Home Blog Page 115

Trump Signs Order to Reclassify Marijuana as Less Dangerous Drug, Opening Medical Research

admin
-
0
Trump Signs Order to Reclassify Marijuana as Less Dangerous Drug, Opening Medical Research

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday directing marijuana’s reclassification as a less dangerous drug, a major shift in federal policy that would open new medical research avenues and align closer with actions already taken by dozens of states.

The change would move cannabis from its current designation as a Schedule I controlled substance, the same category as heroin and LSD, to Schedule III, alongside ketamine and certain anabolic steroids. Reclassification by the Drug Enforcement Administration would not legalize recreational marijuana use nationwide but could alter how the drug is regulated and eliminate substantial tax burdens on the cannabis industry.

Trump said he had received numerous calls supporting the move and its potential to help patients. “We have people begging for me to do this. People that are in great pain,” he said.

Forty states and Washington, D.C., now permit medical marijuana, and many states have legalized recreational use. However, U.S. federal laws have remained stricter, potentially subjecting users to federal prosecution.

The Justice Department under Trump’s Democratic predecessor Joe Biden previously proposed reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III. Unlike Biden, Trump lacks widespread encouragement from his party for the change. Some Republicans have spoken against any modifications and urged Trump to maintain existing standards.

Such reclassification typically requires an extensive process including a public comment period that has drawn tens of thousands of responses nationwide. The DEA remained in the review process when Trump assumed office in January. Trump ordered that process expedited as quickly as legally possible, though an exact timeline remained unclear.

Gallup polling shows Americans largely support a less restrictive approach: backing for marijuana legalization has grown from 36 percent in 2005 to 64 percent this year. However, that figure represents a slight decline from recent years, primarily due to decreasing Republican support, Gallup said.

Trump’s order also calls for expanded research and access to CBD, a legal and increasingly popular hemp-derived product whose benefits for treating pain, anxiety, and sleep issues remain debated among experts.

A new Medicare pilot program would allow older adults to access legal hemp-derived CBD at no cost if recommended by a physician, said Dr. Mehmet Oz, who heads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The marijuana changes face opposition from some quarters. More than 20 Republican senators, several of them staunch Trump allies, signed a letter this year urging the president to keep marijuana classified as Schedule I.

Led by North Carolina Senator Ted Budd, the group argued that marijuana remains dangerous and that reclassification would “undermine your strong efforts to Make America Great Again.” They contended marijuana negatively affects users’ physical and mental health, as well as road and workplace safety.

“The only winners from rescheduling will be bad actors such as Communist China, while Americans will be left paying the bill,” the letter stated, referencing China’s position in the cannabis market.

In the early days of Trump’s second administration, the Justice Department showed minimal interest in discussing marijuana rescheduling, which had encountered strong resistance within the DEA under Biden, a former U.S. official said on condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation.

Trump has made his campaign against other drugs, especially fentanyl, a centerpiece of his second term, ordering U.S. military attacks on Venezuelan and other vessels the administration claims are transporting drugs. He signed another executive order declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.

Jack Riley, a former DEA deputy administrator, supported focusing on the drug war as a national security priority but said marijuana rescheduling sends a conflicting message.

“He’s blowing up boats in Latin America that he says are full of fentanyl and cocaine but on the other hand loosening the restrictions that will allow wider exposure to a first-level drug,” said Riley, who was considered to lead the DEA upon Trump’s return to the White House. “That is clearly a contradiction.”

Opponents like the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana vowed to sue if reclassification proceeds.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, some pro-marijuana advocates want the government to go further and treat cannabis similarly to alcohol. Trump has not committed to larger steps like decriminalizing marijuana and said Thursday he encouraged his own children to avoid drugs.

Nevertheless, he said “the facts compel” the government to recognize marijuana can have legitimate medical applications. Cannabis has become integrated into the healthcare environment in many states.

Currently, 30,000 licensed healthcare practitioners are authorized to recommend marijuana for more than 6 million patients across at least 15 medical conditions, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified credible scientific support for marijuana’s use treating anorexia-related medical conditions, nausea, vomiting, and pain. Older adults particularly use it for chronic pain, which afflicts one in three from that age group.

The reclassification represents a significant evolution in federal drug policy after decades where marijuana remained categorized alongside the most dangerous substances despite mounting state-level legalization and growing medical evidence of therapeutic applications. The Schedule I designation has long created tensions between federal law and state policies, leaving millions of Americans technically violating federal statutes even as they comply with state regulations.

Moving marijuana to Schedule III acknowledges scientific consensus that cannabis, while not without risks, does not belong in the same regulatory category as heroin or LSD. The reclassification reflects recognition that the drug war paradigm treating all prohibited substances equally fails to account for varying harm profiles and medical utility across different drugs.

For the cannabis industry, reclassification could eliminate Section 280E of the tax code, which prohibits businesses trafficking Schedule I or II substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. This provision has imposed effective tax rates exceeding 70 percent on marijuana businesses, creating competitive disadvantages relative to alcohol or tobacco industries and limiting capital for expansion or product safety improvements.

The expanded medical research authorization addresses a longstanding complaint from scientists that Schedule I classification made studying marijuana’s therapeutic potential nearly impossible due to regulatory barriers and limited legal supplies. Rescheduling could accelerate clinical trials examining cannabis efficacy for conditions ranging from chronic pain to PTSD to epilepsy, potentially establishing evidence-based treatment protocols.

The CBD Medicare pilot program represents federal acknowledgment of the compound’s growing popularity among older Americans seeking alternatives to opioids for pain management. By covering CBD costs for Medicare beneficiaries, the program could provide data on effectiveness and safety while addressing concerns about seniors on fixed incomes purchasing expensive products without insurance coverage.

Trump’s conflicting drug policies—aggressively prosecuting fentanyl trafficking through military strikes while liberalizing marijuana regulations—reflect tensions within Republican coalitions between law-and-order traditionalists and libertarian-leaning voters increasingly skeptical of prohibition. The 20 Republican senators opposing reclassification represent the former camp, while Trump’s action acknowledges the latter’s growing influence.

The letter’s invocation of China as a beneficiary of rescheduling appears designed to frame the issue through Trump’s preferred nationalist lens, suggesting that loosening restrictions primarily benefits foreign competitors rather than American patients or businesses. Whether this framing resonates with Trump, who has made confronting China central to his political identity, could determine how aggressively he pushes the reclassification despite GOP opposition.

Riley’s observation about contradictory messages captures a fundamental inconsistency: simultaneously escalating military operations against drug trafficking while reducing federal restrictions on marijuana creates confusion about administration priorities. Whether fentanyl and marijuana merit vastly different treatment strategies is a legitimate debate, but the whiplash between aggressive enforcement and liberalization suggests policy driven more by political calculation than coherent drug strategy.

The threatened lawsuit from Smart Approaches to Marijuana will test executive authority over drug scheduling. While the Controlled Substances Act grants the Attorney General rescheduling authority in consultation with HHS, opponents may argue the process was rushed or failed to adequately consider public health concerns, potentially delaying implementation through litigation.

As the DEA completes its review process under Trump’s expedited timeline, the reclassification represents perhaps the most significant shift in federal marijuana policy since the drug war’s inception. Whether it proves a stepping stone toward full legalization or the furthest the federal government will move remains uncertain, but the acknowledgment that current policy fails to reflect scientific evidence or state-level reality marks a turning point after decades of federal intransigence.

U.S. Military Strike on Alleged Drug Boat Kills Four in Eastern Pacific

admin
-
0
U.S. Military Strike on Alleged Drug Boat Kills Four in Eastern Pacific

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military killed four people Wednesday in a strike on a boat accused of smuggling drugs in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, bringing the total known casualties in the campaign to at least 99 as the House rejected Democratic efforts to limit President Donald Trump’s power to use military force against drug cartels.

