Home Blog Page 23

South Africa Migrant Deadline Sparks Deadly Unrest: 4 Killed as Thousands March

By
Zipporah Njoki
-
0

Thousands of demonstrators marched through South Africa’s major cities Tuesday as a deadline set by anti-immigration groups for undocumented migrants to leave the country took effect, triggering the largest wave of migration-related protests since deadly anti-foreigner violence swept the country in 2008, with at least four people killed and widespread reports of looting, vandalism, and forced evictions.

Police, backed by private security firms, deployed in large numbers across Johannesburg, Durban, and other cities amid fears that the protests, organized around a self-declared June 30 deadline that the South African government has explicitly rejected as unenforceable, could descend further into violence.

What We Know So Far

South African police confirmed that approximately 25,000 undocumented migrants, the majority from other African countries, have already been repatriated in the lead-up to Tuesday’s deadline, the BBC confirmed. Police separately said roughly 50,000 migrants have been arrested since January for being in the country without proper documentation.

The Ministry of Police described the demonstrations as largely peaceful nationwide, though it acknowledged isolated incidents of looting and attempted looting. In Johannesburg, the country’s financial capital, shops in the city center closed in anticipation of unrest, and police maintained a heavy visible presence on major thoroughfares.

Violence did break out in several areas. In Thembisa, a northern suburb of Johannesburg, rioters threw stones at police and at people suspected of being migrants, while sporadic gunfire was reported near the central business district, Reuters confirmed. 

In Benoni, in eastern Johannesburg, police deployed tactical vehicles and fired shots after facing a crowd of roughly 500 protesters, according to the Daily Maverick. In Soweto, the country’s largest township, protesters looted shacks belonging to foreign nationals, national broadcaster SABC reported, while police fired rubber bullets to disperse marches in Pietermaritzburg near Durban.

In Yeoville, a Johannesburg suburb home to many African migrants, some protesters threw bricks and broke windows of residential homes. In a Germiston neighborhood roughly 15 kilometers from Johannesburg, demonstrators reportedly went door to door, evicting residents suspected of being foreign nationals and handing them to police to have their documentation checked, according to local media accounts cited by the BBC.

Police confirmed five arrests connected to the alleged looting of a foreign-owned shop in Soweto, roughly ten additional arrests for looting in KwaZulu-Natal province, and separate arrests of a woman for assaulting a police officer and a man for intimidation following reports that a foreign national had been beaten.

Deputy National Commissioner for Policing Tebello Mosikili said 103 criminal cases had been opened against anti-foreigner vigilantes since March, Reuters confirmed, indicating that law enforcement has been actively pursuing cases against organized harassment campaigns predating Tuesday’s marches.

What Authorities And Protest Leaders Are Saying

President Cyril Ramaphosa met with leaders of several anti-migrant groups Monday night in an effort to defuse tensions ahead of the marches, urging peaceful demonstration while also acknowledging the legitimacy of public frustration over immigration enforcement.

“South Africans’ deep concerns about illegal immigration are real and they deserve to be heard,” Ramaphosa said in a statement Monday. “But the right to protest and freedom of expression does not allow people to threaten or intimidate others, or to engage in acts of vandalism or violence.”

In his weekly newsletter, Ramaphosa also defended the rights of foreign nationals living in South Africa legally. “Some foreign nationals who live in South Africa are here lawfully,” he wrote. “They work, study, raise families, invest in our economy and contribute positively to our society. They too are entitled to the protection of our laws and our Constitution.”

Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, leader of the anti-migrant group March and March, confirmed the movement intends to continue its campaign indefinitely. “For the next six months, we are asking for our national resources to be used to take the illegal immigrants out of this country. From building to building, they must go,” she said in Durban, according to Reuters. Ngobese-Zuma has previously declined to accept responsibility for sporadic violence connected to the marches, telling Reuters in an earlier interview that the organization “cannot be in every single community telling them how to behave.”

Ngizwe Mchunu, another protest leader, told the Associated Press that illegal immigration was responsible for a proliferation of illicit drugs in the country and argued that informal neighborhood shops currently run by African immigrants should be owned exclusively by South Africans. “It is time for our government to put South Africa first,” Mchunu said.

Protester Bongani Cindi rejected the characterization of the movement as xenophobic. “Our country has got a lot of problems. We have an influx of illegal immigrants who are committing crimes that we can’t even take anymore. So we need them to leave us in peace, so we can sort our house. We are not fighting anyone,” he said.

A demonstrator affiliated with Operation Dudula, another prominent anti-migrant group, told the BBC that protesters intended to “push the police to do their job” if undocumented migrants did not leave voluntarily.

Why This Matters

The protests have exposed deep and unresolved tensions in post-apartheid South Africa, a country that built its modern political identity partly on Nelson Mandela’s vision of pan-African solidarity and human rights, but that now faces persistent unemployment exceeding 30 percent and rising public anger directed disproportionately at foreign nationals.

Social scientists have repeatedly found that claims linking immigrants to job losses, rising crime, and strained public services lack strong empirical support, even as those claims continue to drive political mobilization. South Africa’s documented foreign national population stands at approximately three million people, or roughly four percent of the total population, a relatively modest share by international standards. The precise number of undocumented migrants in the country remains unknown, a gap that protest organizers have specifically cited as central to their grievances.

Reuters noted that politicians across the spectrum have been accused of amplifying anti-migrant sentiment ahead of local elections expected by November, raising concerns that electoral incentives are reinforcing rather than restraining xenophobic rhetoric at a moment when restraint is most needed.

The human cost of the unrest has extended well beyond South Africa’s borders. The exodus of migrants fleeing the protests and the broader climate of intimidation has triggered a wave of repatriation efforts across the African continent. Nigeria has evacuated approximately 632 of more than a thousand citizens who registered for voluntary return, with additional flights expected in the coming days, according to Nigerian officials. Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe have similarly organized repatriation efforts by air and bus. Approximately 7,000 Malawians have already returned home, according to Malawian media.

Emmanuella Akagbosun, a Nigerian woman who had lived in South Africa since 2017, described fleeing for her safety after the shop she shared with her sister was ransacked and looted by anti-migrant protesters. “We are not safe, so we had to leave,” she said after arriving in Lagos.

In Durban, where some of the largest protests took place, approximately 100 Congolese migrants were reported sleeping on the streets after being forced from their housing, with their community leader saying they had been chased out by landlords acting preemptively out of fear that their buildings would be targeted for vandalism.

