NEWS

The findings come as Robert F Kennedy Jr advances plans to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ under President Donald Trump.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States has released the summary of a new survey confirming that ultra-processed foods make up a majority of Americans’ caloric intake.

The study, published on Thursday, involved tracking the meals and snacks of Americans from August 2021 to August 2023.

During that period, 55 percent of the calories consumed by Americans came from ultra-processed foods, according to a mean calculated by the survey authors.

That number was even higher for younger people involved in the study. Youths ranging from age one to 18 reported that nearly 62 percent of their diet was highly processed. That number dipped to 53 percent among adults over age 19.

Ultra-processed foods are common and can take a variety of forms, from pre-packaged snacks, frozen foods and bottled soda drinks.

But Thursday’s findings are likely to add fuel to a campaign under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr to reform the US diet, as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” campaign (MAHA).

Just one day before the latest CDC numbers were published, Kennedy used his social media account to once again blame high-calorie, processed foods for a variety of ailments.

“Genes don’t cause epidemics. They may provide a vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin — and we know what it is. It’s sugar and ultra-processed foods,” Kennedy wrote on the platform X on Wednesday.

Studies have repeatedly shown links between highly processed foods and detrimental health conditions like obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Kennedy, however, has been criticised for seeking “environmental toxins” to explain conditions like autism, which researchers largely believe to result from a variety of factors, including genetic ones.

Thursday’s survey results are part of a long-running study tracking what American adults and children eat and drink on a daily basis through interviews, body measurements and laboratory testing.

Known as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the study has its limitations: Interviews rely on self-reported food consumption, for instance.

But its origins stretch back to the 1960s, and since 1999, the study has continued without interruption, according to the CDC. About 5,000 people take part each year.

In the latest edition of the survey, researchers found that income played a significant role in how much ultra-processed foods were consumed per household. High-income groups corresponded with lower mean percentages of highly processed foods consumed.

This was particularly pronounced among adults. For those whose salaries were equivalent to 3.5 times the federal poverty level or more, a mean of 50.4 percent of their diet was comprised of processed foods.

That number rose to 54.7 percent for those whose incomes were slightly above, at or below the federal poverty level.

The survey also identified the primary culinary culprits behind Americans’ consumption of highly processed foods.

Sandwiches, including burgers, were the highest source of ultra-processed foods, comprising 7.6 percent of the calories consumed by youth and 8.6 percent for adults. Sweet bakery foods were the next highest category, at 6.3 percent for minors and 5.2 percent for adults.

Sweetened beverages and savoury snacks were also prominent sources of calories.

But the study did contain some positive news, showing that the mean consumption of ultra-processed foods had decreased.

In the survey period from 2013 to 2014, adults consumed a mean of 55.8 percent of their calories from highly processed items. But by the current period, that number slid to 53 percent.

Gaza health authorities say nearly 200 people, including 96 children, have died of hunger in Gaza, as the starving population battles against the odds to get food from dangerous airdrops and deadly aid hubs run by the GHF.

As Israel’s man-made famine under the ongoing blockade tightened its grip on the enclave, hospitals recorded four more deaths from “famine and malnutrition” on Thursday – two of them children – bringing the total to 197.

Amid the mounting death toll, World Health Organization (WHO) director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned that about 12,000 children younger than five were suffering from acute malnutrition in July – the highest monthly figure ever recorded.

The scenes in Gaza City are “apocalyptic”, said Al Jazeera’s Ibrahim al-Khalili, with hundreds of people scrambling for scraps from aid pallets airdropped among the rubble of destroyed buildings.

“Here the fight is not over food, but for survival,” he said.

Mustafa Tanani, a displaced Palestinian at the scene, said that some of the food had failed to land and was “hanging up high” between the buildings, making it “too risky” to try to reach. “It’s like a battle here. We come from far away and end up with nothing,” he said.

“Everyone is carrying bags of aid, and we don’t even manage to get anything. The planes are dropping aid for nothing. Look where they threw it. Up there, between the buildings. It’s dangerous for us,” he said.

Children at risk

Two children died of hunger in Gaza on Thursday, including a two-year-old girl in the al-Mawasi area, according to Nasser Hospital.

Raising the alarm over chronic child malnutrition, the United Nations said that its partners were able to reach only 8,700 of the 290,000 children under age five who desperately needed food and nutritional supplements.

Amjad Shawa, the head of the NGO Network in Gaza, told Al Jazeera Arabic that at least 200,000 children in the Gaza Strip suffer from severe malnutrition, with many deaths caused by a lack of baby formula and nutritional supplements under Israel’s blockade, in place since March.

Gaza’s Government Media Office said that only 92 aid trucks entered the enclave on Wednesday, far less than the 500-600 that the United Nations estimates are needed daily to meet basic needs.

Most of the aid that did make it in was prevented from reaching its intended recipients due to widespread “looting and robbery”, as a result of “deliberate security chaos” orchestrated by Israel, said the office.