U.S. Southern Command stated on social media that the vessel was operated by narco-terrorists along a known trafficking route. The military did not provide evidence supporting the allegations but posted video showing a boat moving through water before an explosion occurred.

The attack represented the 26th boat strike since the campaign began in early September, the Pentagon said. Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem drug flows into the United States and asserted the nation is engaged in “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the “lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters,” Southern Command said in its social media post. The victims were described as “four male narco-terrorists.”

“Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” Southern Command said, as CBS confirmed.

The administration faces increasing congressional scrutiny over the boat strike campaign. The first attack in early September involved a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to wreckage after the initial hit, sources told CBS News.

House Republicans rejected a pair of Democratic-backed resolutions Wednesday that would have forced the Trump administration to seek congressional authorization before continuing attacks against cartels, the Associated Press reported. 

The votes marked the first House action on Trump’s military campaign in Central and South America. A Senate majority of Republicans previously voted against similar resolutions, and Trump would almost certainly veto them if they passed Congress.

Recent weeks have brought renewed scrutiny to the strikes after the White House, following a Washington Post report, confirmed that in the September 2 attack, the same boat was struck twice in what has been described as a “double tap” or follow-on strike.

Two sources told CBS News that the follow-on strike killed two people who had survived the first strike and were waving overhead. A separate source familiar with the matter said the two survivors were attempting to climb back onto the boat. A total of 11 people died in both September 2 strikes, the U.S. military said.

Video of the September 2 strikes has been shown to some congressional lawmakers in classified briefings, but there has been pressure for the Pentagon to release the footage publicly. However, Hegseth told reporters Tuesday on Capitol Hill that he would not do so.

“Of course we’re not going to release a top-secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public,” Hegseth said.

Some lawmakers and legal experts have contended that the second strike could constitute a war crime.

The vessel strikes form part of a pressure campaign by the Trump administration targeting embattled Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, whom it accuses of involvement in drug trafficking to the United States and collaboration with cartels. Venezuela has criticized the boat strikes, and Maduro denies working with drug cartels. The Venezuelan government has accused the Trump administration of seeking regime change.

The United States has significantly increased its military presence in the Caribbean and near Latin America, and Trump has said he will not rule out sending troops to Venezuela or conducting land strikes there.

The U.S. military seized a sanctioned oil tanker near Venezuela last week. On Tuesday, Trump announced he had ordered a “total and complete blockade” on all sanctioned oil tankers entering or departing Venezuela.

The Democratic effort Wednesday to force votes on two war powers resolutions that would limit presidential authority to strike Venezuela or continue conducting strikes on alleged drug-running boats failed in the House.

The mounting death toll from boat strikes—99 people killed across 26 attacks in just over three months—raises questions about the campaign’s legal basis, effectiveness, and human cost. The administration’s characterization of victims as “narco-terrorists” without providing supporting evidence creates concerns about due process and the possibility of targeting fishing vessels or migrants rather than actual drug traffickers.

The “double tap” strike revelation has drawn particular condemnation. Under international humanitarian law, follow-on strikes targeting wounded survivors attempting to escape destruction constitute potential war crimes. The administration’s classification of the video as top-secret prevents public assessment of whether the second September 2 strike intentionally targeted survivors, as sources suggest, or if operators believed the boat still posed a threat.

The refusal to release strike videos publicly, even in redacted form, limits congressional and public oversight of military operations the administration conducts without explicit authorization. 

While the executive branch possesses broad authority over military operations, strikes resulting in nearly 100 deaths in international waters traditionally would prompt congressional debate about whether such campaigns require formal authorization under the War Powers Resolution.

House Republicans’ rejection of resolutions to limit Trump’s authority demonstrates partisan divides over executive military power. The same lawmakers who criticized previous administrations for military operations without congressional approval now support Trump’s boat strike campaign, suggesting positions on war powers depend more on which party controls the White House than consistent constitutional principles.

The vessel strikes targeting alleged drug trafficking present enforcement challenges distinct from traditional military operations. Unlike strikes against designated terrorist organizations where intelligence links targets to specific attacks, boat strikes rely on vessel location along trafficking routes and intelligence assessments about cargo and crew intentions. Without transparently established rules of engagement or oversight mechanisms, determining whether strikes comply with domestic and international law becomes impossible for outside observers.

The pressure campaign targeting Maduro through vessel strikes, oil tanker seizures, and blockade threats represents escalating U.S. confrontation with Venezuela. 

While the administration frames these actions as counter-narcotics operations, Venezuelan accusations of regime change intentions gain credibility given Trump’s refusal to rule out military intervention. Historical U.S. involvement in Latin American regime changes creates regional suspicion about Washington’s true objectives regardless of stated justifications.

The lack of evidence provided for individual strikes compounds concerns about mistaken targeting. Commercial fishing operations, migrant vessels, and legitimate cargo ships all transit the same waters where the military conducts strikes. Without post-strike investigations determining whether destroyed vessels actually carried drugs or armed personnel, the 99 deaths may include fishermen, migrants, or others misidentified as narco-terrorists.

Legal experts’ contentions that some strikes could constitute war crimes highlight the need for transparent investigation. War crimes allegations require serious examination through proper channels, not dismissal through classification and secrecy. 

The administration’s top-secret designation for strike videos appears designed more to prevent political embarrassment than protect legitimate intelligence sources or methods, given that Southern Command routinely posts unclassified strike footage.

As the campaign continues with Wednesday’s strike bringing the death toll to at least 99, fundamental questions about legal authority, effectiveness, and human cost remain unaddressed. Whether destroying boats in international waters significantly impacts drug trafficking or merely shifts routes while creating propaganda opportunities for U.S. adversaries requires honest assessment. 

The human toll—nearly 100 dead in three months—demands greater transparency and oversight than the administration has provided, regardless of how many were actually involved in drug trafficking versus caught in strikes targeting vessels based on location and intelligence assessments of uncertain reliability.

CBS/AP

Children’s Pastor Joe Campbell Arrested on Child Sex Abuse Charges After Decades of Allegations

admin
-
0
Children’s Pastor Joe Campbell Arrested on Child Sex Abuse Charges After Decades of Allegations

OKLAHOMA CITY — Joe Campbell, a Pentecostal preacher who ministered to thousands of children across four states over half a century, was arrested Wednesday on child sex abuse charges following an investigation that revealed decades of allegations and repeated failures by church leaders, police, and prosecutors to intervene.

Campbell, 68, was charged with one count of first-degree rape and one count of lewd or indecent acts with a child under 16, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office said Wednesday. U.S. marshals arrested him Wednesday morning at Camp Bell, his children’s camp in Elkland, Missouri, and transported him to Greene County jail in Springfield, where he awaited transfer to Oklahoma. If convicted, he faces up to life in prison.

The charges come seven months after an NBC News investigation documented a pattern of child sex abuse allegations against Campbell and systematic failures to hold him accountable. Five women said he sexually abused them as children in the 1970s and 1980s when he served as an Assemblies of God minister. Nine others, including four men, said he showed them pornography, made lewd comments, or touched them inappropriately during the same period.

It was not clear whether Campbell had retained an attorney. He could not immediately be reached for comment. His arrest represents a long-delayed breakthrough in a 40-year effort by some alleged victims to seek justice.

The rape charge appears tied to alleged abuse of Kerri Jackson, now 53, who says Campbell molested her for years in Tulsa in the early 1980s, beginning when she was around 9. The attorney general’s office presented the case to a multicounty grand jury in Oklahoma City last week, and the panel returned the indictment—a milestone Jackson and other women had pursued for most of their lives.

