike by Bournemouth, leaving Arsenal out of reach at the top of the table.
With 82 points and one match remaining, Arsenal can no longer be caught, sealing their first league title since the 2003 to 2004 season under Arsene Wenger.
The title marks the end of the club’s longest drought since the Second World War and follows several near misses over the past two decades. Arsenal came close in the 2007 to 2008 season and again in 2015 to 2016, while recent campaigns under manager Mikel Arteta saw three consecutive second place finishes.
This season, however, Arsenal held firm. Their campaign has been built on defensive strength, with 19 clean sheets and another Golden Glove award for goalkeeper David Raya.
The title race remained tight until the closing weeks. A defeat to Manchester City last month cut into what could have been a commanding lead, but Arsenal responded with four straight wins without conceding a goal, applying pressure that City ultimately could not withstand.
City’s earlier stumble at Everton opened the door, and the dropped points against Bournemouth confirmed Arsenal’s place at the summit.
Players and fans will celebrate the title in full when Arsenal face Crystal Palace on the final day of the season, where the trophy will be presented.
There is still the possibility of an even more historic campaign. Arsenal are also set to face Paris Saint Germain in the UEFA Champions League Final later this month, with the chance to secure a league and European double for the first time in the club’s history.
For Arsenal, the long wait is over, and a new chapter has begun.
Cristiano Ronaldo will chase history one final time this summer after Portugal coach Roberto Martinez named the 41-year-old captain in his World Cup squad Tuesday, setting the stage for what Ronaldo himself has called his last shot at the only major trophy that has eluded him throughout the most decorated international career in men’s football.
The announcement carried something heavier than a roster list. Martinez included the late Diogo Jota as a permanent, unofficial member of the squad, describing the 28-year-old Liverpool forward who died in a car crash in Spain last July as “the plus one forever.”
“The final list includes 27 names plus one,” Martinez said at the press conference. “To lose Diogo Jota was an unforgettable moment and a very difficult moment. But the next day it was a responsibility for all of us to fight for Diogo Jota’s dream and for the example that he was in our national team. The spirit, the strength, the example of Diogo Jota, the plus one. He will be the plus one forever.”
Jota had been a regular fixture in Portugal’s national setup and was widely expected to be part of the 2026 World Cup campaign before his death. His presence in Martinez’s words, if not on the pitch, set the emotional tone for a squad announcement that balanced grief with genuine ambition.
Ronaldo’s Record Pursuit
The football world will be watching Ronaldo as closely as it watches Portugal when the tournament begins. If he appears in any match, he becomes the first man in history to play in six World Cup finals, joining Argentina’s Lionel Messi, who also has five appearances and is expected to be named in his own country’s squad for a tournament he will be attending as defending champion.
Ronaldo holds the all-time records for appearances and goals in men’s international football, 226 caps and 143 goals. He is already the only man to have scored in five consecutive World Cups. A goal in the United States this summer would give him six.
He told CNN in November that this tournament would “definitely” be his last World Cup. He is 41 years old, playing his club football for Al Nassr in Saudi Arabia after leaving Europe’s elite club competition, and has spoken publicly and privately about the significance of what Portugal is trying to accomplish.
Martinez defended Ronaldo’s inclusion on merit rather than sentiment. “When we talk about Cristiano Ronaldo, we talk about two players,” the coach said. “We talk about the icon of world soccer and we talk about the player, our captain, who has the same demands as the other players, the competitiveness to be in the national team. Our captain is an example. We want him to continue with the same level of responsibility and leadership inside the locker room.”
The Squad Martinez Built
The 27-player list, one beyond the maximum of 26 permitted for final tournament squads, includes a fourth goalkeeper in Ricardo Velho, who Martinez said would participate only in the event of injury to one of the three primary keepers. The coach said he personally contacted nearly every player he chose not to include, a notable omission being midfielder Joao Palhinha despite his strong club form, along with Mateus Fernandes.
Ronaldo’s Al Nassr club teammate João Félix is also in the squad. The European club game is heavily represented through Bruno Fernandes of Manchester United, Bernardo Silva and Ruben Dias of Manchester City, and the Paris Saint-Germain contingent of Nuno Mendes, Vitinha, João Neves, and Gonçalo Ramos. Pedro Neto comes in from Chelsea. Francisco Conceição from Juventus and Rafael Leão from AC Milan complete the forward options.
Portugal opens its World Cup campaign against Congo on June 17 in Houston. The team is placed in Group K alongside Colombia, Uzbekistan, and Congo. Preparations begin June 1, with warmup matches against Chile on June 6 and Nigeria on June 10, before the squad travels to the United States on June 12.