‘Orchestrated killing’

As the hunger crisis deepened, Doctors Without Borders, better known by its French-language acronym MSF, called for the closure of the notorious US- and Israeli-backed GHF, which runs deadly aid hubs where more than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed trying to reach food.

The NGO published a report on Thursday featuring testimony from front-line staff that Palestinians were being deliberately targeted at the sites, which they said amounted to “orchestrated killing and dehumanisation”, not humanitarian aid.

MSF operates two healthcare centres – al-Mawasi and al-Attar clinics – in direct proximity to GHF sites in southern Gaza, which received 1,380 casualties within seven weeks, treating 71 children for gunshot wounds, 25 of whom were under the age of 15.

“In MSF’s nearly 54 years of operations, rarely have we seen such levels of systematic violence against unarmed civilians,” said the report.

MSF patient Mohammed Riad Tabasi told Al Jazeera he had seen 36 people killed in the space of 10 minutes at a GHF site. “It was unbearable,” he said. “War is one thing, but this … aid distribution is another. We’ve never been humiliated like this.”

Deadly strikes

As the population battled for survival, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News his country intended to take military control of all of Gaza.

On Thursday, Israel continued to launch deadly air strikes on residential areas, killing at least 22 people.

In Deir el-Balah, Al Jazeera’s Tareq Abu Azzoum reported that a strike on the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza killed five civilians.

An attack on the municipality of Bani Suheila, east of southern Gaza’s Khan Younis city, killed at least two people, according to a source from Nasser Hospital.

Six others were killed in earlier attacks in the Khan Younis area. One child died while attempting to retrieve airdropped aid there.

In northern Gaza’s Jabalia, at least one person was killed, according to a local medical source.

Palestine’s Wafa news agency reported several deadly attacks in Gaza City, one targeting a tent in the city’s Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood that killed at least six people.

The second attack targeted a separate residential area in the city, killing a woman and injuring others, said Wafa.

“Israel’s military escalation continues without any sign of abating. And civilians are still bearing the brunt of this conflict,” said Abu Azzoum.

Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 61,258 people.

Families and supporters of the Israelis held captive by Hamas sailed toward the Gaza coast to warn against a ground invasion of the strip. They tossed swim rings as a symbolic life saver for their loved ones, who they say would be hurt by a ground assault.

Rushanara Ali has resigned as Homelessness Minister, Downing Street has confirmed.

The move comes after she was accused of hypocrisy over the way she handled rent increases on a house she owns in east London.

There were calls for her to step down from homelessness charities and opposition politicians.

In a letter to the prime minister she has said that remaining in the role would be “a distraction from the ambitious work of this Government”.

In a story first broken by the The i Paper, four tenants who rented a house owned by Ali in east London were sent an email in November giving them four months’ notice their lease would not be renewed.

However, the property was re-listed shortly after they moved out, at a rent £700 a month higher.

Tory Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake accused Ali of “staggering hypocrisy” over the handling of the property but Ali’s spokesman said she “takes her responsibilities seriously and complied with all relevant legal requirements”.

In a letter to the prime minister, Ali wrote: “It is with a heavy heart that I offer you my resignation as a minister.”

Insisting that “at all times I have followed all relevant legal requirements” she added: “I believe I took my responsibilities and duties seriously, and the facts demonstrate this.

“However, it is clear that continuing in my role will be a distraction from the ambitious work of the government.

“I have therefore decided to resign from my Ministerial position.”

Responding to her resignation, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer thanked her for her work, which he called “diligent”.

The PM praised her work to repeal the Vagrancy Act and added: “I know you will continue to support the Government from the backbenches and represent the best interests of your constituents in Bethnal Green and Stepney.”

A source close to Ali said the previous fixed-term contract had been ended because the house was being put up for sale and the tenants had been told they could stay on a rolling basis while the house was on the market, but they had chosen to go.

The house was put on the market in November 2024 with an asking price of £914,995 but was reduced in February by £20,000 and the i Paper said it was only re-listed as a rental because it had not sold.

The government’s Renters’ Rights Bill is in its final stages in Parliament, and will ban landlords re-listing a property for rent, if they have ended a tenancy in order to sell, for six months.

Landlords must also give four months’ notice when the legislation is passed, which is not expected to be until at least next year.

London Renters Union spokesperson Siân Smith said Ali’s actions were “indefensible” and she “must step down” due to a “clear conflict of interest” with the Bill in its final stages.

Ali had to give up part of her ministerial portfolio in October last year, when she came under fire for her attendance at a conference linked to the parent company of one of the firms heavily criticised in the recent Grenfell inquiry.

Giving up her duties managing building safety and the government’s response to the Grenfell Tower fire, she said she was relinquishing her building safety brief because “perception matters”.

Welcoming her resignation, a Liberal Democrat spokesperson said: “Rushanara Ali fundamentally misunderstood her role.

“Her job was to tackle homelessness, not to increase it.