“I don’t even know how to react right now,” Jackson told NBC News moments after learning of Campbell’s arrest. “After all these decades, it’s a miracle.”

Previous attempts to investigate Campbell in Oklahoma and Missouri failed after police and prosecutors said the statute of limitations had expired. However, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office maintains that clock stopped running when Campbell moved out of the state in the 1980s. To charge him in connection with decades-old allegations, prosecutors are applying a frontier-era statute that pauses the statute of limitations for suspects who flee or reside elsewhere.

Prosecutors recently employed the same legal theory to charge former megachurch pastor Robert Morris with sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl in Oklahoma in the 1980s. Morris, who founded the nondenominational Gateway Church in Texas, pleaded guilty in October to five felony counts of lewd or indecent acts with a child and received a 10-year sentence with all but six months suspended.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond called Campbell’s alleged crimes “horrific” in an interview and said he anticipates additional victims may come forward.

“I cannot even imagine, nor could I attempt to imagine, the weight on their hearts, their psyche all these years,” Drummond said, adding that the charges should warn faith leaders who exploit their authority to harm children. “If you commit that crime, we’re going to find you. We’re going to prosecute you.”

Campbell was taken into custody Wednesday morning by members of the U.S. Marshals Western District of Missouri’s Midwest Violent Fugitive Task Force Springfield Division. He did not resist or attempt to flee, Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal Felix Carrion said.

“He surrendered to us as soon as we surrounded his house in Camp Bell,” Carrion said.

Oklahoma authorities opened their investigation after NBC News published its report in May, tracing abuse allegations to Campbell’s earliest years in ministry. Accusers described a charismatic preacher who cultivated trust with children and their parents, only to exploit it behind closed doors.

Children viewed Campbell as an almost mythical figure, blessed by the Holy Spirit with abilities to speak in tongues, cast out demons, and heal the sick. He gravitated toward girls from broken homes. They later described being molested in a church nursery, in Campbell’s car, and at his home while his wife and children slept upstairs.

Beginning when some were still teenagers, the women reported Campbell’s behavior to pastors, law enforcement, and child welfare officials, only to watch him deny the allegations and continue preaching.

Jackson was among those who approached church leaders. In early 1988, at age 15, she traveled to Springfield, Missouri, to testify before a panel of Assemblies of God officials. Jackson said the men asked her to describe the abuse in graphic detail and invited Campbell and his wife into the room to challenge her account. Despite having received letters from other alleged victims collected to support Jackson’s testimony, the pastors allowed Campbell to remain in ministry in Missouri, enabling him to abuse another girl, interviews and police records show.

The Assemblies of God finally expelled Campbell the following year after Phaedra Creed, at age 14, reported that Campbell had abused her for months while she lived with him and his family.

Creed went to police in 1989, and Campbell was charged with forcible sex with a minor. However, after being harassed by church members, Creed said her mental health deteriorated, and she withdrew from testifying, leading to charges being dropped.

For decades, as she watched Campbell continue working with children, Creed said she carried guilt over her decision. She cried when learning of his arrest Wednesday.

“I was speaking the truth then, and I’m speaking the truth now, but I’m no longer going to be silenced,” Creed said. “I am so happy justice will finally be served.”

In a statement following Campbell’s arrest Wednesday, Assemblies of God leaders said the denomination’s national office first learned of allegations against him in 1988 and that “his reported actions were duly reported to the appropriate legal authorities.”

“The Assemblies of God is grateful for all who have bravely shared their stories,” the statement said. “We continue to pray that justice will be served.”

Campbell continued ministering to children after his expulsion. Around 1990, he founded a nondenominational church and opened Camp Bell, a Christian youth camp in the Missouri Ozarks, where he ministered to thousands of children over subsequent decades. Campbell’s new church became a refuge for several convicted sex offenders, the NBC News investigation found.

In 2016, he joined PTL Television Network, a Christian station founded by disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker, which broadcast Campbell’s teachings nationally until this year, when the network quietly removed years of his sermons from its website following NBC News inquiries. PTL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Campbell’s national influence and his decades of work with children sickened his accusers, who tracked his ascent from afar.

For the women, his arrest carried spiritual significance—the fulfillment of a mission they believe God entrusted to them decades ago. Jackson said she long bore the weight of that responsibility like a ball and chain. The burden began lifting when she saw his mugshot.

“Finally,” she said. “We just needed someone to believe us.”

The case exemplifies systemic failures that enable clergy sexual abuse to continue for decades despite repeated warnings. The 1988 Assemblies of God hearing where church officials allowed Campbell and his wife to confront Jackson, a 15-year-old accuser, demonstrates institutional processes designed more to protect the accused than investigate allegations properly. That officials had letters from other alleged victims yet permitted Campbell to continue ministering for another year reveals prioritization of organizational reputation over child safety.

Creed’s experience after reporting to police illustrates how pressure from religious communities can silence victims. The harassment she faced from church members for accusing a respected minister ultimately prevented prosecution, allowing Campbell to continue accessing children for three more decades. The guilt she carried, despite being a teenage victim who bravely reported abuse, reflects how institutions shift accountability from perpetrators and enablers onto survivors.

Campbell’s ability to found a new church and children’s camp after expulsion from the Assemblies of God highlights gaps in oversight between denominations and the lack of registry systems that might prevent credibly accused clergy from simply relocating to new religious contexts. That his new church became “a refuge for several convicted sex offenders” according to NBC News suggests deliberate creation of an environment where sexual predators could operate with reduced scrutiny.

The frontier-era statute prosecutors are invoking to circumvent statute of limitations represents a legal tool increasingly employed against clergy accused of historical abuse. The recent Robert Morris conviction using the same approach established precedent that may enable additional prosecutions of religious figures who committed abuse decades ago before relocating. This legal theory—that fleeing or residing elsewhere pauses limitations periods—provides pathways to accountability where traditional time limits would have barred prosecution.

The involvement of PTL Television Network, founded by Jim Bakker who served prison time for fraud and faced his own sexual misconduct allegations, in broadcasting Campbell’s teachings nationally illustrates how disgraced religious figures often find refuge with others operating on the margins of mainstream Christianity. The network’s quiet removal of Campbell’s sermons following media inquiries rather than proactive investigation suggests reactive reputation management over genuine child protection commitments.

For Jackson, Creed, and the other survivors, Campbell’s arrest after 40 years validates their persistence in seeking accountability despite repeated institutional failures. Their stories illustrate the immense courage required to challenge powerful religious figures, the personal costs of being disbelieved or silenced, and the decades-long trauma of watching abusers continue harming children while justice remains elusive.

As Campbell awaits trial, additional victims may indeed come forward as Attorney General Drummond anticipates, emboldened by the arrest to break silence about their own experiences. The case will test whether justice systems can adequately address historical clergy abuse and whether religious institutions will finally prioritize child safety over protecting their own.

NBC

Gunmen in Nigeria Kill 12 at Mining Site, Kidnap 13 Worshippers in Church Attack

admin
-
0
Gunmen in Nigeria Kill 12 at Mining Site, Kidnap 13 Worshippers in Church Attack

ABUJA, Nigeria — At least 12 people were killed and three others abducted when gunmen attacked a mining site in Nigeria’s volatile Plateau state, while separately 13 worshippers were kidnapped during a church assault in neighboring Kogi state, highlighting escalating insecurity across the country’s Middle Belt region despite repeated government pledges to restore order.

The mining site attack occurred late Tuesday in Atoso village when assailants locals identified as armed Fulani militias struck, leaving five additional people hospitalized with gunshot wounds, said Dalyop Solomon Mwantiri, leader of the Berom Youth Moulders-Association.

Police spokesperson Alfred Alabo confirmed investigations were underway into the Plateau state attack.