Candidate, Not Favorite
Martinez was careful about where he positioned Portugal in the broader tournament conversation. The coach framed his team’s ambitions with a precision that avoided both false modesty and overconfidence. Portugal won the 2025 Nations League, defeating Germany in the semifinals and Spain in the final, arriving at the World Cup with genuine form and a strong generation of players across every position.
But Martinez drew a clear line between aspiration and expectation. “The World Cup is not about playing well, not about having talent,” he said. “There are many challenges. I think only a national team that has already won the World Cup can be a favorite. We welcome the pressure, it’s not a problem, but I think ‘candidate’ is probably a better word to describe the good moment that we’ve been going through.”
He added: “Considering the talent and the spirit of our group, we all can dream. We can dream, yes, and be a candidate, but not a favorite.”
The Weight of a Final Chance
The Portugal squad announcement contains two narratives running in parallel that rarely coexist in a single roster reveal.
The first is the story of Diogo Jota, a young man at the peak of his career, a consistent contributor to one of Europe’s most competitive national teams, killed before he could reach what should have been his moment. Martinez’s decision to frame the squad as 27 plus one is not a gimmick. It is a genuine acknowledgment that grief does not disappear because a tournament schedule demands focus and professional purpose. Every player in that squad will carry Jota’s name into the summer, which is both a burden and a form of motivation that cannot be manufactured.
The second is the story of Ronaldo himself. He is the greatest scorer in international football history, the holder of records that may stand for generations, and a player who has given Portugal everything across two decades of service except the one thing he and the country want most. He has never won a World Cup. He finished third in 2006, the tournament that first announced Portugal as a genuine force. He has been a leading figure in every campaign since, each one ending short of the final in circumstances that seemed always to place the dream just out of reach.
At 41, playing away from Europe’s elite stage, he is not the same physical force he was at 25 or 30. Martinez’s framing of Ronaldo as both an icon and a demanding professional suggests a coach who has thought carefully about how to manage the tension between what Ronaldo represents symbolically and what he contributes practically within a squad that does not need to be built around him to be competitive.
Portugal has enough quality in this generation, Fernandes, Bernardo Silva, Ruben Dias, Nuno Mendes, João Neves, to be a genuine contender regardless of what Ronaldo individually produces. The 2025 Nations League title was not won on reputation. It was won on collective quality and tactical organization. If that holds through the World Cup, Portugal has a legitimate path.
Whether Ronaldo scores, assists, or simply lifts the trophy on the bench having contributed less than in previous tournaments, the summer will carry meaning beyond tactics and results. He is chasing something that defines the conversation around his place in football history. And somewhere in that conversation, a 28-year-old from Liverpool who loved his country and never got his World Cup will be the plus one forever.
Public transport operators in Kenya have agreed to suspend a nationwide strike for one week, opening the door for negotiations with the government after days of disruption fueled by rising fuel costs.
The decision followed emergency talks in Nairobi between government officials and leaders of the transport sector, including operators of the privately run minibus system that forms the backbone of daily commuting across the country.
Interior Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen said the temporary suspension would allow both sides to pursue consultations aimed at resolving the dispute.
“The strike is suspended for one week to allow structured engagement between the government and stakeholders,” Murkomen said during a briefing, standing alongside transport industry representatives.
Transport leaders confirmed that operations would resume immediately but warned that industrial action could restart if progress is not made within the agreed timeline.
Edwin Mukabane, head of the Federation of Public Transport Sector, said operators were willing to give dialogue a chance but stressed that the outcome must address their concerns.
“If the issues are not treated with urgency, the strike will return after the seven days,” he said.
The stoppage had brought widespread disruption to major urban centers, with blocked roads, halted services and thousands of commuters forced to walk long distances. The unrest turned deadly, with at least four people killed during protests led by transport operators, according to reporting by the Financial Times citing Bloomberg.
The strike reflects mounting pressure on Kenya’s economy as global fuel prices surge, driven in part by instability in the Middle East that has disrupted oil shipments through key maritime routes.
Higher fuel costs have hit Kenya particularly hard due to its reliance on imports. The International Monetary Fund has already flagged the country as being at high risk of debt distress, amplifying concerns about its economic resilience.
In response, the government has introduced several measures, including cutting value-added tax on fuel and drawing from a stabilization fund to cushion consumers. Energy Secretary Opiyo Wandayi said billions of shillings have been used to subsidize prices.
Regulators also announced a reduction in diesel prices following pressure from transport operators, though industry groups say taxes and levies still account for a significant portion of pump costs.
Business organizations, including the Kenya National Chamber of Commerce and Industry, have criticized the heavy tax burden on fuel, arguing it is driving up transport costs and straining businesses and households alike.