The African Centre for Migration and Society’s Xenowatch tracker has recorded two deaths from xenophobic violence so far this year, a figure that predates Tuesday’s protests and the additional fatalities reported during the demonstrations themselves. The current unrest follows the catastrophic 2008 wave of anti-foreigner rioting, in which more than 60 people were killed nationwide, establishing the grim historical benchmark against which Tuesday’s protests are now being measured.

South African officials have noted that comparable immigration tensions exist in Western nations, often fueled by similarly divisive political rhetoric and misinformation, framing South Africa’s crisis as part of a broader global pattern rather than an isolated phenomenon.

What Happens Next

March and March has announced plans to continue weekly demonstrations for the next six months until its demands are met, signaling that Tuesday’s protests represent the opening phase of a sustained campaign rather than a single event.

Thousands of police remained deployed across affected cities, with the military placed on standby, a military spokesperson confirmed. Whether law enforcement can contain further violence as the weekly marches continue will be a critical test of the government’s capacity to balance the right to protest against the safety of foreign nationals who remain in the country.

Transit camps housing migrants awaiting repatriation continued winding down operations in Durban, where white tents primarily housing Malawian nationals were being dismantled as authorities worked to process remaining cases. Additional evacuation flights from Nigeria, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe are expected in the coming days as the exodus continues.

For migrants like Nelson Mbewe, a Malawian who described being targeted with the xenophobic slur “makwerekwere,” the practical reality has become one of resignation rather than resistance. “It’s their country, so what can we do? That’s why we have accepted that we just have to unwillingly go back home,” he told the BBC.

Others expressed hope that the current crisis would not permanently fracture relationships across the continent. Hassan Phiri, a Malawian still awaiting processing for repatriation, offered a different message entirely. “All I want to say to South Africans is that we are all one. Africa can’t be Africa without South Africa, without Malawi, without anywhere. So whatever will happen, we must love each other and stick together as Africa,” he told the BBC.

Whether that sentiment can withstand six more months of organized weekly demonstrations, continuing repatriation flights, and an electoral calendar that gives politicians incentive to harden rather than soften their rhetoric, remains the central question hanging over South Africa as Tuesday’s deadline passes into a longer and more uncertain chapter.

Reuters/AP/BBC

Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to End Birthright Citizenship

By
Omonigho Daibo
-
0

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that children born on American soil are citizens at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status, delivering a decisive six to three defeat to President Donald Trump’s effort to reinterpret one of the Constitution’s most settled provisions and ending, for now, his administration’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship through executive order.

The ruling marked the second time this year the court has struck down a major Trump initiative, following its February decision invalidating his sweeping global tariffs.

What We Know So Far

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts grounded the decision in more than a century of settled constitutional interpretation, anchored by the court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which recognized that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese national parents was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Associated Press confirmed.

“Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power,” Roberts wrote. “We see no reason to depart from that view today.”

Roberts was direct in dismissing the administration’s central legal argument. He said there was scant evidence supporting what he called the Trump administration’s dramatically revisionist interpretation of the citizenship clause. “If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design,” he wrote, according to Reuters.

The chief justice closed the opinion with language that framed the ruling in broader civic terms. “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights, to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land. We keep that promise today.”

Three conservative justices dissented and would have allowed Trump’s restrictions to take effect, though the order itself had never actually been implemented anywhere in the country, having been blocked by multiple lower courts since shortly after Trump signed it.

The case, formally captioned Trump v. Barbara, arose from a challenge filed in New Hampshire, where the American Civil Liberties Union represented individual plaintiffs, including infants who would have been directly affected by the executive order, NBC confirmed.

Trump signed the order on his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, as part of a broader immigration enforcement agenda. The order stipulated that, beginning 30 days after its effective date, children born in the United States would not be entitled to citizenship documents if their parents had entered the country illegally or were undocumented. 

The restrictions also extended to children of parents legally present on a temporary basis, including students and applicants for green card status, meaning the policy’s reach went well beyond Trump’s typical rhetorical focus on illegal immigration.

Multiple federal district court judges ruled the order unconstitutional in the months following its signing, and two federal appellate circuit courts separately upheld injunctions blocking it from taking effect, CNBC confirmed. Every court that examined the order ruled against the administration.

Trump attended the oral arguments in April in person, becoming the first sitting president in American history to appear at Supreme Court arguments for a case directly challenging his own executive action.

What Authorities Are Saying

The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, was adopted specifically to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved Black Americans, though its text was written in broader and more universal terms. The clause states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The Trump administration’s legal position rested on a narrow reading of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” arguing that children born to noncitizen parents, particularly those present illegally or temporarily, did not meet that jurisdictional threshold and were therefore excluded from automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation outright, affirming the position taken by every lower court that had previously reviewed the order.

Trump reacted to the ruling with the same sharp personal criticism he has directed at the court following other adverse decisions this year. He had previewed his frustration in advance on Truth Social, criticizing what he called “dumb judges and justices” and specifically targeting wealthy pregnant women traveling from China and elsewhere to give birth in the United States in order to secure American citizenship for their children.

Following the court’s February ruling striking down his global tariffs, Trump said he was “ashamed” of the justices who ruled against him and described them as unpatriotic, language that set the tone for how he has responded to judicial setbacks throughout his second term, even from a court whose conservative majority has ruled in his favor on most other major disputes.

Why This Matters

The scale of the policy that was struck down was substantial. Research from the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute estimated that more than a quarter of a million babies born in the United States each year would have been directly affected by Trump’s order had it taken effect, a population spanning children of undocumented immigrants, visa holders, international students, and green card applicants alike.

The ruling represents a meaningful boundary on a presidency that has otherwise pushed executive authority further than most of its predecessors, often with judicial backing. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump himself, has generally taken an expansive view of presidential power and has ruled in Trump’s favor in the majority of cases testing that authority during his second term. 

Birthright citizenship and the February tariffs ruling stand as the two clearest exceptions, both involving attempts to use executive authority to override constitutional text or congressional statute rather than to reorganize existing executive branch functions.

That distinction matters for understanding the court’s reasoning. The justices have shown a consistent willingness to expand presidential control over agencies, personnel, and administrative functions. 

They have shown far less tolerance for executive attempts to unilaterally reinterpret constitutional guarantees or override clear statutory text, areas where the court appears to view its own institutional role as the final word.