The assault underscores persistent insecurity on the Plateau, a flashpoint of Nigeria’s volatile Middle Belt region where ethnic and religious tensions have long fueled deadly clashes between farmers and herders. Violence continues surging despite repeated government commitments to restore peace.

Tuesday’s mining site attack came just days after four children were killed in a nearby village, Mwantiri said, accusing authorities of ignoring early warning signs. The youth association is urging the government to deploy additional security forces to enforce bans on open grazing and rescue the abducted victims.

In the separate incident, gunmen attacked First ECWA church in the remote Ayetoro-Kiri community of Kogi state on Sunday, abducting at least 13 worshippers, Kogi Information Commissioner Kingsley Fanwo said Wednesday, as Reuters reported.

The church assault sparked a gunfight between the attackers and local hunters employed by the state as a first line of defense. Four attackers were killed and at least 10 others sustained wounds, Fanwo said, adding that security forces remained pursuing the fleeing kidnappers.

The attack represents the latest in a series of abductions in central Nigeria and intensifies pressure on the government, which faces scrutiny from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has threatened military action over what he characterizes as persecution of Christians.

More than 150 students and 12 school staff were kidnapped November 21 by gunmen at a Catholic boarding school in Papiri, central Nigeria. While 50 pupils escaped in the following hours and another 100 were rescued by the government December 8, others remain in captivity with no updates on their whereabouts or condition.

Security forces have intensified operations to rescue the hostages in Kogi, Fanwo said.

The dual attacks in Plateau and Kogi states within days of each other illustrate the breadth of Nigeria’s security crisis, which spans multiple forms of violence from resource-driven conflicts to kidnapping for ransom to sectarian attacks. The geographic spread across the Middle Belt demonstrates that no single solution addresses the varied drivers of instability.

The Plateau state mining site attack reflects long-simmering tensions between predominantly Christian Berom farming communities and largely Muslim Fulani herding populations. These conflicts, often framed through religious lenses, fundamentally involve competition for land and resources as climate change pushes herders southward seeking grazing areas while farmers resist encroachment on agricultural lands.

The identification of attackers as Fulani militias by local residents highlights ethnic dimensions of violence, though such designations often oversimplify complex situations where criminal gangs, ethnic militias, and resource competition intertwine. Not all Fulani are involved in violence, and many themselves suffer from insecurity, yet the ethnic framing persists in local narratives.

The abduction of three mining site workers alongside the 12 killed suggests attackers sought both to inflict casualties and secure hostages for potential ransom, a common tactic among armed groups operating across Nigeria’s Middle Belt and northern regions. The mining sector, often operating in remote areas with limited security, presents attractive targets for groups seeking to kidnap workers whose employers may pay for their release.

The church kidnapping in Kogi state follows a disturbing pattern of religious institutions becoming targets. The assault on worshippers during services represents particularly brazen criminality, as churches typically hold services during daylight hours with communities aware of congregants’ presence. That attackers struck despite these factors suggests either desperation or calculation that security forces could not respond quickly enough to prevent abductions.

The gunfight between attackers and local hunters employed as security illustrates Nigeria’s reliance on vigilante and community-based protection systems where government security forces prove insufficient. These arrangements, while sometimes effective in immediate defense, create patchwork security that leaves gaps exploited by criminal groups and can themselves become sources of abuse or inter-communal conflict.

The killing of four attackers and wounding of 10 others during the church assault represents an unusually high casualty rate for abductors, who typically seek to minimize confrontation during kidnapping operations. This outcome may reflect the hunters’ training and preparedness or particularly determined resistance by the community, but it also indicates the attackers came in sufficient numbers to absorb such losses while still completing their primary mission of seizing hostages.

Trump’s threatened military action over alleged Christian persecution adds international pressure on Nigeria’s government but also risks oversimplifying complex dynamics. While Christians certainly suffer from attacks—as the church kidnapping and mining site assault targeting predominantly Christian Berom communities demonstrate—Muslims also face violence from bandits, kidnappers, and insurgents. Framing Nigeria’s security crisis primarily through religious persecution lenses can obscure the resource competition, state weakness, and criminal enterprise that drive much violence.

The Catholic school kidnapping in Papiri, with more than 100 students still unaccounted for despite government rescue operations, exemplifies the scale of Nigeria’s abduction crisis. That such a large-scale kidnapping occurred at an educational institution, traditionally considered protected spaces, and that significant numbers remain captive weeks later underscores both the audacity of criminal groups and the limitations of security force responses.

The Berom Youth Moulders-Association’s accusation that authorities ignored early warning signs about the mining site attack echoes recurring complaints from affected communities that government responds to violence after casualties occur rather than preventing attacks through proactive security deployments. This reactive rather than preventive approach allows violence to persist even after repeated incidents in the same areas.

The call to enforce open grazing bans reflects one proposed solution to farmer-herder conflicts: restricting herders to designated ranches rather than allowing nomadic grazing that brings them into conflict with farmers. However, implementing such bans requires infrastructure, enforcement capacity, and cooperation from herding communities—resources and political will that have proven elusive despite policy pronouncements.

For affected communities in Plateau and Kogi states, the attacks represent acute manifestations of chronic insecurity that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands across Nigeria’s Middle Belt over the past decade. Each new attack compounds trauma while eroding confidence in government’s ability or willingness to protect citizens.

As security forces pursue kidnappers and investigate the mining site attack, the prospects for preventing similar future incidents remain uncertain. Without addressing underlying causes—resource competition, climate pressures, weak governance, proliferation of illegal weapons, and economic desperation that makes kidnapping lucrative—tactical responses to individual attacks will likely prove insufficient to break the cycle of violence plaguing central Nigeria.

Jack Smith Tells Congress He Had Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Against Trump

admin
-
0
Jack Smith Tells Congress He Had Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Against Trump

WASHINGTON — Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers in closed-door testimony Wednesday that his investigative team “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that President Donald Trump criminally conspired to overturn the 2020 election results, according to portions of his opening statement obtained by the Associated Press.

Smith also said investigators accumulated “powerful evidence” that Trump violated the law by hoarding classified documents from his first presidential term at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and by obstructing government efforts to retrieve the records.

“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith said in his statement. “We took actions based on what the facts and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.”

He stated that if asked whether he would “prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether the president was a Republican or Democrat.”

The deposition before the House Judiciary Committee provided lawmakers from both parties their first opportunity, though in private, to question Smith about investigations into Trump that produced criminal charges subsequently abandoned between the Republican president’s first and second terms. The Republican-led committee subpoenaed Smith this month to provide testimony and documents as part of a GOP investigation into the Trump inquiries conducted during Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration.

Smith cooperated with the congressional demand, the Associated Press reported, though his attorneys noted he had volunteered more than a month before the subpoena to answer questions publicly before the committee—an overture they said Republicans rebuffed. Trump had told reporters he supported an open hearing.

“Testifying before this committee, Jack is showing tremendous courage in light of the remarkable and unprecedented retribution campaign against him by this administration and this White House,” Smith’s lawyer Lanny Breuer told reporters. “Let’s be clear: Jack Smith, a career prosecutor, conducted this investigation based on the facts and based on the law and nothing more.”

Smith received appointment in 2022 to oversee Justice Department investigations into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden and Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Smith’s team filed charges in both cases but abandoned them after Trump won election to the White House last year, citing Justice Department legal opinions stating a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Multiple prior Justice Department special counsels, including Robert Mueller, have testified publicly, but Smith was summoned for only a private interview. Several Democrats emerging from Smith’s testimony said they understood why Republicans avoided an open hearing based on what they characterized as damaging testimony about Trump.

Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the committee’s top Democrat, said the Republican majority “made an excellent decision” in blocking public testimony “because had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all the president’s men involved in the insurrectionary activities” of the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

“Jack Smith has just spent several hours schooling the Judiciary Committee on the professional responsibilities of a prosecutor and the ethical duties of a prosecutor,” Raskin said, Reuters reported.

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington said Smith told lawmakers that Trump’s conduct seeking to overturn the 2020 election, culminating in the Capitol attack, could have been “catastrophic” for American democracy.

Democrats are demanding Smith’s testimony be released publicly along with his complete investigation report. “The American people should hear for themselves,” said Representative Dan Goldman, D-N.Y.

Committee chairman Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio told reporters, “I think we’ve learned some interesting things.” He declined to discuss testimony details but reiterated his position about the investigations. “It’s political,” he said.

Smith’s testimony unfolded against the backdrop of a broader Trump administration retribution campaign against former officials involved in investigating Trump and his associates. The Office of Special Counsel, an independent political watchdog, announced in August it was investigating Smith, and the White House issued a presidential memorandum this year aimed at suspending security clearances of attorneys at the law firm that provided legal services to Smith.

The deposition also occurs as congressional Republicans, aided by current FBI leadership, work to discredit Trump investigations through releasing emails and other documents from the probes.

In recent weeks Republicans have seized on revelations that Smith’s team analyzed phone records of select GOP lawmakers from on and around the Capitol siege, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the building attempting to halt certification of Trump’s election loss to Biden.

The phone records reviewed by prosecutors included details only about incoming and outgoing numbers and call length, not conversation contents. Smith’s attorneys said Republicans have mischaracterized the phone record analysis and implied something sinister about a routine investigative tactic.

Republican lawmakers expressed outrage at Justice Department disclosures that investigators sought information from conservative organizations as part of the probe into Trump’s election overturn efforts and obtained limited cellphone data from eight Republican senators during the period around the January 6 attack.

Trump allies pointed to those disclosures as evidence Smith’s probe was overzealous and targeted political opposition.

Smith told lawmakers his prosecutors followed Justice Department policy and were not influenced by politics. He said in his opening statement that the records were “relevant to complete a comprehensive investigation.”

“President Trump and his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election,” Smith said. “I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did.”

On Tuesday, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released internal FBI emails preceding the August 2022 Mar-a-Lago search. One email written weeks before the search showed an agent stating the FBI’s Washington field office did not believe probable cause existed to search the property.

Republicans who promoted the emails as proof the Biden Justice Department targeted Trump omitted that agents who later searched the property reported finding boxes of classified, even top-secret, documents. Additionally, the then-head of the Washington field office testified to lawmakers that by the search date, the FBI believed probable cause existed.

Smith’s assertion of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”—the highest standard of evidence required for criminal conviction—carries significant weight coming from a veteran prosecutor. This standard requires evidence so convincing that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely upon it in making important decisions, far exceeding the “probable cause” needed merely to file charges.

The closed-door nature of the testimony creates a stark contrast with historical precedent. Robert Mueller’s 2019 public testimony about Russian interference in the 2016 election allowed Americans to hear directly from the special counsel, however halting his performance may have been. Restricting Smith to private testimony prevents public assessment of his credibility and the strength of evidence he describes.

The Republican decision to keep Smith’s testimony private, despite Trump’s stated support for an open hearing, suggests GOP lawmakers feared the political fallout from his public statements. Democratic characterizations of his testimony as “absolutely devastating” and capable of “schooling” the committee on prosecutorial ethics indicate Smith mounted a vigorous defense of his investigative decisions.

The revelation that Smith’s team analyzed congressional phone records during periods when Trump and associates were allegedly attempting to pressure lawmakers to delay election certification highlights investigative thoroughness but also provides ammunition for critics portraying the probe as politically motivated persecution of Republicans.

Smith’s statement that “I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did” by attempting to contact them represents a direct rebuttal to claims of political targeting. This argument asserts that investigators followed evidence wherever Trump’s conduct led them, rather than selecting Republican targets arbitrarily.

The Trump administration’s retribution campaign against Smith personally—including security clearance suspensions for his former legal team and investigations by government watchdogs—illustrates the extraordinary nature of a former prosecutor facing governmental retaliation for performing official duties during a previous administration.

The abandoned prosecutions, dropped due to Justice Department policy against indicting sitting presidents rather than evidentiary weaknesses, leave a permanent cloud over Trump’s conduct. Smith’s testimony that evidence exceeded the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard suggests he believes juries would have convicted Trump had cases proceeded to trial.

For Trump, Smith’s congressional testimony represents another chapter in efforts by political adversaries to undermine his presidency through allegations about past conduct. For Smith’s defenders, his willingness to testify despite facing retribution demonstrates integrity and commitment to accountability.

The dispute over making testimony public reflects broader partisan divisions about transparency. Democrats argue Americans deserve to hear evidence about alleged presidential criminality, while Republicans contend the investigations represented partisan witch hunts unworthy of additional platforms.

As the testimony remains sealed pending potential release decisions, Smith’s characterization of the evidence—”proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal conspiracy and “powerful evidence” of classified document violations—stands as the most definitive public statement yet from the prosecutor who investigated Trump most thoroughly during the Biden administration.

AP/Reuters

Rwanda-Backed M23 Rebels Pledge to Withdraw From Strategic Congolese City of Uvira

admin
-
0
Rwanda-Backed M23 Rebels Pledge to Withdraw From Strategic Congolese City of Uvira

GOMA, Democratic Republic of the Congo — Rwanda-backed M23 rebels announced Tuesday they will withdraw from Uvira, the strategic eastern Congolese city they captured last week in an offensive that has killed more than 400 people and displaced 200,000 despite a U.S.-mediated peace agreement signed earlier this month.

Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance which includes M23, characterized the withdrawal as a “unilateral trust-building measure” requested by the United States to facilitate the peace process. The statement called for demilitarization of Uvira, protection of its population and infrastructure, and ceasefire monitoring through deployment of a neutral force.

The announcement did not clarify whether M23’s departure depends on implementing these conditions. Uvira residents said Tuesday that rebels remained in the town.

M23 seized control of the city following a rapid offensive launched at the month’s beginning. Regional officials say more than 400 people have been killed and approximately 200,000 displaced in the fighting.

The rebel advance persists despite a U.S.-brokered peace agreement signed in Washington earlier this month by Congolese and Rwandan presidents. The United States last week accused Rwanda of violating the accord by supporting the new rebel offensive in mineral-rich eastern Congo, warning that the Trump administration will take action against “spoilers” of the deal.

The agreement did not include M23, which negotiates separately with Congo and agreed to a ceasefire earlier this year that both sides accuse the other of violating. However, the accord obligates Rwanda to halt support for armed groups like M23 and work toward ending hostilities.

The rebel thrust into Uvira brought conflict to the border of neighboring Burundi, which has maintained troops in eastern Congo for years, heightening fears of broader regional escalation. Around 64,000 refugees from Congo have arrived in Burundi since early December, the U.N. refugee agency reported. Shells have reportedly fallen in Rugombo, a town on the Burundian side of the border.

Congo, the United States, and U.N. experts accuse Rwanda of backing M23, which has expanded from hundreds of members in 2021 to approximately 6,500 fighters, according to United Nations assessments.

More than 100 armed groups compete for control in mineral-rich eastern Congo near the Rwandan border, with M23 the most prominent. The conflict has generated one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, displacing more than 7 million people, the U.N. refugee agency stated.

The timing of M23’s withdrawal announcement, coming days after their capture of Uvira created international condemnation and accusations of peace deal violations, suggests diplomatic pressure is affecting rebel calculations. Whether the pledge represents genuine de-escalation or tactical repositioning remains uncertain given the conditional language in the statement and continued rebel presence in the city as of Tuesday.