“At a time of widespread political disillusionment, her actions were staggeringly irresponsible and only added insult to injury after years of delay for renters’ rights reform under the Conservatives.”

The ring light in Amina Yusuf’s* room stood near an old white wardrobe. For months, it remained unused, except during the occasional recordings where she mimed along to Hausa love songs, glancing between her phone screen and the mirror at the other side of the room. These moments were fleeting, unsure steps in her experiment with social media, particularly TikTok.

But when the news came that Facebook had rolled out monetisation features for content creators in Nigeria, something stirred. Opportunity, like the sudden spark of light, loomed and offered a new possibility. Not fame, no – at least not yet – but fortune, or its illusion.

“As soon as I heard about it,” she said, fiddling with the edge of her veil, “I knew this was a way to earn from what I was already doing.”

She speaks with the assurance of someone who has discovered a private economy within a public world. Amina converted her dormant Facebook profile, once used to scroll aimlessly through posts and video reels, into a professional page. She followed every breadcrumb Facebook’s interface dropped: optimize your bio, post consistently, engage followers, and cross-promote from Instagram. Soon enough, the app crowned her eligible for monetisation.

And that’s when her trouble began.

In this algorithmic marketplace, virality is currency. With 190 thousand followers on Facebook, her reach was growing – thousands of views, shares, and comments flooding her posts. Amina’s strategy was simple: find trending TikTok videos and repost them. It didn’t matter whether the videos were true or false, informative or inflammatory.

“My job is just to share,” she said. “It’s the viewer’s responsibility to figure out if it’s true or not.”

“Sometimes I earn between 10 to 15 dollars a day,” she said, not with pride, but a sense of surprise. “That’s a lot of money for someone like me. I even paid my school fees with it.”

As a university student in Northern Nigeria, where classrooms are overcrowded, lectures often suspended, and lecturers underpaid, she says her digital hustle has made her richer than her lecturers.

“I earn more than them,” she said plainly. “Imagine that.” She referenced how recently a university professor revealed the dire professional conditions they find themselves in.

To digital rights activists and fact-checkers, Amina is not just a clever student seizing a modern opportunity. She is part of a growing ecosystem that profits from confusion. What she calls content, they call misinformation. Monetised misinformation.

Facebook’s monetisation in Africa, especially in Nigeria and particularly in the northern part of the country, has become a double-edged sword. On one hand, it democratizes income in a region that ranks high in poverty rate. On the other hand, it rewards spectacle, sometimes at the expense of truth. Sensational headlines, recycled conspiracy theories, emotional hoaxes: these are the new exports of a digital continent eager to be seen, eager to be paid.

Amina does not deny this. But she also does not apologise.

“I don’t make the videos,” she said. “I just share what people have already posted. If it makes people comment and watch, that’s all I need.”

Her profile on Facebook is a mixture of different videos – politics, religion, celebrity gossip, football, and everything that may generate engagements. Among this, is the amplification of information disorder originally shared by the creators of the videos. 

For example, in a Facebook post that garnered over 60 shares, she amplified a false claim that Osun State Governor Adeleke had announced Babagana Zulum would spearhead the defection of five Northern governors to the new coalition of ADC. Despite the claim being publicly debunked, the post is still on her profile.

An algorithm designed for outrage

By design, Facebook’s algorithm privileges intensity over integrity. According to the platform’s own documentation, content that provokes strong emotional reactions – anger, fear, shock– is more likely to spread. For many users in Northern Nigeria, where Facebook doubles as both a social space and a news source, this has created a chaotic digital environment where engagement is currency and accuracy is often overlooked.

“Facebook isn’t just a platform here,” said Bashir Sharfadi, a journalist based in Kano. “It’s the main source of news for millions. So when influencers post fake news, the impact is immediate and vast.”

A 2020 report by the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) West Africa, revealed that most of the viral posts flagged by Nigerian fact-checkers in the previous year originated from influencers who directly benefited from Facebook’s financial incentives. The rewards are tangible and tempting.

One such influencer, who regularly posts unverified videos to nearly a million followers, put it plainly: “It’s about engagement, not content.” He explained how influencers operate in coordinated communities, often through WhatsApp groups, sharing what trends, what triggers reaction. “The only reason we avoid some kinds of content, like nudity, is religious. But many others still post that too.”

The more scandalous the claim, the greater the traffic. And with traffic comes income.

But Sharfadi warns that the crisis goes beyond the individual pursuit of profit. It has become institutional: a digital ecosystem where misinformation is normalised, defended, and scaled.

“Our biggest challenge isn’t detecting lies,” he said. “It’s competing with the incentives that come with spreading them.” 

But Sharfadi has more concerns. People believe misinformation and they don’t care even after it is fact-checked.

In one recent case, a TikTok video targeting an activist named Dan Bello was re-edited and republished across Facebook and WhatsApp. Dan Bello is a popular Hausa vlogger with millions of followers on Facebook, TikTok, and X, posting mainly on accountability in governance.