The ruling also reaffirms the durability of Wong Kim Ark as binding precedent. That 1898 decision has anchored American citizenship law for more than 125 years, and Tuesday’s ruling makes clear that any future effort to restrict birthright citizenship through executive action alone will face the same constitutional barrier. 

Altering the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause would require either a constitutional amendment or, at minimum, a Supreme Court willing to overturn more than a century of settled precedent, a path the current court explicitly declined to take.

For the families directly affected, particularly immigrant communities living with uncertainty about their children’s legal status, the ruling provides definitive legal clarity. Children born in the United States remain citizens at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status, with the narrow historical exceptions of children born to foreign diplomats and those born to members of an occupying foreign force remaining intact.

What Happens Next

Tuesday’s ruling closes the legal chapter on this particular executive order. With the Supreme Court having affirmed the lower court injunctions and definitively rejected the administration’s constitutional argument, there is no further judicial avenue for the administration to pursue the order as written.

Whether the Trump administration attempts to pursue birthright citizenship restrictions through legislative means, by seeking a constitutional amendment, or by introducing narrower administrative changes that do not directly contradict Tuesday’s ruling, remains to be seen. Any legislative path would require congressional action that has shown no clear signs of having sufficient support to proceed.

The ruling also serves as a marker for how the current Supreme Court approaches the broader pattern of executive power claims that have characterized Trump’s second term. 

With birthright citizenship and the global tariffs case now both resolved against the administration, attention turns to how the court will handle the remaining body of litigation testing the limits of presidential authority over immigration, federal employment, and other areas where Trump has moved aggressively since returning to office in January 2025.

For now, the constitutional guarantee that has applied to nearly everyone born on American soil since 1868 remains exactly as it was before Trump’s order was ever signed.

AP/Reuters/NBC

Morocco Knocks Out Netherlands on Penalties for Historic World Cup Victory

By
Simeon Bateren
-
0

Morocco advanced to the Round of 16 of the 2026 FIFA World Cup on Monday after defeating the Netherlands 3 to 2 in a penalty shootout following a 1 to 1 draw through extra time, ending the Dutch campaign with the earliest men’s World Cup exit in the country’s history.

Goalkeeper Yassine Bounou delivered the decisive moment in the shootout by stopping Crysencio Summerville’s penalty before Ismael Saibari calmly converted the winning kick to send Morocco into the next round.

The victory sends Morocco to Houston, where it will face co host Canada on Saturday for a place in the quarterfinals.

The result also continues Morocco’s remarkable rise on the international stage after becoming the first African nation to reach a World Cup semifinal in 2022.

With the shootout level at 2 to 2 after four rounds, Bounou dived to his left to push away Summerville’s penalty. Moments later, Saibari struck his effort low into the left corner beyond goalkeeper Bart Verbruggen, who guessed the wrong direction.

Saibari celebrated by tearing off his shirt before being embraced by teammates as Moroccan supporters erupted inside Estadio BBVA.

Earlier in the shootout, Verbruggen appeared to have denied Soufiane Rahimi’s penalty. However, the ball slipped behind the goalkeeper and crossed the goal line, allowing Morocco to stay level.

“We know that when we give everything on the pitch, we are rewarded,” Morocco coach Mohamed Ouahbi said. “We gave all our energy. Rahimi’s penalty almost stayed out, but fortunately it crossed the line.”

Morocco had controlled long stretches of the match and created the better scoring opportunities, while the Netherlands relied largely on counterattacking.

The Dutch appeared to be heading into the Round of 16 after Cody Gakpo gave his side the lead in the 72nd minute.

Summerville delivered a low cross that Gakpo redirected into the net before collapsing to the ground in tears. His teammates surrounded him in an emotional celebration after the Liverpool forward recently revealed that he and his partner, Noa van der Bij, had lost their unborn child.

Morocco refused to surrender.

Deep into stoppage time, substitute Chemsdine Talbi floated a cross into the penalty area where Issa Diop rose above the defense to power a header past Verbruggen in the 91st minute, forcing extra time.

Morocco nearly completed the comeback moments into the additional period when Soufiane Rahimi broke through on goal after a brilliant individual run. Verbruggen produced an outstanding save to keep the Netherlands alive.

Neither team managed another clear opportunity during the remainder of extra time, setting the stage for the tournament’s second penalty shootout.

Earlier Monday, Paraguay eliminated Germany in another shootout, making it the second knockout match of the day to be decided from the penalty spot.

The Netherlands entered the tournament as one of the favorites after reaching at least the Round of 16 in each of its previous 11 World Cup appearances. The Dutch also reached the quarterfinals four years ago.

Instead, Ronald Koeman’s side became the first major football power eliminated in the Round of 32 of the expanded tournament.

Koeman acknowledged the disappointment after substitute Justin Kluivert, introduced partly because of his reputation from the penalty spot, failed to convert during the shootout.

“I brought Justin on because he is one of our best penalty takers,” Koeman said. “When he misses, it makes the disappointment even greater for him and for all of us.”

The defeat marked the third consecutive World Cup elimination for the Netherlands in a penalty shootout.

Morocco entered the match ranked sixth in the FIFA world rankings, one place ahead of seventh ranked Netherlands, making it the highest ranked pairing in the Round of 32.

Ouahbi said his players have developed the belief needed to compete with the world’s elite.

“Morocco has earned everyone’s respect,” he said. “Nobody is unbeatable. If we perform at our best, we can compete with anyone.”

The contest reflected that confidence from the opening whistle.

Neil El Aynaoui nearly opened the scoring in the first half before Verbruggen made a sharp reflex save, while Achraf Hakimi also forced the Dutch goalkeeper into another difficult stop with a powerful long range effort.

The Netherlands enjoyed more possession but struggled to create meaningful chances until Wout Weghorst entered as a substitute and helped launch the move that led to Gakpo’s goal.

Morocco’s persistence ultimately proved decisive as Diop’s late equalizer shifted the momentum before Bounou emerged as the hero in the shootout.

The result reinforces Morocco’s growing status among football’s leading nations. Far from being viewed as an underdog after its historic semifinal appearance in 2022, Morocco demonstrated tactical maturity, defensive resilience and mental composure under pressure against one of Europe’s traditional powers. 

The victory also highlights the increasing competitiveness of global football, where established teams can no longer rely on history or reputation to progress through the knockout stages.

What we know so far

Morocco defeated the Netherlands 3 to 2 in a penalty shootout after the teams finished level at 1 to 1 through extra time. Ismael Saibari scored the winning penalty after goalkeeper Yassine Bounou saved Crysencio Summerville’s spot kick.