Uvira’s strategic importance stems from its location on Lake Tanganyika and its position controlling transportation routes connecting the mineral-rich interior with regional markets. The city serves as a critical commercial hub and has changed hands multiple times during eastern Congo’s decades-long conflicts, making any withdrawal significant for regional stability.

The rebel offensive occurred just weeks after the Washington peace agreement was heralded as a breakthrough in resolving the conflict. The rapid violation underscores challenges in implementing diplomatic accords when key actors—in this case M23itself—are excluded from negotiations. The agreement’s effectiveness depends on Rwanda honoring commitments to withdraw support for armed groups, something Kigali has consistently denied providing despite substantial evidence.

The 400 deaths and 200,000 displaced since early December represent a dramatic escalation that threatens to unravel months of diplomatic efforts. The displacement figure equals roughly the population of Salt Lake City forced from their homes in just weeks, illustrating the massive humanitarian toll of the offensive.

The 64,000 refugees flooding into Burundi create burdens for a country already struggling with poverty and limited resources. Burundi’s military presence in eastern Congo complicates the situation, as the offensive brings M23 forces into direct proximity with Burundian troops, raising prospects of confrontation between national armies that could dramatically widen the conflict.

Reports of artillery shells landing in Rugombo on Burundian territory represent a dangerous expansion of hostilities across international borders. Such incidents risk triggering Burundian military responses that could transform a Congolese internal conflict into a multi-national war.

M23’s growth from hundreds to 6,500 fighters in just four years, as U.N. experts document, reflects either massive recruitment success or substantial external support. The allegations of Rwandan backing gain credibility when examining this rapid expansion, which would be difficult to achieve through local recruitment alone in a region where numerous armed groups compete for fighters and resources.

The exclusion of M23 from the Washington peace agreement creates a fundamental structural problem. While the accord commits Rwanda to withdrawing support, M23 itself made no commitments and continues operating under its own command structure. This disconnect allows the rebel group to pursue military objectives while technically not violating an agreement it never signed.

The conditional nature of the withdrawal announcement—calling for demilitarization, population protection, and neutral force deployment—suggests M23 seeks guarantees before relinquishing control of strategically valuable Uvira. Whether Congo or international actors can provide such assurances remains unclear, potentially leaving the withdrawal pledge unfulfilled.

The reference to U.S. requests for withdrawal indicates Washington maintains communication channels with M23 or its backers despite not formally recognizing the group in peace negotiations. This back-channel diplomacy may offer pathways for de-escalation but also highlights the complex web of relationships underlying eastern Congo’s conflicts.

For Uvira’s population, the withdrawal pledge offers hope for relief from violence but provides no certainty. Residents who fled during the offensive face difficult decisions about whether to return home or remain displaced, waiting to see if rebels actually depart and whether government forces can maintain control without triggering further fighting.

The broader humanitarian crisis, with 7 million displaced across eastern Congo, provides context for the Uvira offensive’s impact. Each new displacement wave adds to an already staggering population of people who have lost homes, livelihoods, and often family members to decades of conflict fueled by competition for mineral resources.

Eastern Congo’s mineral wealth—including coltan, gold, and other valuable resources—drives much of the violence as armed groups and their backers seek control over extraction and trade routes. Uvira’s strategic location makes it valuable not just militarily but economically, as whoever controls the city influences regional commerce.

The Trump administration’s warning about taking action against “spoilers” remains vague regarding specific consequences Rwanda might face for alleged peace deal violations. Whether Washington will impose sanctions, reduce aid, or pursue other punitive measures could determine whether diplomatic pressure successfully constrains the conflict or proves toothless rhetoric.

As the situation develops, the international community faces difficult choices about how to enforce peace agreements when signatories allegedly violate terms and excluded armed groups continue military operations. The M23 withdrawal pledge, if implemented, would represent progress, but the conditions attached and continued rebel presence suggest the path to lasting peace in eastern Congo remains uncertain and fraught with obstacles.

AP

Texas Woman Charged With Attempted Mayhem for Hiding Razor Blades in Walmart Bread

admin
-
0
Texas Woman Charged With Attempted Mayhem for Hiding Razor Blades in Walmart Bread

BILOXI, Miss. — A Texas woman was arrested Tuesday and charged with attempted mayhem after allegedly inserting razor blades into bread loaves at two Walmart stores in Biloxi, prompting authorities to urge anyone who purchased bread from the locations to immediately inspect their purchases.

Camille Benson, 33, was taken into custody following multiple customer reports of finding blades hidden in bread purchased from a Walmart Supercenter and a Walmart Neighborhood Market, Lt. Candace Young, a public information officer for the Biloxi Police Department, said. Benson is being held on $100,000 bond, both the Associated Press and New York Post confirmed.

The first incident occurred December 5 when a customer reported discovering a razor blade in a loaf purchased from the Walmart Supercenter, store employees told police. Three days later on December 8, another customer who bought bread at the Walmart Neighborhood Market made a similar discovery, the AP reported.

After a third customer lodged a complaint at the Supercenter on Sunday, employees conducted a thorough inspection of merchandise and uncovered several additional loaves that had been tampered with, law enforcement officials said. The police department received notification Monday.

Police released surveillance images of Benson on Tuesday and identified her as a person of interest before making the arrest, WTVA reported.

In a press release, the Biloxi Police Department urged all residents who purchased bread from either Walmart location to examine their loaves and report any findings to authorities. The department said it does not believe any other stores have been targeted.

“The health and safety of our customers is always a top priority,” Walmart said in a statement. “We have removed and thoroughly inspected all potentially affected products at impacted stores in Biloxi. We appreciate law enforcement for their swift action and will continue cooperating with them as they investigate.”

The retail giant instructed customers who purchased tampered products to immediately discard them and visit their local Walmart for a full refund.

The attempted mayhem charge Benson faces reflects the severity prosecutors assign to deliberate product tampering that could cause serious bodily harm. Razor blades concealed in food products pose extreme danger to unsuspecting consumers who could suffer severe cuts to their hands, mouths, or internal injuries if blades were ingested.

The incidents span nearly two weeks from the first reported discovery on December 5 through Sunday’s complaint that triggered the employee inspection revealing multiple compromised loaves. This timeline suggests the tampering occurred on multiple occasions rather than a single visit, raising questions about how Benson allegedly accessed the stores repeatedly without detection.

Mississippi law defines attempted mayhem as intentionally trying to cause permanent disfigurement or disablement, a charge typically reserved for violent assaults but applicable to product tampering cases where the potential for serious injury is clear. The $100,000 bond reflects judicial concern about the deliberate nature of the alleged actions and potential danger to the public.

Product tampering incidents have historically triggered widespread fear and prompted federal legislative action. The 1982 Tylenol poisonings, where seven people died after taking cyanide-laced capsules, led Congress to pass the Federal Anti-Tampering Act making it a federal crime to tamper with consumer products. While Benson faces state charges, federal prosecutors could potentially bring additional charges if they determine the tampering affected interstate commerce.

For Walmart, the incidents present both immediate safety concerns and potential liability exposure if customers suffered injuries from contaminated products. The company’s rapid response—removing and inspecting all potentially affected bread and cooperating with law enforcement—reflects standard crisis management protocols designed to minimize harm and demonstrate corporate responsibility.

The two affected Walmart locations serve Biloxi’s diverse residential and tourist populations along Mississippi’s Gulf Coast. The Supercenter and Neighborhood Market formats cater to different shopping needs but both stock fresh bakery items and packaged bread that would have been accessible to someone seeking to tamper with products.