The manipulated clip, falsely portrayed Dan Bello as ‘an enemy of Islam’ supporting an attack on Muslim clerics by showing him raising thumbs up on an audio attached to the video. It gained massive traction. The result: a popular cleric condemned Dan Bello publicly, sparking backlash that lingered even after the video was proven to be doctored.

“Even when the cleric apologised, people still believed he had been threatened into doing so,” said Sharfadi. “The damage had already been done.”

Another case involved one Sultan, a TikTok influencer known for posting commentary on current events. During the recent Israeli-Iran conflict, he claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was hiding in a bunker, near death. The clip was later manipulated to feature an image of Nigeria’s President Tinubu and circulated widely.

Sultan is now in jail.

“He was arrested in Kano for something he never did,” posted his lawyer on Facebook. “There was no investigation. No effort to verify. Just a swift response to digital noise.”

The story of Sultan is a portrait of a system where the line between user-generated content and criminal liability is dangerously blurred.

Who bears the burden?

In response to the growing crisis, Meta—Facebook’s parent company—has recently taken down and demonetised dozens of accounts for violating its content policies. But enforcement remains scattershot.

One influencer interviewed for this report admitted to receiving multiple warnings. Yet his account remains active and profitable.

About what caused a restriction on his account, he admitted, “I know it’s wrong, but if I stop, someone else will do it. So what’s the point?”

Critics argue that Facebook’s moderation policies are inconsistent and reactive. Content flagged in English may be removed, while misinformation in Hausa, spoken by tens of millions, is often overlooked.

“What we see is a system where the platform benefits, the influencers benefit, and the public suffers,” Sharfadi said. “It’s not just about demonetization. It’s about influence. These pages, with their massive followings, can be rented. You pay, they publish whatever narrative you want.”

The commodification of disinformation has taken root. Several influencers are now operating as pay-for-post vendors, spreading political propaganda and conspiracy theories on demand.

Fact-checkers like Muhammad Dahiru believe that Facebook must go beyond machine learning and invest in people—moderators fluent in local languages and cultures, equipped to flag false content in real time.

“We need language-specific moderation, especially in Hausa, which is the lingua franca in Northern Nigeria,” Muhammad said. “Otherwise, misinformation will remain the most profitable game in town.”

He added, “There must be accountability. Either platforms police themselves, or governments will do it for them. And when governments control speech, history reminds us what follows.” Muhammad believes the work against misinformation is shared responsibility  “between the government, Facebook, and civil society organisations.” 

For now, Northern Nigeria’s digital public is left to sort through a feed where facts and falsehoods blend seamlessly, where a student like Amina can pay tuition with profits from misinformation, and an activist like Dan Bello can be condemned for something that never happened.

The asterisked name is a pseudonym we have used at the source’s request to protect her against backlash.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick forecasts the revenue increase even as Trump announces higher pharma and semiconductor chip levies, which have yet to kick in.

The United States expects to bring in at least $50bn a month from tariffs as higher levies on imports from dozens of countries begin to kick in.

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Thursday outlined the forecasted revenue, an increase of $20bn from last month, when tariffs brought in $30bn.

“And then you’re going to get the semiconductors, you’re going to get pharmaceuticals, you’re going to get all sorts of additional tariff money coming in,” Lutnick said in an interview with Fox Business Network.

US President Donald Trump’s higher tariffs on imports from dozens of countries took effect on Thursday, raising the average US import duty to its highest in a century, with countries facing tariffs of 10 percent to 50 percent.

Trump on Wednesday also announced plans to levy a tariff of about 100 percent on imported semiconductor chips unless manufacturers commit to producing in the US, as well as a small tariff on pharmaceutical imports that would rise to 250 percent over time.

Details of those sectoral tariffs are expected in the coming weeks after the Commerce Department completes investigations into the impact of those imports on US national security.

Lutnick told Fox Business Network that companies could win exemptions from the expected semiconductor tariff if they filed plans to build plants in the US, and those plans were overseen by an auditor.

“[Trump’s] objective is to get semiconductor manufacturing done here,” he said, predicting that the initiative would result in some $1 trillion in investment to bolster domestic manufacturing.

Other exemptions have already been agreed, including with the European Union, which said its agreement to accept a 15 percent tariff on most EU exports includes chips, and with Japan, which has said the US agreed not to give it a worse rate than other countries.

The push to boost domestic chip manufacturing is not new.

The US Congress created a $52.7bn semiconductor manufacturing and research subsidy programme in 2022 under former President Joe Biden, and all five leading-edge semiconductor firms agreed last year to locate chip factories in the US.

Last year, the Commerce Department said the US produced about 12 percent of semiconductor chips globally, down from 40 percent in 1990.

Lutnick, asked about separate talks under way with China on extending a tariff truce that is due to end on August 12, said he felt an agreement was possible.