What authorities are saying

Morocco coach Mohamed Ouahbi praised his team’s determination and belief, saying the players earned the victory through their effort and discipline. Netherlands coach Ronald Koeman expressed disappointment after another World Cup campaign ended in a penalty shootout.

Why this matters

The victory sends Morocco into the Round of 16 and extends the nation’s impressive run as one of world football’s emerging powers. For the Netherlands, the defeat marks the earliest men’s World Cup elimination in the country’s history and raises fresh questions about the team’s ability to deliver in knockout matches.

What happens next

Morocco will face Canada in Houston on Saturday with a place in the quarterfinals at stake. The Netherlands exits the tournament and is expected to begin reviewing its performance following another painful World Cup elimination from the penalty spot.

Morocco’s success was built on patience, defensive organization and confidence in high pressure moments. While the Netherlands controlled periods of possession, Morocco consistently created the more dangerous chances and showed remarkable resilience by scoring in stoppage time before holding firm through extra time. 

Bounou’s leadership and composure once again proved decisive, further strengthening his reputation as one of the world’s finest goalkeepers in tournament football.

The Dutch, meanwhile, face renewed scrutiny after suffering a third consecutive World Cup exit in a penalty shootout, suggesting psychological resilience may be as significant a challenge as tactical execution.

Story sources: The Associated Press, ESPN, Press Association and Al Jazeera

Paraguay Eliminates Germany on Penalties in Biggest Upset of 2026 World Cup

By
Simeon Bateren
-
0

Paraguay produced the biggest shock of the 2026 FIFA World Cup on Monday, eliminating four time champion Germany in a dramatic penalty shootout after a 1-1 draw through extra time to advance to the Round of 16.

Defender Jose Canale converted the decisive penalty in sudden death after goalkeeper Orlando Gill made two crucial saves during the shootout, sealing a 4-3 victory on penalties for the South American side.

The result marked Paraguay’s first World Cup knockout victory since the 2010 tournament and ended Germany’s hopes of reclaiming the title for the first time since lifting the trophy in 2014.

Julio Enciso gave Paraguay the lead late in the first half before Kai Havertz equalized early in the second half for Germany. Neither side managed to score during extra time despite several clear opportunities.

“We analyzed every player and every detail,” Gill said after the victory. “Because of that preparation, I only failed to stop two penalties. This is for all the people of Paraguay.”

Ranked 34th in the FIFA rankings, Paraguay entered the match as one of the tournament’s biggest underdogs against 12th ranked Germany, a nation that has won four World Cup titles.

Paraguay will face the winner of Tuesday’s Round of 32 match between France and Sweden in the Round of 16 on Saturday in Philadelphia. Victory there would send the team to the quarterfinals.

“I think we deserved another match after everything we have been through,” Canale said. “The most important thing about this team is how united we are. Today we showed our true character.”

Germany had entered the match with one of football’s strongest penalty shootout records, having won six of its previous seven shootouts in major international tournaments and never before losing a World Cup shootout.

Instead, the Germans became the first traditional football powerhouse to be eliminated in the expanded tournament’s Round of 32.

Paraguay struck first in the 42nd minute with a swift attacking move that caught Germany’s defense off balance.

Miguel Almiron threaded a pass between two defenders to Matias Galarza, whose cross found an unmarked Enciso. The forward headed the ball past veteran goalkeeper Manuel Neuer to give Paraguay a surprise halftime advantage.

Germany responded quickly after the restart.

Florian Wirtz delivered a dangerous cross into the penalty area, where Havertz glanced a header beyond Gill in the 52nd minute to level the match.

Germany dominated possession throughout much of the contest, controlling 78 percent of the ball during the opening half, but struggled to create clear scoring opportunities against Paraguay’s disciplined defensive formation.

The Germans believed they had completed the comeback during extra time when Jonathan Tah headed home from a corner in the 102nd minute.

However, a Video Assistant Referee review ruled out the goal after officials determined that Waldemar Anton had fouled Gill before the header crossed the line.

Gill continued to frustrate Germany with a series of outstanding saves, including a late stop from Anton and another acrobatic save to deny Havertz as the match headed to penalties.

The shootout delivered even more drama.

Germany appeared on the verge of elimination after Havertz and Nick Woltemade failed to convert their attempts. Paraguay then missed two opportunities to secure victory when Antonio Sanabria failed to score and Neuer saved Fabian Balbuena’s effort.

The momentum shifted again when Tah blasted Germany’s final penalty over the crossbar, allowing Canale to calmly convert the winning kick and spark celebrations among the Paraguayan players and supporters.

For Germany, the defeat extended a difficult period in World Cup competition. After winning the title in 2014, the team failed to advance beyond the group stage in the next two tournaments before suffering another disappointing early exit.

“We had very big plans for this World Cup,” Havertz said. “It is very difficult to disappoint again. We struggled to create chances and maintain our rhythm.”

Paraguay, meanwhile, celebrated one of the greatest victories in the nation’s football history. The South Americans had failed to score in each of their previous five World Cup knockout matches and had advanced only once before, defeating Japan on penalties in the Round of 16 in 2010 before losing to eventual champion Spain in the quarterfinals.

Monday’s victory also avenged Paraguay’s 1-0 defeat to Germany in the Round of 16 at the 2002 World Cup, ending nearly a quarter century of frustration against the European power.

The result reinforces one of the defining themes of the expanded 2026 World Cup, where emerging football nations have narrowed the competitive gap with traditional giants. Paraguay’s disciplined defending, tactical organization and composure under pressure demonstrated that tournament success is no longer determined solely by history or world rankings. The upset also serves as a reminder that knockout football often rewards resilience and efficiency over possession and attacking dominance.

What we know so far

Paraguay defeated Germany 4-3 in a penalty shootout after the teams finished level at 1-1 following extra time. Julio Enciso scored for Paraguay, Kai Havertz equalized for Germany, and Jose Canale converted the winning penalty after goalkeeper Orlando Gill made two decisive saves.

What authorities are saying

Paraguay players credited detailed preparation and team unity for the historic victory. Germany players acknowledged their disappointment after another early World Cup exit, with Havertz admitting his side struggled to create enough scoring opportunities.

Why this matters

The victory represents Paraguay’s biggest World Cup triumph in more than a decade and eliminates one of football’s most successful nations. It also highlights the growing competitiveness of the expanded tournament, where traditional powers face increasingly difficult paths through the knockout rounds.