Surveillance cameras ubiquitous in modern retail environments likely provided crucial evidence enabling police to identify Benson as a suspect. The images released Tuesday before her arrest suggest investigators had sufficient video footage to establish her presence at the stores during relevant timeframes and potentially capturing her tampering with merchandise.

What motivated Benson to allegedly hide razor blades in bread loaves remains unclear. Prosecutors have not suggested whether they believe the actions targeted Walmart specifically, aimed to harm random consumers, or stemmed from mental health issues. Her status as a Texas resident tampering with products in Mississippi stores raises additional questions about what brought her to Biloxi and whether similar incidents have occurred in other locations.

The December 5 through December 8 pattern, with the first two reported discoveries occurring at different Walmart locations three days apart, suggests possible escalation or experimentation with different stores. That no other retailers reported similar tampering indicates the suspect specifically targeted Walmart rather than engaging in random food contamination across multiple chains.

For customers who purchased bread from the affected stores during the relevant period, the warning to inspect purchases creates unsettling uncertainty about products already consumed. Families who bought bread in early December and have since eaten it face disturbing questions about whether they narrowly avoided injury or discarded compromised loaves without realizing the danger.

The swift arrest—occurring just one day after police received official notification Monday—suggests investigators quickly developed strong evidence linking Benson to the tampering. Whether she had been staying in Biloxi or traveled from Texas specifically remains unclear, though her out-of-state residence complicates potential motives for targeting Mississippi Walmart stores.

As Benson awaits legal proceedings on the attempted mayhem charge, the case serves as a reminder of vulnerabilities in retail food systems despite extensive security measures. While stores employ surveillance and staff monitoring, determined individuals can potentially access products long enough to tamper with them, creating risks that only become apparent when customers discover contamination.

The incidents also highlight the importance of customer vigilance and reporting. The three customers who discovered blades and notified store personnel or police enabled authorities to investigate, identify a suspect, and prevent potential additional tampering. Without these reports, contaminated products might have remained on shelves posing ongoing danger to shoppers.

AP/Nypost

Trump Administration Adds Nigeria, 19 Other Countries to Expanded Travel Ban

admin
-
0
Trump Administration Adds Nigeria, 19 Other Countries to Expanded Travel Ban

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced Tuesday it was adding Nigeria and 19 other countries to its travel restrictions list, doubling the number of nations whose citizens face limits on traveling to or emigrating to the United States in what critics characterize as collective punishment disguised as national security policy.

Nigeria joins 14 other countries facing new partial travel restrictions, while five additional nations and the Palestinian Authority now face full entry bans under the expanded policy. The announcement brings the total number of countries subject to Trump administration travel limitations to approximately 40.

The 15 countries added to the partial restrictions list are Nigeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Ivory Coast, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The administration imposed full travel bans on citizens of Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan and Syria, while also fully restricting travel for people holding Palestinian Authority-issued documents.

The move represents ongoing administration efforts to tighten U.S. entry standards for travel and immigration, expanding restrictions first announced in June when President Donald Trump resurrected a hallmark policy from his first term by banning citizens from 12 countries and imposing heightened restrictions on seven others.

People who already possess visas, hold lawful permanent resident status, or fall into certain categories such as diplomats or athletes, or whose entry serves U.S. interests remain exempt from the restrictions. Officials did not immediately clarify when the new limitations would take effect.

The administration justified its expansion by claiming many targeted countries have “widespread corruption, fraudulent or unreliable civil documents and criminal records” that complicate vetting citizens for U.S. travel. Officials also cited high visa overstay rates, countries’ refusal to accept deportees, and “general lack of stability and government control” as factors, along with immigration enforcement, foreign policy and national security concerns.

The expansion follows the arrest of an Afghan national accused in the Thanksgiving weekend shooting of two National Guard troops near the White House. That suspect has pleaded not guilty to murder and assault charges. Following the incident, the administration announced multiple immigration restrictions, including additional limits on people from the initial 19 countries already residing in the United States.

The June ban covered Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, with partial restrictions on Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. South Sudan already faced significant travel restrictions before Tuesday’s announcement.

The administration upgraded restrictions on Laos and Sierra Leone, previously on the partially restricted list, while easing some limitations on Turkmenistan, which officials said had improved enough to warrant relaxed measures. All other June restrictions remain in force.

The new Palestinian Authority restrictions expand earlier limitations imposed months ago that made it nearly impossible for Palestinian Authority passport holders to receive U.S. travel documents for business, work, tourism or educational purposes. Tuesday’s announcement goes further, banning Palestinian Authority passport holders from emigrating to the United States.

The administration said “U.S.-designated terrorist groups operate actively in the West Bank or Gaza Strip and have murdered American citizens” when justifying the Palestinian decision. Officials also claimed recent conflict in those areas “likely resulted in compromised vetting and screening abilities.”

“This expanded ban is not about national security but instead is another shameful attempt to demonize people simply for where they are from,” said Laurie Ball Cooper, Vice President of U.S. Legal Programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project.

The restrictions apply to both visitors seeking temporary travel and those attempting to emigrate permanently to the United States.

Nigeria’s inclusion on the partial restrictions list marks a significant development given the country’s status as Africa’s most populous nation and largest economy. The West African country maintains complex diplomatic and economic relationships with the United States, including cooperation on counterterrorism efforts against Boko Haram and other militant groups operating in the region.

The sweeping addition of 15 African nations to the restrictions list—including major economies like Nigeria, Tanzania, and Angola—suggests the administration is taking a continent-wide approach to immigration control rather than targeting specific security threats. This geographic concentration has prompted concerns about racial and regional bias underlying the policy.

For Nigeria specifically, the partial restrictions could affect thousands of citizens who travel to the United States annually for education, business, and family visits. Nigerian immigrants have established significant communities across American cities and contribute substantially to various professional sectors, particularly healthcare and technology.

The administration’s justification citing “fraudulent or unreliable civil documents” applies broadly to countries with varying levels of institutional capacity and governance challenges. Critics argue this reasoning provides cover for blanket restrictions that fail to account for individual circumstances or the reality that most travelers from these countries pose no security threat.

The doubling of countries facing restrictions, from approximately 20 to 40, represents one of the most aggressive expansions of travel limitations in modern American history. The scale suggests the administration views immigration control through a lens emphasizing exclusion over the traditional American narrative of welcoming immigrants.

The exemptions for diplomats, athletes, and those whose entry serves U.S. interests create a tiered system where elite travelers from restricted countries can still access America while ordinary citizens face barriers. This structure raises questions about whether security concerns genuinely drive the policy or whether it primarily targets working-class and middle-class travelers.

The timing of the expansion, following the National Guard shooting involving an Afghan suspect, illustrates how single incidents involving foreign nationals can trigger broad policy responses affecting millions of people from dozens of countries with no connection to specific security events.

For the 20 newly restricted countries, the announcement creates immediate uncertainty for citizens planning U.S. travel, students hoping to study at American universities, families separated across continents, and businesses relying on cross-border movement. The lack of clarity about implementation timelines compounds this uncertainty.

The Palestinian Authority restrictions carry particular political weight given ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the administration’s alignment with Israeli positions. The justification citing terrorist groups and compromised vetting reflects the administration’s framing of Palestinian governance as inherently security-threatening.

The upgraded restrictions on Laos and Sierra Leone, moving from partial to fuller limitations, suggest the administration views these countries as failing to meet its standards for cooperation or documentation reliability. Conversely, Turkmenistan’s improved status indicates some nations can escape restrictions through compliance with U.S. demands.

As the expanded restrictions take effect, they will likely face legal challenges from civil liberties organizations, affected individuals, and potentially some of the targeted countries themselves. Previous iterations of Trump travel bans generated extensive litigation before ultimately being upheld by the Supreme Court during his first term.