“I think we’re going to leave that to the trade team and to the president to make those decisions,” he said. “It feels likely that they’re going to come to an agreement and extend that for another 90 days, but I’ll leave it to that team.”

Manchester United are on the verge of signing Slovenian international striker Benjamin Sesko from RP Leipzig.

Manchester United have agreed a deal worth up to 85 million euros ($99m) to sign striker Benjamin Sesko from RB Leipzig, according to multiple reports in England.

United will reportedly pay an initial 76.5 million euros ($89m) for the 22-year-old with a further 8.5 million euros ($9.9m) due in add-ons.

Newcastle United were also interested in signing the Slovenian, possibly to replace wantaway star Alexander Isak, a target for Liverpool.

However, Sesko has been wooed by the enduring stature of the 20-time English champions, despite a lack of European football in the coming season.

His arrival will complete an overhaul of the Red Devils’ blunt attack.

Only four other teams scored fewer than United’s 44 goals in 38 Premier League games last season as the English giants endured their worst campaign for 51 years, finishing 15th in the table.

Matheus Cunha and Bryan Mbeumo were signed earlier in the window, taking United’s total spend on forwards in recent months to more than 200 million pounds ($268.6m).

Sesko had also previously been linked with Arsenal after impressing during his two-year spell in Germany, where he scored 39 times in 87 appearances for Leipzig, including 21 last season.

Standing 1.95 metres (6ft 4ins) tall, Sesko’s towering physique, electric pace and eye for goal have earned comparisons with Manchester City’s Erling Haaland.

Like Haaland, he also made his name at RB Salzburg before moving to Germany in 2023.

United are banking on Sesko realising his abundant potential to fire them back into contention at the top of the Premier League table.

Between them, Sesko, Cunha and Mbeumo combined for 58 goals last season.

The massive outlay on their arrivals needs to bear fruit quickly, with United under pressure to meet financial sustainability rules, especially without the revenue of European football this season.

Nine players from treble-winning Paris Saint-Germain have been nominated for the men’s Ballon d’Or this year, along with the club’s coach Luis Enrique, as France Football announced its list of nominees.

Ousmane Dembele, Gianluigi Donnarumma, Desire Doue, Achraf Hakimi, Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, Nuno Mendes, Joao Neves, Fabian Ruiz and Vitinha are all on the list of 30 players nominated on Thursday for the big prize.

Dembele scored 35 goals and claimed 16 assists in all competitions as PSG won the Ligue 1 title, French Cup and Champions League and were Club World Cup runners-up to Chelsea.

Other nominees include Barcelona’s Raphinha (34 goals, 25 assists), Liverpool’s Mohamed Salah (34 goals, 23 assists), who was named Premier League Player of the Season, and Manchester City striker Erling Haaland (34 goals, five assists).

Scott McTominay, who won Serie A’s Most Valuable Player after guiding Napoli to the title, was also nominated as the first Scotsman in 38 years to make the shortlist. Barca’s Lamine Yamal (18 goals, 25 assists) made the cut while the 18-year-old winger was also nominated for the Kopa Trophy for best Under-21 player, an award he won last year.

Five England players were nominated for the women’s Ballon d’Or after their Euros triumph, including goalkeeper Hannah Hampton, Lucy Bronze, Alessia Russo, Chloe Kelly and Leah Williamson.

Marta, who came out of retirement to lead Brazil to the women’s Copa America title at the age of 39, was also nominated. Along with Luis Enrique, Enzo Maresca, who guided Chelsea to the Club World Cup title, and Liverpool’s Arne Slot, who won the Premier League crown in his first season at the club, were nominated for the men’s Coach of the Year award.

Spanish midfielders Rodri and Aitana Bonmati are the current holders of the men’s and women’s Ballon d’Or awards, respectively.

The former spent most of last season injured with Manchester City, while Bonmati was a defeated finalist at Euro 2025 as England overcame Spain.

The women’s coach nominees are led by Sonia Bompastor, who won a domestic treble at Chelsea, Renee Slegers, who took Arsenal to their second Champions League crown, and Sarina Wiegman, after she helped England retain their Euros title.

Ballon d’Or nominations in full

Men: Jude Bellingham, Ousmane Dembele, Gianluigi Donnarumma, Desire Doue, Denzel Dumfries, Serhou Guirassy, Viktor Gyokeres, Erling Haaland, Achraf Hakimi, Harry Kane, Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, Robert Lewandowski, Alexis Mac Allister, Lautaro Martinez, Kylian Mbappe, Scott McTominay, Nuno Mendes, Joao Neves, Michael Olise, Cole Palmer, Pedri, Raphinha, Declan Rice, Fabian Ruiz, Mohamed Salah, Virgil van Dijk, Vinicius Jr, Vitinha, Florian Wirtz, Lamine Yamal