What happens next

Paraguay advances to the Round of 16, where it will face the winner of France against Sweden in Philadelphia. Germany exits the tournament, prompting renewed questions about the future direction of one of international football’s most decorated national teams.

Paraguay’s victory was built on tactical discipline rather than sustained attacking pressure. Despite controlling possession for long periods, Germany struggled to break down a compact defensive structure and paid the price for missed opportunities in front of goal. Orlando Gill’s performance may prove to be one of the defining goalkeeping displays of the tournament, while Germany’s third consecutive disappointing World Cup campaign is likely to intensify scrutiny of its player development, tactical approach and ability to perform under knockout pressure.

Story sources: The Associated Press and ESPN

Supreme Court Rejects Trump Appeal in E. Jean Carroll $5M Verdict

By
Omonigho Daibo
-
0

 The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant legal defeat Monday, refusing to hear his appeal of a jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in a New York department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and later defamed her when he publicly denied the allegation.

The court declined the case in a brief, unexplained order, as is customary when the justices turn away an appeal. There were no noted dissents, meaning the 2023 jury verdict now stands as final on that question.

What We Know So Far

The ruling closes Trump’s last avenue of challenge to the verdict from the first Carroll trial, in which a Manhattan federal jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan welcomed the outcome in direct terms. “Today’s Supreme Court decision affirms once and for all the jury’s unanimous verdict that President Donald J. Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll,” she said in a statement. “His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed and today’s ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions.”

Trump reacted sharply on social media, calling the court’s decision “surprising” and vowing to keep fighting. “This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be,” he wrote. 

A spokesman for his legal team described the ruling as part of what he called Democrat-funded witch hunts, NBC confirmed.

Carroll first made her allegations in 2019 and filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump the same year after he publicly called her a liar. A second lawsuit followed in 2022 under a New York state law designed to assist survivors of sexual assault from years past. 

That second case, which included post-presidency defamation claims, was the first to reach trial and was the case the Supreme Court declined to review Monday, the Associated Press confirmed.

Trump’s legal team had argued that Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan made a series of evidentiary errors that unfairly boosted Carroll’s case. 

Specifically, Trump’s lawyers contested the judge’s decision to allow testimony from two other women, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who separately accused Trump of sexual misconduct, as well as the admission of the Access Hollywood tape. Trump has denied all three women’s allegations.

Carroll’s lawyers countered that the evidence was properly admitted because it spoke to Trump’s alleged prior conduct and pattern of behavior.

 They also noted that the New York-based Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the verdict in 2024, found that the evidentiary decisions were not a determining factor in sustaining the jury’s findings.

A separate $83.3 million defamation verdict awarded to Carroll by a different jury after a second trial remains under appeal. Trump’s legal team is arguing that those claims should be dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

Trump has successfully challenged other major legal judgments. A New York civil fraud penalty of more than $500 million was thrown out by a New York appeals court, and the Supreme Court granted him broad immunity from criminal prosecution in 2024.

Monday’s Carroll ruling, however, represents a setback that his own lawyers appeared not to expect, given Trump’s characterization of the court’s decision as “surprising.”

What The Court And Legal Experts Are Saying

The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its refusal, which is standard practice when the justices decline to take up a case. The absence of any noted dissent suggests no justice believed the case merited further review.

Carroll’s attorney noted that every court that has examined the evidentiary questions Trump raised on appeal has rejected his arguments. “This question is not worthy of review,” Kaplan had written in urging the justices to pass on the case.

Trump’s attorney Justin Smith, who argued in court filings that the verdict amounted to “mistreatment of a President” that “cannot be allowed to stand,” has since been nominated by Trump to serve as a federal appeals court judge.

Why This Matters

Monday’s Supreme Court action, taken on the same day the court handed down several other consequential rulings, carries significance on multiple levels.

The most immediate is legal finality. The $5 million Carroll verdict is now permanent. Trump’s broader effort to use the appellate process to defer, delay, or erase accountability for the jury’s findings has run its course on this particular verdict.

The broader context is the pattern of Trump’s legal strategy across multiple fronts. His administration has aggressively tested the limits of executive power since returning to office in January 2025, and the Supreme Court has been a central arena for resolving those challenges.

 On the same day it closed the door on the Carroll appeal, the court issued a landmark ruling expanding presidential authority to fire leaders of certain independent agencies, overturning a precedent dating to 1935. It also blocked Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, ruling five to four that he had failed to follow legally required procedures.

Together, Monday’s rulings produced a mixed picture for a president who has pushed legal boundaries consistently and broadly since his return to power. The expansion of firing authority over executive agencies was a significant victory. The Carroll ruling and the Cook decision were setbacks.

For Carroll, who first brought her allegations to public attention in 2019 and has pursued her legal case through multiple trials, appeals, and nearly six years of litigation, Monday’s ruling is the capstone of a process she initiated against one of the most powerful figures in the world. The jury’s finding that Trump sexually abused her, now affirmed as final by the highest court’s refusal to disturb it, will remain part of the permanent public record regardless of what happens in the separate $83.3 million defamation case still making its way through the courts.

What Happens Next

The $83.3 million defamation verdict from the second Carroll trial remains in active litigation. Trump has argued those claims should be dismissed on presidential immunity grounds, an argument that will now proceed through the federal court system without the benefit of any Supreme Court intervention on the earlier case to bolster his legal position.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up Monday’s case sets no binding precedent on the immunity or evidentiary questions Trump raised, since the court’s denial of review is not a ruling on the merits. 

However, it does remove the possibility of a high court decision that might have reshaped how lower courts handle the remaining defamation claims.

Trump said he would fight the Carroll cases “with all of my power and strength.” His legal team has consistently framed the litigation as politically motivated. Carroll and her attorneys have consistently maintained that the jury heard the evidence, reached its conclusion, and that every subsequent court to review that conclusion has upheld it.

That record now includes the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

AP/Reuters

6 Dead in Shooting at Youth Welfare Center in Northern Germany as Suspected Gunman Arrested

By
Zipporah Njoki
-
0

Six employees of a youth welfare facility were killed Monday in a shooting in the northern German town of Stade, where investigators believe a child custody dispute triggered one of the country’s deadliest shootings in recent years.

Police arrested the suspected gunman shortly after the attack and said there was no continuing threat to the public.