Governor Johnson Sakaja is expected to play a mediating role in the talks, urging operators to return to work while negotiations continue. Transport leaders have also called on financial institutions to show leniency toward operators facing mounting debts.
The temporary halt to the strike offers short-term relief but underscores deeper economic vulnerabilities facing Kenya and other import-dependent economies across Africa.
Rising global fuel prices are feeding into inflation, weakening currencies and increasing the cost of living. In Kenya, inflation has already climbed to its highest level in two years, placing additional strain on households and businesses.
Analysts say the unrest may signal broader risks across the continent if energy costs remain elevated. Countries with limited fiscal space may struggle to sustain subsidies or tax reductions, raising the likelihood of further protests.
The situation also highlights the delicate balance governments must maintain between stabilizing prices and protecting public finances. While subsidies can ease immediate pressure, they often come at a significant cost to national budgets.
For Kenya, the coming week of negotiations will be critical. A lasting resolution could restore stability to the transport sector, but failure to reach an agreement risks renewed disruptions that could ripple across the economy.
Gunmen abducted at least 39 schoolchildren and seven teachers in southwestern Oyo State, where authorities said one teacher was later killed in captivity, as security forces faced explosive devices during a rescue effort.
The attack unfolded Friday in the Ahoro Esinele community within the Oriire district, targeting multiple schools, including one secondary school and two primary schools, officials said.
Governor Seyi Makinde said a video confirmed the killing of one abducted teacher on Sunday. He added that six suspects had been detained, including individuals accused of providing information and logistical support to the kidnappers.
Makinde said a joint rescue operation involving the military, police and local security groups was disrupted when responders encountered improvised explosive devices planted by the attackers. Several operatives were injured and are receiving treatment.
President Bola Tinubu condemned the killing, describing it as barbaric, and said federal authorities were working closely with state officials to secure the release of the victims. He added that specialized police and intelligence teams had been deployed to the area.
Mass abductions have become a persistent security crisis in Nigeria, with armed groups exploiting weak enforcement and porous borders to target schools, travelers and rural communities for ransom. While such incidents are more common in the north, attacks in the southwest remain relatively rare, raising fresh concerns about the spread of insecurity.
In a separate development, the Nigerian military said a joint operation with U.S. forces in northeastern Borno State killed more than 20 militants linked to the Islamic State group.
The operation took place in Metele, near the borders with Niger and Chad, and followed the recent killing of a senior militant leader, identified as Abu Bakr al-Mainuki. Military officials described the mission as a significant step in expanding operational coordination between Nigeria and the United States.
A U.S. military statement indicated that no American or Nigerian personnel were injured during the strikes.
Nigerian military spokesperson Samaila Uba said ongoing cooperation with U.S. forces aims to dismantle militant networks, eliminate fighters and prevent them from maintaining safe havens within the country.
The United States deepened its security partnership with Nigeria last year, initially focused on training and advisory support. Analysts say the latest operation suggests that cooperation has evolved into more direct involvement.
Nigeria continues to face a complex security challenge, with multiple armed groups operating across different regions. The insurgency, which began more than a decade ago, has driven widespread displacement and instability.
Human rights groups have raised concerns about civilian casualties linked to military operations. Earlier this month, Amnesty International alleged that a military strike killed dozens of civilians at a market, an accusation the Nigerian military has denied.
The twin developments highlight the widening scope of Nigeria’s security crisis. The school abduction in Oyo underscores how criminal networks are expanding beyond traditional hotspots, signaling a troubling shift that could place more regions at risk.
At the same time, the joint offensive in Borno reflects a more aggressive military posture supported by international cooperation. The involvement of U.S. forces points to growing concern in Washington over the spread of extremist groups in West Africa, where affiliates of global networks have become increasingly active.
However, the contrast between tactical military successes and ongoing kidnappings reveals a deeper structural challenge. While targeted operations may weaken militant leadership, they have not yet addressed the underlying conditions—such as poverty, weak governance and limited rural security—that allow such groups to operate.
The use of explosive devices against rescue teams also signals a shift in tactics, suggesting that armed groups are becoming more sophisticated and better equipped to counter government forces.
For Nigeria’s leadership, the challenge lies in balancing military action with long-term strategies that restore public confidence and protect vulnerable communities, particularly schools that continue to be seen as high-value targets.
Cuba has warned that any military action by the United States would lead to a violent confrontation after reports emerged alleging Havana had discussed potential drone attacks against American targets.
The sharp warning followed an Axios report citing classified U.S. intelligence that claimed Cuba had acquired more than 300 military drones and examined possible strike scenarios involving the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, U.S. military vessels and Key West, Florida.
Cuban officials rejected the allegations, accusing Washington of attempting to manufacture a justification for possible military intervention.
Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said Cuba, like any sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself under international law and the United Nations Charter. Cuban authorities insisted the island does not seek war but would respond to external aggression.
Residents in Havana voiced a mix of defiance and concern as tensions between the longtime adversaries intensified.
Some residents said the country would resist any attack despite worsening economic conditions marked by fuel shortages, power outages and declining living standards. Others urged diplomacy and negotiations to avoid a military confrontation.
Relations between Washington and Havana have deteriorated rapidly in recent months following expanded American pressure on Cuba and growing accusations from the administration of President Donald Trump that the island poses a regional security threat.
Reuters recently reported that U.S. prosecutors are preparing charges linked to the 1996 downing of planes operated by a humanitarian organization, a move that could further deepen tensions between the two governments.
The drone allegations also come amid increasing concern within Washington about Cuba’s ties to Russia and Iran, particularly claims involving military cooperation and the presence of foreign advisers in Havana. However, Reuters noted it could not independently verify the intelligence claims cited in the Axios report.
The escalating rhetoric marks one of the most serious moments in U.S.-Cuba relations in years and revives Cold War-era fears surrounding military confrontation in the Caribbean.
For the Trump administration, the reported drone intelligence appears to reinforce arguments that nearby adversaries equipped with modern warfare technology pose a growing threat to American territory. The rapid expansion of low-cost drone warfare in conflicts around the world has heightened security concerns, especially given Cuba’s proximity to Florida.
For Havana, the allegations arrive at a moment of deep economic crisis and political strain. Cuba has struggled with severe electricity shortages, fuel scarcity and mounting public frustration, conditions that critics say could make the government vulnerable to additional international pressure.
At the same time, some analysts caution that unverified intelligence claims could inflame tensions unnecessarily. The historical backdrop of failed invasions, sanctions and decades of mistrust continues to shape perceptions on both sides.
The standoff also reflects a broader geopolitical struggle involving Russian and Iranian influence near U.S. territory. Any escalation could have consequences extending beyond Cuba itself, potentially affecting regional security, migration patterns and already fragile diplomatic relations across the Americas.
For now, both governments appear locked in a battle of warnings and accusations, while concerns grow that miscalculation or political pressure could push the confrontation into more dangerous territory.
Pakistan has deployed thousands of troops, fighter aircraft and advanced air defense systems to Saudi Arabia under a mutual defense arrangement, expanding military cooperation as tensions linked to the war involving Iran continue to reverberate across the region.
Security and government officials familiar with the matter described the deployment as a substantial, combat-ready force intended to support Saudi defenses if the kingdom faces further attacks. The contingent reportedly includes about 8,000 troops, a squadron of roughly 16 fighter jets, and air defense systems, alongside additional unmanned aerial platforms.
Neither Pakistan’s military nor its foreign ministry issued public comment, and Saudi authorities did not respond to inquiries about the scale or specifics of the deployment.
The reinforcement follows a defense pact signed last year between Islamabad and Riyadh, which commits both countries to assist one another in the event of an attack. Officials with knowledge of the agreement said its terms allow for a much larger deployment if required, potentially expanding to tens of thousands of personnel.
Sources indicated the aircraft deployed include JF-17 fighter jets, co-produced with China, and that the air defense system positioned in the kingdom is also of Chinese origin. The equipment is being operated by Pakistani personnel, with costs reportedly covered by Saudi Arabia.
Officials familiar with internal communications said the newly deployed forces will primarily support training and advisory roles during the ongoing conflict. However, the size and composition of the deployment suggest capabilities that go beyond a symbolic presence.
The latest move adds to an existing Pakistani military footprint in Saudi Arabia, where personnel have long been stationed under earlier agreements to assist with training and operational support.
The expanded presence comes as Pakistan plays a parallel diplomatic role, serving as a key intermediary in efforts to ease tensions between Washington and Tehran. Islamabad hosted earlier talks aimed at halting hostilities and has remained engaged in backchannel diplomacy despite limited progress in recent weeks.
The regional security landscape has grown increasingly volatile following strikes on critical infrastructure and retaliatory actions across multiple countries. Concerns persist that any escalation could draw additional states into a broader conflict.
Pakistan’s dual role—as both a military partner to Saudi Arabia and a diplomatic intermediary in the conflict—highlights the complexity of its strategic position. While Islamabad seeks to maintain neutrality in public messaging, its troop deployment signals a firm security commitment to Riyadh.
For Saudi Arabia, the presence of foreign forces strengthens its defensive posture at a time of heightened vulnerability, particularly given the risk of further strikes on energy infrastructure. The partnership also reflects long-standing ties in which military cooperation and financial support have been closely intertwined.