Women: Sandy Baltimore, Barbra Banda, Aitana Bonmati, Lucy Bronze, Klara Buehl, Mariona Caldentey, Sofia Cantore, Steph Catley, Temwa Chawinga, Melchie Dumornay, Emily Fox, Cristiana Girelli, Esther Gonzalez, Caroline Graham Hansen, Hannah Hampton, Pernille Harder, Patri Guijarro, Amanda Gutierres, Lindsey Heaps, Chloe Kelly, Frida Leonhardsen-Maanum, Marta, Clara Mateo, Ewa Pajor, Claudia Pina, Alexia Putellas, Alessia Russo, Johanna Rytting Kaneryd, Caroline Weir, Leah Williamson

Men’s coach of the year: Antonio Conte, Luis Enrique, Hansi Flick, Enzo Maresca, Arne Slot

Women’s coach of the year: Sonia Bompastor, Arthur Elias, Justine Madugu, Renee Slegers, Sarina Wiegman

Men’s club of the year: Barcelona, Botafogo, Chelsea, Liverpool, Paris St Germain

Women’s club of the year: Arsenal, Barcelona, Chelsea, OL Lyonnes, Orlando Pride

Yashin trophy men: Alisson Becker, Yassine Bounou, Lucas Chevalier, Thibaut Courtois, Gianluigi Donnarumma, Emi Martinez, Jan Oblak, David Raya, Matz Sels, Yann Sommer

Yashin trophy women: Ann-Katrin Berger, Cata Coll, Hannah Hampton, Chiamaka Nnadozie, Daphne van Domselaar

Men’s Kopa Trophy: Ayyoub Bouaddi, Pau Cubarsi, Desire Doue, Estevao, Dean Huijsen, Myles Lewis-Skelly, Rodrigo Mora, Joao Neves, Lamine Yamal, Kenan Yildiz

Women’s Kopa Trophy: Michelle Agyemang, Linda Caicedo, Wieke Kaptein, Vicky Lopez, Claudia Martinez Ovando

Israel’s security cabinet is meeting on Thursday to decide on whether to order a complete military takeover of the Gaza Strip – a move the UN says would risk “catastrophic consequences”.

Israeli media say Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees this as the only way to destroy Hamas and free hostages still held by the group following the breakdown of ceasefire talks.

Reports, though, say the head of the military and some ministers disagree, amid warnings such a move could be disastrous for the hostages and Palestinian civilians.

Top UN official Miroslav Jenča told the UN Security Council earlier this week that it would be against international law and was a “deeply alarming” prospect.

The Israeli military currently controls about three-quarters of Gaza. The vast majority of Gaza’s population has already been displaced by the war and many more would be uprooted if the army takes over remaining areas.

The security cabinet of top government ministers is scheduled to meet at 18:00 local time (15:00 GMT) on Thursday.

According to Israeli media, tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers would need to be sent to Gaza to carry out the takeover.

Reports say the plan initially focuses on taking full control of Gaza City, relocating its one million residents further south. Forces would also take control of refugee camps in central Gaza and areas where hostages are thought to be held.

Reports say a second offensive would follow weeks later in parallel with a boost in humanitarian aid.

US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told Fox News there would be a significant scaling up of distribution sites operated by the Israel- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

The GHF has been strongly criticised by the UN and aid agencies, who have accused it of being chaotic and forcing hungry Palestinians to travel long distances in perilous conditions to try to get food.

Hundreds have been shot dead in or around the four sites run by GHF since it began operating in May. The Hamas-run health ministry and witnesses have accused Israeli forces of being responsible. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has denied targeting civilians, saying soldiers have fired warning shots to keep crowds back or in response to threats.

The war has created a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, most of which UN-backed experts say is at the point of famine in terms of food consumption. The territory is also experiencing mass deprivation as a result of heavy restrictions imposed by Israel on what is allowed in – something it says is aimed at weakening Hamas.

Netanyahu is reported to have decided in recent days on the conquest of Gaza, raising tensions with military chiefs.

In a meeting with Netanyahu on Tuesday, the IDF Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, is said to have warned that controlling Gaza could entrap troops and further endanger the hostages. He is reported to have presented an alternative plan involving encircling remaining Hamas strongholds rather than full occupation.

Israeli media say that, despite some misgivings, the security cabinet is expected to approve Netanyahu’s plan.

The families of hostages have reacted with alarm, fearing such a move could push their captives into killing them.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that taking over Gaza was “really up to Israel”. The US has been mediating in indirect ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas for months, but negotiations broke down two weeks ago.

The war began after Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 back to Gaza as hostages. Israel launched a massive military offensive in response, which has killed at least 61,158 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s health ministry.

Palestinian boy Ahmed Aaed takes care of stray cats in Gaza, which brings him comfort and purpose. He’s shared his grief over one kitten he was unable to save due to the Israeli-imposed shortage of food and medicine.

Khan Younes, Gaza – A dear companion doesn’t have to be human to be deeply missed when lost.

Sometimes, it’s a phone – a loyal witness to your joys and sorrows, your moments of sweetness and darkest chapters of pain.