The announcement reinforces that immigration restriction remains a central pillar of Trump’s second-term agenda, with the administration willing to impose sweeping limitations affecting dozens of countries and millions of potential travelers in pursuit of what it characterizes as enhanced national security.

Source: AP

Zambia Parliament Passes Disputed Election Law Overhaul, Sending Bill to President for Assent

admin
-
0
Zambia Parliament Passes Disputed Election Law Overhaul, Sending Bill to President for Assent

Zambia’s National Assembly has approved a contested constitutional amendment that reshapes the country’s election framework and significantly expands parliamentary representation, forwarding the measure to President Hakainde Hichilema for assent amid sustained opposition criticism.

The legislation, formally known as the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025, raises the number of parliamentary constituencies from 156 to 211, a central objective lawmakers described as necessary to improve representation in a growing population. The bill cleared parliament with overwhelming support, Lusaka Times reported.

Government officials framed the measure as a modernization of Zambia’s democratic system, while opposition parties, church groups and civil society organizations warned the changes could tilt the political field in favor of the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) ahead of the August 2026 general election.

The bill initially proposed 13 constitutional amendments, though lawmakers dropped two of the most contentious clauses during debate. Parliament removed provisions that would have dissolved the legislature shortly before elections and required independent candidates to resign from political parties months before filing nomination papers.

Among the reforms retained is the introduction of a Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMPR) electoral system, intended to strengthen representation for women, youth and persons with disabilities. The bill also expands elected seats while allocating 40 positions to candidates from those groups, Citizens.digital reported.

Additional amendments lower the professional experience requirement for the Secretary to the Cabinet from 10 years to five, eliminate term limits for mayors and council chairpersons, and allow the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General to remain in office after elections until replacements are appointed. The legislation also revises local council composition to include Members of Parliament elected from constituencies.

During the second reading, 131 lawmakers voted in favor and two opposed. At the decisive third reading, all 135 members present supported the bill, with no abstentions.

Closing the debate, Justice Minister Princess Kasune described Bill 7 as more than a technical amendment. She said it represented “a covenant with the Zambian people aimed at inclusion, fairness, representation and strengthening democracy,” adding that the reforms were shaped by nationwide consultations, constitutional review processes, the 2025 Electoral Technical Committee Report, and international standards.

Opposition lawmaker Francis Kapyanga of the Patriotic Front (PF) rejected the bill, saying he would not “legitimise an illegality.”

The bill’s passage comes amid heightened political tensions in the southern African nation of about 22 million people. Disputes have extended beyond parliament to a standoff over the burial of former President Edgar Lungu, who died in South Africa in June. His family has refused to repatriate his body, objecting to President Hichilema presiding over the funeral.

Reacting to the vote, Makebi Zulu, a Lungu family spokesman and PF presidential hopeful, wrote on social media that “the struggle for democracy and respect for the rule of law begins in earnest today.”

President Hichilema, who is eligible to seek a second and final five-year term, acknowledged the bill had “tested” national unity but said the outcome of parliament’s vote must be respected.

The approval of Bill 7 marks one of Zambia’s most consequential constitutional changes in recent years, with implications that extend well beyond the next election cycle. Supporters argue the reforms correct long-standing representational imbalances, while critics warn that the timing and speed of passage risk eroding public trust.

With the bill now awaiting presidential assent, attention will turn to how the changes are implemented and whether legal challenges follow. As Zambia approaches the 2026 polls, the debate over Bill 7 underscores the fragile balance between institutional reform and political legitimacy in one of the region’s most closely watched democracies.

LusakaTimes/Citizen.digital

South Africa Engages Russia Over Citizens Allegedly Deceived Into Ukraine War

admin
-
0
South Africa Engages Russia Over Citizens Allegedly Deceived Into Ukraine War

South Africa’s government says it is holding sensitive talks with Russian authorities to secure the return of at least 17 South African men who were allegedly misled into joining Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, a case that has ignited political controversy and renewed scrutiny of foreign recruitment on the African continent.

Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla and her father, former South African president Jacob Zuma

Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the men are believed to be in grave danger after being drawn into Russian military units, adding that Pretoria’s efforts are focused primarily on engagement with Moscow rather than Kyiv.

“The process to retrieve those young men remains extremely sensitive,” Magwenya told reporters at a briefing Monday. “They are in a dangerous environment, facing serious risks to their lives, and discussions with Russian authorities are ongoing at the highest level.”

The government has said it received distress calls from the men on Nov. 6, triggering diplomatic intervention. Recruiting or assisting foreign military forces without government authorization is illegal under South African law, officials have noted.

Allegations Against Zuma’s Daughter

The case centers on allegations that Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, a daughter of former South African president Jacob Zuma, helped lure the men to Russia under false pretenses. Multiple lawsuits and police complaints accuse her of telling the recruits they would either receive bodyguard training for Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) political party or participate in a personal development program that could lead to education opportunities and citizenship in Russia.

The Guardian first reported that the group included 17 South Africans and two Botswanan nationals who traveled to Moscow in July via Dubai. Screenshots of WhatsApp groups titled “JHB-Russia Team” and “MK/Russia Mission,” shared with the newspaper by Democratic Alliance lawmaker Chris Hattingh, appeared to corroborate relatives’ accounts that the men later discovered they had been placed with Russian military units operating in eastern Ukraine.

One group member told The Guardian that he was with the Wagner group in the Donetsk region, contradicting earlier assurances that the recruits would not be sent to the front lines.

Zuma-Sambudla has denied knowingly exposing anyone to harm. In an affidavit cited by South African media, she said she herself had been deceived by another alleged recruiter, Blessing Khoza, into believing the program was a legitimate paramilitary training course. She later resigned as an MK member of parliament. Khoza and another accused recruiter, Siphokazi Xuma, could not be reached for comment.

Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, a daughter of former South African president Jacob Zuma

Families’ Anguish and Public Protests

Relatives of the men say communication has been sporadic and distressing. One mother, identified only as Mary to protect her family’s identity, told The Guardian she last heard from her son on Aug. 27, when he said he was being forced to sign a Russian-language military contract he did not understand.

“He was worried he was being sent to the frontlines,” she said. “Since then, it’s been silence.”

On Dec. 5, relatives and friends of the men staged a protest outside Durban City Hall, carrying signs calling for their safe return. An unnamed mother told South Africa’s public broadcaster SABC that the men were being mistreated and were “breaking down,” pleading daily to come home.

Political Fallout and Broader Context

The allegations have reverberated across South Africa’s political landscape, in part because of the Zuma family’s prominence and the country’s long-standing ties with Russia. The African National Congress, once led by Jacob Zuma, maintained close relations with Moscow dating back to Soviet support during the anti-apartheid struggle. Zuma later deepened those ties as president and was instrumental in South Africa joining the BRICS bloc in 2010.

Zuma-Sambudla has publicly expressed support for Russia, including a social media post on the day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. She is separately facing trial on charges of inciting violence related to unrest following her father’s imprisonment in 2021, charges she denies.

The scandal has also highlighted South Africa’s dire youth unemployment crisis, with more than 40% of people under 35 not in work or education, according to official figures. Analysts say such economic pressure has made young men particularly vulnerable to recruitment schemes promising opportunity abroad.

International Implications

Ukraine’s foreign minister said last month that more than 1,400 citizens from African countries are fighting alongside Russian forces, urging governments to warn their nationals against recruitment. In a separate case, five South Africans appeared in court on Dec. 1 on charges linked to recruitment for Russia’s war effort.

Magwenya said there was “no update” on when the stranded men might return. Russia’s embassy in South Africa and Botswana’s foreign ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

For families, the wait continues. “For someone they trusted to assure them they were not going to war, and then let them down like this,” Mary told The Guardian, “is something I will never understand.”

1...114115116...975Page 115 of 975