At the same time, the deployment carries broader geopolitical implications. It underscores the growing influence of external powers in the region’s defense architecture, particularly through equipment and systems sourced from China.
Pakistan’s involvement could also complicate its role as a mediator. While its diplomatic engagement aims to reduce tensions, its military posture may be viewed by some parties as aligning more closely with one side of the conflict.
The situation remains fluid, with the possibility of escalation still looming. The scale of Pakistan’s deployment suggests preparations for a range of scenarios, even as diplomatic efforts continue behind the scenes.
A federal jury in California has ruled in favor of OpenAI in a closely watched legal battle brought by Elon Musk, concluding the lawsuit was filed too late and finding no liability on the part of the artificial intelligence firm.
The unanimous decision, delivered Monday in federal court in Oakland, followed less than two hours of jury deliberation after a three-week trial that examined the company’s evolution from a nonprofit research group into a major commercial player in the artificial intelligence sector.
The verdict removes a significant legal hurdle for OpenAI as it considers a potential public offering that analysts say could value the company at up to $1 trillion.
Musk, an early investor in OpenAI, had alleged that the organization’s leadership—including Chief Executive Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman—deviated from its founding mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. He argued that the company pivoted toward profit after securing substantial backing from Microsoft and other investors.
OpenAI countered that Musk was aware of its business direction years earlier and failed to act within the legal timeframe required to bring such claims. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the case, indicated there was ample evidence supporting the jury’s conclusion that the statute of limitations had expired.
Following the ruling, Musk signaled plans to appeal, reiterating claims that OpenAI’s leadership enriched themselves at the expense of its original charitable purpose. In posts on his social platform X, he accused executives of exploiting a nonprofit structure for financial gain.
OpenAI’s legal team dismissed the lawsuit as unfounded, characterizing it as an attempt to undermine a rival in the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence market.
The case drew widespread attention not only for its high-profile figures but also for broader questions about how artificial intelligence companies balance public benefit with commercial growth. Testimony during the trial included sharp criticism of leadership credibility on both sides, with attorneys challenging the motives and integrity of key witnesses.
Microsoft, which faced related claims during the proceedings, welcomed the outcome, stating that the timeline and facts had long been clear.
The ruling represents more than a legal victory for OpenAI—it signals judicial reluctance to revisit early-stage governance disputes once companies transition into large-scale commercial enterprises. By focusing on timing rather than substance, the court avoided setting a precedent that could have reshaped how nonprofit-founded tech firms evolve.
For the artificial intelligence industry, the decision reinforces a trend already underway: the blending of public-interest research with profit-driven expansion. OpenAI’s structure—combining nonprofit oversight with a capped-profit model—has been closely watched and, at times, criticized. The outcome of this case may encourage similar hybrid models among emerging tech firms seeking both funding and mission-driven credibility.
At the same time, the trial exposed reputational risks. Allegations raised during testimony, particularly those questioning executive transparency, could linger even as legal obstacles fade. For Sam Altman, maintaining trust among regulators, investors, and the public may prove as critical as any courtroom victory.
Musk’s continued challenge also reflects intensifying competition in the artificial intelligence space. Since leaving OpenAI, he has launched his own venture, positioning himself as both a critic and competitor. The legal dispute underscores how strategic rivalries are shaping the future of advanced technology development.
Ultimately, the verdict clears a path for OpenAI’s next phase, but it does not resolve the broader debate over who should control powerful artificial intelligence systems—and who should benefit from them.
President Donald Trump said Monday he has postponed a planned U.S. military strike on Iran after regional allies requested time for ongoing negotiations that could end the conflict.
Speaking at the White House and in a message posted on Truth Social, Trump said the United States had prepared a large-scale military operation but decided to delay action as diplomatic efforts intensified.
“There seems to be a strong possibility they can reach an understanding,” Trump said. “If that happens without military action, that would be the best outcome.”
He added that leaders from Gulf nations, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, urged Washington to allow a short window for talks, expressing confidence that progress was within reach.
Trump indicated the U.S. military remains on standby and could proceed with force if negotiations fail, describing the pause as temporary and dependent on whether an agreement materializes.
The development follows weeks of escalating rhetoric between Washington and Tehran, with Trump repeatedly warning that the fragile ceasefire reached in April could collapse if Iran does not agree to U.S. terms. Just days earlier, he cautioned that time was running out for Iranian leaders to act.
According to Reuters, the president had directed military planners to be ready for immediate action before reversing course to give diplomacy a chance. The proposed strike had not been publicly disclosed prior to his announcement.
Tensions remain high across the region. Iran has effectively restricted movement through the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global energy shipments, while U.S. forces have increased pressure through maritime operations and enforcement measures.