In the harshness of life in the world’s largest open-air prison, it becomes more than a device. It’s an extension of yourself; your portal to the world, your way of reaching loved ones scattered across the prison or outside it.

Through its lens, you sometimes capture joy and beauty, but more often, it only captures falling rockets or the rubble of houses covering the corpses of their residents.

But what are you left with when that loyal companion is disappeared by the genocidal chaos?

My phone succumbed to its injuries

My phone succumbed to its injuries.

I can’t believe I’m describing it this way, with the same phrase I use when reporting on thousands of my people killed after being denied urgent medical treatment, punished simply for surviving Israeli bombs.

But in its own way, my phone endured its share of this prolonged Israeli cruelty, the technocide of power-starvation, corrosion by dust and sand, suffocation in overheated tents, and the constant torment of poor connection.

It tried to hold on, but everyone has a limit of endurance. It fell the day we left our damaged home for our 14th displacement amid chaotic stampeding crowds.

Somehow it survived the heavy blow, but it only lasted 70 days after its screen cracked, its body blistered, until its wounds spread too far to bear.

And then it went dark for good.

Oddly, I felt consoled. Not because it wasn’t painful, but because I wasn’t alone. I’ve seen the same happen to others: Friends, relatives watching their phones slowly perish, just like the people they loved.

Strangely, we find comfort in these small shared losses. Our loved ones have perished, and our wellbeing is shattering, and yet we expect our phones not to. The real miracle is that they lasted this long at all.

Smartphone addiction is thrown around as a buzzword. But in Gaza, if you’re lucky enough to still have one, it’s not an addiction, it is survival.

It’s an escape. A small, glowing portal you cling to. It helps you slip briefly into the past, scrolling through memories, staring at the faces of loved ones who are now names on graves or names you still whisper in hope.

Your phone’s emotionless memory still holds their beautiful smiles. It connects you to people you can’t reach, voices you can’t otherwise hear. It dulls the pain not by healing it, but by distracting you.

Like a hunger you can’t satisfy, so you scroll through reels of mouth-watering food, mocking your emptiness.

You watch strangers at family dinners while your table is buried under rubble. You wonder, how dare they post such scenes, knowing that children are being starved to death a few kilometres away? And yet you keep scrolling, because for a moment, it’s a brutal soothing sedative.

‘Are you alive?’

When you’re someone who reports daily on the ongoing genocide to the world, finding a new companion becomes an inevitable must. Yet the quest is disastrous in Gaza.

You might think it’s impossible to find one here, where life has become ruins and even bread is scarce, but surprisingly, there are plenty of options, even the latest high-end brands that somehow found their way through the blockade.

But this is Gaza, where a bag of flour costs $700, so the cost of a phone is on a whole different level.

Even the lowest-quality phones in makeshift shops sell for more than what it costs to build the shop itself, inflated by genocidal conditions.

And it doesn’t stop there. You must pay in cash, in a place where almost nothing is free except the air you breathe.

An iPhone might cost $1,000 elsewhere, but here it costs $4,200.

So you turn to cheaper options, hoping for something more affordable, but the calculations remain the same.

But that’s not me – because either way, by spending such unthinkable amounts, you’re solidifying the very reality your captors are trying to impose, and doing it with your own money.

You realise that you’re feeding into their design. We’re already draining whatever’s left in our pockets just for flour during this genocidal siege, and we don’t know how long it will last.

So you cling to what you have, to avoid paying your soul at a GHF centre for deadly “aid” you’ll never get.

For a while now, I’ve felt paralysed, a helplessness especially familiar during June’s two-week total communication blackout imposed by Israel – during which my phone finally died in total silence.

When the captor cuts yet another lifeline, it’s more than just being unable to check on loved ones. It means ambulances can’t be called. It means a wounded person might die in the dark, unheard.

It’s like someone is out there, cruelly deciding when you’re allowed to contact the world or to be contacted, to receive the now-typical: “Are you alive?”

There’s a cruel irony in Israel issuing expulsion orders online even as it cuts off the networks people in Gaza need to receive them. You only find out when you see thousands flooding the streets, the earth trembling beneath their feet from Israeli attacks.

The hand that controls your digital lifeline is the same one that’s been blockading and colonising your land for years.

And you realise, with certainty, that if they could block the very air you breathe, they would not hesitate.

So, you rise

There are still moments when, instinctively, I reach out to call someone or check something – but my hand touches nothing.

My companion is gone. I remain phoneless, helpless under blockade, both digital and physical.

And then, you start to compare your shackles to the abundance your captors enjoy, genociding you with full access to every technological privilege, every luxury.

You, on the other hand, are being hunted down with the world’s most advanced weapons, under the watchful eye and silent complicity of the tech giants whose tools are backing your erasure.

While they use satellites and precision-guided missiles, you just want to tell the world you’re still here.

How vital your lost companion was. It wasn’t just a phone. It was your sword, your shield, your witness.