Authorities initially confirmed five deaths before announcing that a sixth victim died later in a hospital after suffering critical injuries.

The victims included four women and two men, all of whom worked at the youth welfare center or one of its affiliated services, police said during a news conference.

Several other people were injured, some seriously, although investigators have not released an exact number or identified the victims.

Police identified the main suspect as a 45 year old German man.

Investigators said the attack appears to have been motivated by an ongoing custody dispute involving the suspect’s three month old daughter. The infant and her mother were inside the facility when the shooting occurred but were not injured.

Kathrin Schuol, chief constable of the Luneburg Police Headquarters, said detectives are continuing to reconstruct the sequence of events while gathering forensic evidence and witness testimony.

Daniela Behrens, interior minister for the German state of Lower Saxony, described the shooting as “an extremely cold blooded act of violence.”

“The police are investigating the motive and the exact course of events under high pressure,” Behrens said, adding that investigators believe the attack was apparently linked to a custody dispute rather than any political or economic motive.

A spokesperson for the public prosecutor’s office said no arrest warrant had yet been issued because investigators were still completing the initial stages of the criminal investigation.

Police said the suspect was arrested while attempting to flee in a vehicle driven by a woman who was also taken into custody. Early findings indicate the driver is either a family member or an acquaintance of the suspect.

Authorities also confirmed that additional individuals were temporarily detained as part of the investigation, although police have not detailed their possible involvement.

The shooting occurred inside a youth welfare facility on Dankersstrasse, south of Stade’s town center. The center provides temporary accommodation and support services for pregnant women and young mothers with children.

City Councillor Carsten Brokelmann said the violence unfolded near both a day care center and a primary school.

“We are relieved that our staff and the children at the day care center and primary school are safe,” Brokelmann said. “At the same time, our deepest sympathies go out to the victims of this terrible act and their families.”

Images and video from the scene showed a large deployment of police officers, ambulances and other emergency personnel on the residential street as investigators secured the area.

Resident Vitali Mertens, who lives across from the facility, said he heard multiple gunshots before emergency responders arrived.

“I heard gunshots, and the whole area was cordoned off right away,” Mertens said.

Police had earlier warned residents to avoid the neighborhood while officers conducted what they described as a major operation. Later in the day, authorities announced there was no longer any danger to the public.

Investigators also urged people to avoid spreading rumors after unverified claims about the shooting circulated widely on social media and messaging platforms.

“The accounts currently circulating do not correspond to the facts confirmed by police,” authorities said, warning that misinformation could create unnecessary panic and interfere with the investigation.

Stade, home to about 50,000 people, is located roughly 25 miles west of Hamburg in northern Germany.

Germany maintains some of the strictest firearm regulations in Europe, and fatal mass shootings remain relatively uncommon. Nevertheless, the country has experienced several high profile attacks over the past two decades, prompting ongoing debate about public safety, mental health interventions and gun access.

Although investigators believe this attack stemmed from a personal dispute rather than terrorism or organized crime, the incident underscores the potential risks faced by employees working in family welfare and child protection services. Experts say custody disputes can become highly volatile, making security planning and threat assessment increasingly important at facilities that assist vulnerable families.

What we know so far

Six employees of a youth welfare facility were killed after a gunman opened fire inside the center in Stade. Several others were injured. Police arrested the suspected shooter shortly after the attack and said there is no ongoing threat to the public.

What authorities are saying

Investigators believe the shooting was motivated by a child custody dispute involving the suspect’s infant daughter. Officials said there is no evidence the attack was politically or economically motivated. Police continue to examine the exact sequence of events and have appealed to the public not to circulate unverified information online.

Why this matters

The shooting ranks among Germany’s deadliest incidents of gun violence in recent years. It highlights the dangers that can arise from escalating domestic disputes and raises renewed attention to security measures at child welfare facilities that serve vulnerable families.

What happens next

Police and prosecutors will continue interviewing witnesses, reviewing forensic evidence and determining whether additional charges should be filed. Investigators are also expected to examine the suspect’s background, firearm access and actions leading up to the attack before presenting the case to prosecutors.

While Germany’s strict gun laws have contributed to comparatively low levels of firearm violence, this tragedy demonstrates that isolated acts of targeted violence continue to pose significant challenges. The apparent connection to a custody dispute suggests authorities may face renewed calls to strengthen risk assessments and protective measures for family service agencies, particularly in cases involving escalating domestic conflicts. The investigation’s findings could influence future security protocols for social service institutions across Germany.

Story sources: Deutsche Welle, The Associated Press.

One Dead, Another Critically Injured in Shooting at San Jose World Cup Fan Zone Venue

By
Simeon Bateren
-
0

 One person was killed and another was critically injured in a shooting Sunday at San Pedro Square, a popular entertainment district in downtown San Jose that has served as a gathering place for FIFA World Cup fans, authorities said.

San Jose police said officers responded to reports of gunfire and found two victims suffering from gunshot wounds.

One victim died at the scene, while the second was taken to a local hospital with life threatening injuries.

“This incident is being investigated as a homicide,” the San Jose Police Department said in a statement posted on X. “Several surrounding streets are closed in the area.”

Authorities did not immediately release the identities of the victims or provide information about a possible suspect or motive.

The shooting occurred at San Pedro Square, one of several locations across the San Francisco Bay Area designated as official fan gathering sites where large crowds have assembled throughout the World Cup to watch matches on giant outdoor screens.

Officials noted that no World Cup match was being shown when the shooting occurred. The day’s only tournament game had ended several hours earlier.

A Reuters journalist at the scene observed a significant police response, including multiple patrol vehicles and emergency personnel. Investigators cordoned off the area while officers collected evidence and interviewed witnesses.

The journalist also witnessed emergency responders transporting a person on a stretcher that was partially covered with a white sheet away from the scene.

Following the shooting, authorities closed surrounding streets and most restaurants and bars in the immediate area suspended operations while investigators processed the crime scene.

A security guard who witnessed the aftermath said the surviving victim appeared to have sustained severe injuries.

“The person was still moaning and groaning. There was blood around his neck and upper back,” the security guard said, declining to be identified because she was not authorized to speak publicly. “Police were talking to security and a couple of witnesses.”

The Bay Area has welcomed thousands of football supporters throughout the tournament and has hosted five World Cup matches, including a recent knockout round contest between Bosnia and the United States.

Dozens of designated fan zones have operated across the region, drawing large crowds for public screenings and related entertainment events.