Oil markets reacted swiftly to Trump’s statement. Prices, which had been rising amid fears of prolonged conflict, dropped immediately after news of the pause before stabilizing later in the day.
Iranian state media portrayed the delay as a sign of weakness, while military officials in Tehran warned that any renewed attack would be met with a strong response.
The White House confirmed that Trump has also discussed the situation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Chinese President Xi Jinping as part of broader diplomatic engagement.
The decision to delay a planned strike underscores the delicate balance between military pressure and diplomatic opportunity. By signaling readiness for force while pausing action, the administration appears to be leveraging the threat of escalation to push negotiations forward.
Gulf allies’ involvement is particularly significant. Their proximity to Iran and exposure to retaliatory attacks give them strong incentives to avoid open conflict, making their appeal for restraint a key factor in Washington’s decision-making.
At the same time, the repeated pattern of setting deadlines and then extending them may complicate U.S. credibility. While it allows flexibility, it can also create uncertainty about Washington’s red lines and long-term strategy.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a central pressure point. Any disruption there carries global economic consequences, especially for energy markets. The brief drop in oil prices following Trump’s announcement highlights how closely markets are tracking developments.
Negotiations themselves remain fragile. Key disputes, particularly over Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions relief, continue to stall progress. While both sides have signaled openness to dialogue, trust remains limited, and past efforts have repeatedly fallen short.
The coming days will likely determine whether the current pause leads to a breakthrough or simply delays further escalation. For now, the situation remains volatile, with diplomacy and military readiness advancing side by side.
SAN DIEGO — Two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego just before noon Monday, killing three men including a mosque security guard before fleeing in a white BMW and turning their weapons on themselves, leaving a city shaken and law enforcement agencies across the country moving to increase patrols at mosques in response to what police called a hate crime.
San Diego Police Chief Scott Wahl identified the dead suspects as a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old. Officers found them in their vehicle, stopped in the middle of a street a few blocks from the mosque, dead from what appeared to be self-inflicted gunshot wounds. The attack lasted less than 10 minutes from the first emergency call to the discovery of the suspects.
Three men were shot and killed outside the Islamic Center on the 7000 block of Eckstrom Avenue in the Clairemont neighborhood. One was identified as Amin Abdullah, a security guard at the mosque. Wahl credited Abdullah with likely limiting the death toll. “He played a pivotal role in assisting — this could have been worse,” a San Diego police officer said at the news conference.
All children attending the Al Rashid School, an elementary school on the mosque’s campus that offers instruction in Arabic language, Islamic studies, and the Quran, were accounted for and safe. Aerial footage from television helicopters showed more than a dozen children holding hands as they were walked out of the parking lot, surrounded by scores of police vehicles.
The FBI was called in to assist with the investigation. Wahl said investigators were still piecing together what precipitated the attack and how the violence unfolded.
The Timeline
At 11:43 a.m., the San Diego Police Department received reports of an active shooter at the Islamic Center. Officers arrived four minutes later and found three adult men shot dead outside the building. They immediately entered the mosque and the adjacent school to search for the gunmen.
At 11:52 a.m., new calls came in from two blocks away on the 7100 block of Salerno Street, where a landscaper had been fired upon. He was not hit. Officers were then directed to the 3800 block of Hatton Street, where they located the white BMW stopped in the road with both suspects dead inside.
At 1:06 p.m., the San Diego Police Department posted on X: “The threat at the Islamic center has been neutralized.”
Between 50 and 100 officers swarmed the building and surrounding neighborhood in the interval between those two timestamps. Law enforcement went door to door through adjacent streets. The mosque’s adult occupants were evacuated. Three nearby schools, the Islamic School of San Diego, Clairemont Canyons Academy, and Kavod Charter School, were placed on alert given their proximity to the scene.
Community Response
Mosque Imam Taha Hassane sent a video to community members confirming that everyone inside was safe. “We are safe, the entire school is safe. All the kids, all the staff, and the teachers are safe and out of the Islamic Center,” Hassane said in the video, which circulated among California’s Muslim community.
San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria posted on X that he was monitoring the situation and receiving updates from law enforcement. “Emergency personnel are on scene and actively working to protect the community and secure the area,” Gloria wrote.
Tazheen Nizam of the Council on American-Islamic Relations San Diego chapter said in a statement that no one should ever have to fear for their safety while attending prayers or studying at an elementary school. “CAIR is working to learn more about this incident and we encourage everyone to keep this community in your prayers,” Nizam said.
CAIR also confirmed in a separate release that school children were inside the building during the attack and that at least one mosque member was killed.
The Islamic Center of San Diego is the largest mosque in San Diego County. It sits in a neighborhood of homes, apartments, and strip malls with Middle Eastern restaurants and markets, and its campus serves both a worshipping community and a school population.
Law Enforcement Response Across the Country
The attack rippled outward almost immediately. Law enforcement agencies in other cities, including the New York Police Department and the Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia, announced they were increasing patrols at mosques as a precautionary measure. The coordinated response reflected a recognition that a targeted hate crime attack on a house of worship carries implications beyond the immediate jurisdiction where it occurred.
Wahl did not provide details at Monday’s news conference about what the investigation had established regarding the suspects’ motivations, saying investigators were still working to reconstruct events. The FBI’s involvement signals the federal government’s entry into a hate crime investigation that could produce federal charges against the suspects’ estates or accomplices if any are identified.
Hate Crime, Children Present, a Guard Who May Have Saved Lives
The San Diego mosque shooting carries several elements that place it among the more disturbing targeted attacks on a religious community in recent American history. The victims were killed outside a house of worship that also housed an elementary school. Children were inside during the attack. The security guard who died at the scene may have engaged or diverted the shooters in a way that prevented the violence from reaching those children.
That last point deserves attention. Amin Abdullah died at his post. Police credited him publicly with likely preventing additional deaths. What the full circumstances of his final moments were remains part of an active investigation. But the chain of events — armed teenagers arriving at a mosque, a security guard present, and fewer than three deaths in a facility that was occupied by dozens of people including children — suggests that Abdullah’s presence and actions mattered in ways that the death toll alone does not capture.
Hate crime attacks on mosques in the United States have increased in frequency over the past decade, tracking a broader rise in religiously motivated violence against Muslim communities. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has documented this trend in annual reports, and the law enforcement response Monday, with agencies across the country immediately moving to increase mosque patrols, reflects an institutional acknowledgment that such attacks create fear and security concerns that extend far beyond the site of any individual incident.
The suspects being teenagers adds a dimension that investigators will now have to examine carefully. What radicalized them, where they obtained their weapons, whether they were acting alone or were influenced by networks online or in person, and whether there were warning signs that were missed or reported and not acted upon are all questions that the FBI’s involvement suggests will be pursued aggressively.
For the community at the Islamic Center of San Diego, Monday’s events leave a wound that will not close quickly. Three men came to their mosque and did not come home. A security guard who showed up to protect his community died doing his job. And hundreds of children who went to school on a Monday morning were walked out of a parking lot holding hands, past police vehicles, past the place where those men fell.
The Trump administration announced Monday it was creating a $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded compensation pool for people who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration’s Justice Department, framing the arrangement as a settlement that would resolve President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.
The fund, which the Justice Department named the Anti-Weaponization Fund, would be overseen by a five-member commission with authority to hand out more than a billion dollars with no legal obligation to publicly explain its decisions, identify recipients, or disclose its procedures. Trump would retain the power to remove commission members without cause. The money would be drawn from the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund, a permanent federal appropriation used to pay court judgments and settlements.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the fund in a statement, calling it “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”
Trump’s personal lawyers filed papers the same day in federal court in Florida moving to voluntarily dismiss the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. The president, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization had filed the suit in January, alleging the IRS failed to prevent a former contractor from leaking their confidential tax records.
The settlement is also expected to resolve approximately $230 million in legal claims Trump filed related to the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate and the Russia investigation he faced during his first term, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to ABC News. Under the settlement terms, Trump himself is expected to be barred from directly receiving payments related to those three legal claims. Entities associated with Trump are not explicitly prohibited from filing additional claims.
Who Could Get the Money
The potential pool of beneficiaries is broad. The nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol could apply, as could anyone alleging they were harmed by what the administration characterizes as the Biden-era weaponization of federal law enforcement. Trump blanket-pardoned the January 6 defendants when he returned to office, and hundreds have since sought financial compensation from the government.
Trump has spoken warmly about that group for years. “They were patriots as far as I was concerned,” he told Newsmax last year. “I talk about them a lot. They were treated very unfairly.”
The fund would also potentially cover individuals caught up in the Trump-Russia investigation, people prosecuted alongside Trump’s aides during his first term, and others who can argue they were targets of politically motivated legal action. The commission’s majority-vote process for awarding money and the identities of those who receive it could be kept entirely private, ABC News confirmed through sources familiar with the arrangement.
The IRS Lawsuit and Its Origins
Trump’s underlying lawsuit grew from the leak of his and the Trump Organization’s tax records between 2018 and 2020. In 2024, former IRS contractor Charles Edward Littlejohn, who worked for the defense technology firm Booz Allen Hamilton, was sentenced to five years in federal prison after pleading guilty to leaking the records to two news organizations. Charging documents did not name the outlets, but the description and timeframe match stories published by the New York Times and ProPublica. The 2020 New York Times investigation found Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he first entered the White House and paid nothing in some prior years, attributing the outcome to colossal reported business losses.