Investigators have not indicated whether the shooting was connected in any way to World Cup activities, and there was no immediate evidence suggesting the victims had been attending a football related event before the violence occurred.

Law enforcement agencies are expected to review surveillance video from nearby businesses and interview additional witnesses as they work to determine what led to the shooting. Authorities have urged anyone with information to contact investigators.

What we know so far

Two people were shot Sunday at San Pedro Square in downtown San Jose. One victim died at the scene, while the other remains hospitalized with life threatening injuries. Police have classified the case as a homicide investigation.

What authorities are saying

San Jose police said detectives are actively investigating the shooting and have closed several streets surrounding the crime scene. Officials have not announced any arrests or identified a suspect.

Why this matters

The shooting occurred at one of the Bay Area’s most popular public gathering places during the FIFA World Cup, raising renewed concerns about public safety at large entertainment venues. Although the incident did not occur during a match broadcast, it unfolded at a location closely associated with tournament celebrations.

What happens next

Detectives will continue collecting forensic evidence, reviewing surveillance footage and interviewing witnesses to determine the circumstances surrounding the shooting. Authorities are expected to release additional details as the homicide investigation progresses.

The incident highlights the security challenges that accompany major international sporting events, even when violence is unrelated to the competition itself. Fan zones and entertainment districts often attract thousands of visitors, requiring heightened coordination between law enforcement, venue operators and event organizers. The findings of the investigation could influence security planning for future large scale public gatherings in the Bay Area.

Story source: Reuters.

Pakistani Airstrikes Kill 36 Civilians in Afghanistan as Border Conflict Intensifies

By
Omonigho Daibo
-
0

At least 36 civilians were killed and more than 160 others were wounded in overnight Pakistani airstrikes in eastern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Monday, while Pakistan said its military operation targeted militant hideouts along the shared border following a series of deadly attacks inside its territory.

The latest exchange marked another sharp escalation between the neighboring countries, whose relations have deteriorated in recent months amid repeated cross border military operations and failed diplomatic efforts to restore calm.

Afghanistan’s Taliban administration accused Pakistan of carrying out strikes against civilian areas and condemned the attacks as an act of aggression.

Hamdullah Fitrat, deputy spokesman for the Taliban government, said Pakistani forces first struck a home in the Chamkani district of Paktia province, killing an elderly man and a child and injuring several members of the same family.

He said residents rushed to the scene to rescue survivors before another strike hit the gathering, killing 28 villagers and wounding 158 others.

According to Fitrat, another strike targeted a home in Giyan district in Paktika province, where six people, most of them women and children, were killed.

He added that a separate strike hit a civilian home in Kunar province, causing no human casualties but killing about 30 livestock.

Pakistan presented a sharply different account of the military operation.

Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said Pakistani security forces carried out coordinated ground operations along the border late Sunday before launching strikes against what he described as militant hideouts and safe havens.

Tarar said the operation killed 29 militants and was conducted in response to multiple attacks carried out by armed groups inside Pakistan.

The Pakistani operation followed an attack on the regional headquarters of the paramilitary Rangers in Karachi that killed three soldiers.

Pakistan’s military said security forces killed three attackers and arrested another suspect, who it identified as an Afghan national. Officials said the suspect was wounded during the operation.

Jamaat ul Ahrar, a faction that split from the Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan, claimed responsibility for the Karachi assault.

Pakistan has faced a steady rise in attacks targeting police officers, soldiers and security installations in recent years. Authorities have consistently blamed the Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan and allied militant groups for much of the violence.

Although the Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan operates separately from Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers, the two groups maintain ideological and historical ties, an issue that has remained a major point of tension between Islamabad and Kabul.

Sunday’s military operation came less than three weeks after Pakistan launched another series of airstrikes against locations it identified as militant bases inside Afghanistan.

Those strikes ended roughly a month of relative calm following an earlier period of heavy fighting that Pakistani officials described as an open war between the neighboring countries.

The conflict has intensified despite repeated diplomatic efforts to reduce hostilities.

Since February, hundreds of people have been killed in cross border clashes after Afghanistan launched retaliatory strikes following earlier Pakistani air attacks.

Several rounds of negotiations have failed to produce a lasting ceasefire.

China also sought to mediate the dispute by hosting talks between Pakistani and Afghan representatives in April. Beijing later announced that both sides had agreed to avoid further escalation and continue pursuing a political solution, though the latest violence has cast doubt on the durability of those commitments.

Military analysts say the continuing exchanges underscore the increasingly fragile security situation along one of Asia’s most volatile frontiers. The persistence of militant attacks inside Pakistan, combined with cross border military operations and competing narratives from both governments, has complicated efforts to restore stability. Continued escalation could also heighten humanitarian concerns for border communities and increase pressure on regional powers seeking to prevent a wider conflict.

What we know so far

Afghan officials said Pakistani airstrikes killed at least 36 civilians and injured more than 160 people in Paktia, Paktika and Kunar provinces. Pakistan said its forces targeted militant positions and killed 29 fighters during coordinated ground and air operations.

What authorities are saying

Afghanistan’s Taliban government condemned the strikes as an act of aggression and accused Pakistan of targeting civilians. Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said the military operation was a response to recent militant attacks inside Pakistan, including an assault on the Rangers headquarters in Karachi.

Why this matters

The latest violence deepens an already volatile conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan, raising concerns about regional stability, civilian safety and the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts to prevent a broader confrontation. The continued exchange of military operations also threatens to undermine border security and counterterrorism cooperation.

What happens next

Investigations into the civilian casualties are expected to continue as both governments maintain conflicting accounts of the operation. Diplomatic pressure is likely to increase as regional partners seek to prevent further military escalation and revive negotiations aimed at securing a lasting ceasefire.

The latest cross border strikes illustrate the widening gap between military objectives and diplomatic efforts in the Pakistan Afghanistan relationship. While Pakistan argues that militant sanctuaries require direct action, Afghanistan’s accusations of civilian casualties risk fueling public anger and making future negotiations more difficult. Unless both governments establish credible mechanisms for security cooperation and independent verification of border incidents, the cycle of retaliation is likely to continue, increasing instability across the region.

Story sources: The Associated Press.

Aramco Helicopter Crash Kills 14 on Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Coast

By
Omonigho Daibo
-
0

Fourteen Saudi nationals were killed Sunday when a helicopter operated by state oil giant Aramco crashed near the coastal city of Ras Tanura, prompting authorities to launch an investigation into one of the country’s deadliest aviation accidents involving the energy sector in recent years.

Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy said everyone aboard the helicopter died in the crash, which occurred at about 6 a.m. local time near Ras Tanura on the Kingdom’s eastern Gulf coast.

Officials did not immediately identify the victims or disclose the helicopter’s destination, mission or the number of crew members and passengers on board beyond confirming that all 14 victims were Saudi nationals.

The Saudi Press Agency said the cause of the crash remains unknown.

“The relevant authorities have launched a full investigation to determine the cause of the crash,” the agency said.

Emergency responders were dispatched to the crash site, while investigators began examining the wreckage and collecting evidence to determine what caused the aircraft to go down.

Aramco, the world’s largest oil producer and a company majority owned by the Saudi government, has not released additional details about the circumstances surrounding the accident.

The crash occurred near Ras Tanura, one of Saudi Arabia’s most important oil export terminals on the Gulf. The area plays a central role in global energy supplies because of its extensive petroleum production and export infrastructure.

The fatal accident comes at a time of heightened tension across the Gulf region following recent conflict involving Iran that disrupted shipping routes and contributed to higher global oil prices.

In recent weeks, Aramco has adjusted parts of its export operations to reduce reliance on the Strait of Hormuz, redirecting some crude oil shipments through pipeline infrastructure as a precaution against potential disruptions to maritime traffic.

Authorities have not indicated whether the helicopter crash was connected in any way to regional security concerns, and no evidence has been presented suggesting foul play.

Aviation specialists say investigations into helicopter crashes typically examine multiple factors, including aircraft maintenance records, weather conditions, pilot communications, operational procedures and any available flight data before determining a probable cause. Officials have not provided a timeline for completing the investigation.

The incident is expected to renew attention on aviation safety within the energy industry, where helicopters are routinely used to transport workers, inspectors and executives between industrial facilities, offshore platforms and remote operating sites.

What we know so far

An Aramco helicopter crashed near Ras Tanura on Saudi Arabia’s eastern coast at about 6 a.m. local time. All 14 people aboard were Saudi nationals and died in the accident. Officials have not identified the victims or determined the cause of the crash.

What authorities are saying

Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy confirmed the fatalities, while the Saudi Press Agency said investigators have opened a full inquiry to establish what caused the helicopter to crash. No preliminary findings have been released.

Why this matters

The accident occurred in one of the world’s most strategically important oil producing regions. Although there is no indication that the crash is linked to regional tensions, it comes as energy markets remain sensitive to disruptions in Gulf oil transportation following recent instability affecting the Strait of Hormuz.

What happens next

Investigators will examine the wreckage, maintenance records, operational history and other evidence to determine the cause of the crash. Authorities are expected to release additional information as the investigation progresses and families of the victims are formally assisted.

The timing of the crash is likely to draw increased international attention because it occurred during a period of heightened geopolitical uncertainty in the Gulf. While officials have not suggested any connection between the accident and regional security developments, incidents involving transportation assets operated by one of the world’s largest energy companies often receive close scrutiny because of their potential implications for industrial safety and energy infrastructure resilience. Any recommendations emerging from the investigation could influence operational procedures for helicopter transportation throughout the region’s oil and gas industry.

Story sources: Saudi Press Agency, Asharq Al Awsat and The Associated Press.

11 Killed After Skydiving Plane Crashes Near Nancy in Northeastern France

By
Zipporah Njoki
-
0

 Eleven people were killed Sunday when a skydiving aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff near the northeastern French city of Nancy, authorities said.

The aircraft, operated by a parachuting school, went down near the Nancy Essey airfield in the town of Tomblaine, killing the pilot and all 10 passengers on board. Officials said the victims included five student skydivers and five instructors.

Regional officials said the aircraft crashed at about 11 a.m. local time in the immediate vicinity of the airport in the Meurthe et Moselle department.

Yves Seguy, the regional prefect, said the aircraft appeared to suffer damage before plunging almost vertically to the ground in a built up area near a shopping center.

“Just a few meters in another direction and the accident could have caused additional casualties,” Seguy told broadcaster BFM.

Despite the crash occurring near commercial properties, authorities confirmed that no one on the ground was injured.

Emergency crews responded quickly, securing the scene and assisting relatives who had gathered at the airfield. Psychological support teams were deployed to help family members and witnesses affected by the tragedy.

Police closed off the area surrounding the airport and urged the public to stay away while emergency operations and the investigation continued.

France’s Interior Ministry said the interior minister was traveling to the crash site to oversee the government’s response and meet with local officials.

Authorities have begun collecting witness statements and examining the wreckage to determine what caused the aircraft to crash. Prosecutors have also opened an investigation, though no immediate conclusions have been announced.

The aircraft had departed from Nancy Essey airfield and was being used for parachute training when the accident occurred.

The identities of the victims have not yet been released pending notification of their families.

France has experienced several fatal light aircraft accidents in recent years, though crashes involving aircraft carrying skydiving students remain relatively uncommon. Aviation investigators are expected to examine maintenance records, weather conditions, flight data and eyewitness accounts as they work to establish the sequence of events that led to the crash.

The accident has sent shockwaves through France’s skydiving community, where training flights routinely carry both instructors and students. Safety experts note that investigations into crashes involving small aircraft often take months as investigators analyze mechanical, operational and human factors before issuing final findings and any recommendations aimed at preventing similar tragedies.

What we know so far

A skydiving aircraft crashed shortly after taking off from Nancy Essey airfield near Tomblaine in northeastern France. All 11 people aboard, including the pilot, five student skydivers and five instructors, died. Authorities confirmed there were no injuries among people on the ground.

What authorities are saying

Regional Prefect Yves Seguy said the aircraft appeared to sustain damage before falling almost vertically. Emergency responders secured the area, provided assistance to victims’ families and began gathering witness accounts. The French interior minister traveled to the scene as investigators launched an inquiry into the crash.

Why this matters

The crash ranks among France’s deadliest aviation accidents involving a civilian training aircraft in recent years. It raises fresh questions about flight safety and operational procedures for aircraft used in parachuting activities while underscoring the importance of thorough accident investigations to improve aviation safety.

What happens next

Investigators will examine the aircraft wreckage, maintenance history, weather conditions and witness testimony to determine the cause of the crash. Officials are expected to release additional information as the investigation progresses and victims’ families are formally notified.

Story sources: The Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, citing Agence France Presse.

1...222324...987Page 23 of 987