Trump alleged in his lawsuit that the leak caused reputational harm, financial damage, public embarrassment, and unfairly tarnished his business reputation. His sons were named as co-plaintiffs.
The case was heading toward a difficult moment in court. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams had questioned in a ruling last month whether Trump and the government defendants, the Treasury Department and IRS, were sufficiently in conflict with each other for the case to legally proceed, given that Trump as president controls both agencies. She had ordered the parties to explain by Wednesday why the case should continue. The voluntary dismissal makes that deadline moot.
Trump’s lawyers argued in the dismissal filing that the court had no need to weigh in because they were withdrawing the case themselves, and that the administration had never formally replied to the underlying suit.
Democrats and Watchdogs React
The backlash was immediate and fierce. Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called the fund a racket.
“This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election stealing schemes,” Raskin said in a statement.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, an advocacy group that had filed a friend-of-the-court brief challenging the lawsuit, called the resolution a sham. “This case was always a sham, and another ploy by the President to access taxpayer funds to line his pockets,” Perryman said, pledging to continue fighting the settlement.
A group of 93 members of Congress filed a legal brief flagging their intent to challenge the arrangement. A coalition of outside legal experts had previously written to the court warning that the case presented significant constitutional concerns about whether a sitting president could sue a federal agency he controls for damages to his personal interests.
“This case is unprecedented: A sitting president seeks monetary damages for alleged harm to his personal interests from an executive agency that he controls,” the legal experts wrote, adding that the court should examine whether settlement discussions were conducted at arm’s length and free from risk of collusion.
Trump’s lawyers countered that the voluntary dismissal rendered those concerns irrelevant.
The Broader Retribution Campaign
The Anti-Weaponization Fund fits within a pattern that has defined the second Trump administration’s approach to the Justice Department from its first weeks. Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of January 6 defendants on his first day back in office. His Justice Department has since approved payouts to individuals caught up in the Trump-Russia investigation and has opened investigations and brought criminal charges against people Trump considers political opponents.
The administration has run a so-called Weaponization Working Group within the Justice Department for the past year, examining what it describes as anti-conservative and anti-Christian bias in the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities during the Biden years. Former Biden administration officials have consistently denied those characterizations. Merrick Garland, who served as Biden’s attorney general, repeatedly said his decisions followed facts, evidence, and law, and noted that his department also investigated Biden over classified documents and prosecuted Biden’s son Hunter on tax and gun charges.
No charges have been brought through the Weaponization Working Group investigation and it remains unclear whether any will be.
Trump himself acknowledged the unusual optics of the arrangement in a conversation last year. “It’s interesting because I’m the one that makes a decision, right, and that decision would have to go across my desk,” he said in the Oval Office. “It’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself.”
When asked in February how potential damages from the IRS lawsuit might be handled, he suggested the money could go to charity. “We could make it a substantial amount,” he said at the time. “Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities.” The compensation fund announced Monday does not direct the money to charities.
A Fund Without Precedent or Oversight
The Anti-Weaponization Fund is difficult to place within any established category of American legal or governmental practice. It shares surface features with victim compensation funds set up after disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which paid provable claims through a structured administrative process with defined eligibility criteria. It has been compared to truth and reconciliation commissions that governments have used in the aftermath of apartheid in South Africa and the Canadian residential school system.
Neither comparison holds. The Deepwater Horizon fund paid people who could demonstrate measurable economic harm from an industrial disaster. The proposed commission would pay people who claim political persecution, under standards the commission itself defines, through a process it is not required to explain, to recipients it is not required to name. The president whose allies stand to benefit retains removal power over the people making those decisions.
The constitutional dimension that Judge Williams identified is not resolved by dismissing the case. It is embedded in the fund itself. A president directing taxpayer money through a commission he controls, to compensate people he has already characterized as patriots and victims, toward purposes his own administration defines, is an arrangement that exists outside any established framework of government accountability. Congress appropriated no money for this fund. No legislation authorized it. The Judgment Fund from which it would draw was created to pay adjudicated claims, not to pre-fund politically defined compensation pools at presidential direction.
Democrats have vowed to fight it. Watchdog groups have pledged legal challenges. Ninety-three members of Congress have filed briefs signaling opposition. Whether any of those challenges succeed, and through what mechanism, is the central legal question the announcement Monday opened rather than closed.
What is already clear is that the administration’s willingness to use the full machinery of the executive branch to reward political allies and settle personal grievances has reached a new threshold. The IRS lawsuit was always unusual. Resolving it with a $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded compensation commission that the president controls is something else entirely.