And in the face of this tyranny, surrendering is something you cannot afford. So, you rise.

You whisper, “Rest in power, my companion,” because we refuse to be slaughtered in silence.

We will keep telling our truth, even if all we have left is a scrap of paper and a drop of ink.

South Africa’s leading paceman Kagiso Rabada says it is time to move on from the euphoria of beating Australia in the World Test Championship final, but insists the side have “nothing to fear” now following their belated major trophy success.

Rabada will lead South Africa’s attack as they take on Australia in three Twenty20 clashes and three one-day internationals starting in Darwin on Sunday.

“I think it was special, and I’ve done so many interviews on that since,” Rabada said of South Africa’s victory over Australia at Lord’s in June.

“I think it’s time to move on. I don’t think we’ll forget about that ever as a team, and South Africa won’t ever [forget], but time to move on now,” he told a news conference on Thursday.

The five-wicket win in the WTC final followed several frustrating near misses for South Africa in limited-overs World Cups.

“It was kind of like a relief. But the show moves on, and moving toward the T20 World Cup, I guess the approach will be a bit different.

“Now, you know, there’s no fear of anything.”

Rabada is relishing a reprisal of the rivalry between Australia and South Africa.

“It’s always some hard cricket being played, some good cricket,” he said. “Whenever we play Australia, I always feel like they get the best out of us, because they’re sort of in our faces. And I guess we like that.”

Rababa, who turned 30 in May, has not played since the WTC final in London.

“Thankfully, I’ve had quite a long break, so that’s been awesome. Maintenance work consistently has to be done because the volume of cricket is quite a bit.”

The Australia tour comes ahead of next year’s T20 World Cup in India and Sri Lanka, and the 2027 World Cup in Southern Africa, and South Africa hope the experience will benefit the young players in their squad.

“For me, that’s extremely exciting to see them raring to go. It’s just about trying to see where we’re at as a team, moving into almost like another generation,” Rabada added.

Thomas Frank has had time to brace himself for Son Heung-min’s departure – but the long-term unavailability of Maddison is extremely unwelcome, to say the least.

Son’s farewell match in South Korea earlier this week was marred by the latest knee injury suffered by Maddison.

The anguished expression on his face said it all, and the sympathy lies with him.

But spare a thought for Frank, who in his first season in charge, faces losing two key attacking players.

You’d imagine that Spurs will give big consideration to entering the market for a new attacking midfielder.

Had their move for Nottingham Forest’s Morgan Gibbs-White ended successfully then the requirement to enter the market for offensive reinforcements would be significantly less pressing.

Such attacking quality is hard to come by. Expensive, too.

Mohammed Kudus, signed from West Ham this summer, has played centrally before and could provide an option.

But Spurs will have to do something to replace Maddison’s contribution.

French political analyst Francois Burgat was charged with supporting terrorism over a social media post he shared, which included a statement by Hamas. He was later acquitted. Burgat joins Centre Stage to unpack the case, the politics behind it and what he believes it reveals about free speech and support for Palestine in the West.

This episode is produced in partnership with the Islam and Muslims Initiative, an international platform that connects Muslims and non-Muslims in the realms of religion, politics, business, media, academia and civil society.

Myint Swe headed Myanmar as president from 2021 to 2024 following the military’s power grab.

Myint Swe, who has served as Myanmar’s military-backed president, has died aged 74 after a long medical leave, according to state media.

The news of his death was announced on Thursday in a statement from the government.

“President U Myint Swe passed away at 8:28am this morning,” the statement said, adding that Myint Swe will receive a state funeral.

A former general, Myint Swe became president of Myanmar in 2021 when the military overthrew the civilian government of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Before the military takeover, he held several senior leadership posts, including the post of first vice president during a period of semi-democratic rule that ended in 2021.

The coup handed power to Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s military, with Myint Swe serving as a figurehead leader carrying out ceremonial duties.

Min Aung Hlaing stepped in as “acting president” of Myanmar last year when Myint Swe went on medical leave due to the effects of Parkinson’s disease, according to reports.

At the time of his death, Myint Swe was struggling with “weight loss, loss of appetite, fever and a decline in cognitive function” and had been admitted to a military hospital in the capital, Naypyidaw, according to state media.

His death comes just a week after military leader Min Aung Hlaing lifted a state of emergency in the country amid a grinding civil war and called for elections to be held in December.

While the military also nominally transferred authority to a civilian-led interim government in advance of the vote, observers say the change was on paper only, and Min Aung Hlaing has retained ultimate power as head of the armed forces.

Efforts to hold elections are seen as an attempt by the military government to gain legitimacy and de-escalate years of violent political turmoil that have engulfed the country since it grabbed power.

Opposition groups have pledged to boycott the poll.

Myanmar has been in a state of civil war since 2021, when pro-democracy protests escalated into a violent uprising, later compounded by the entry of armed ethnic groups.

The military-backed government has since lost control of large sections of the country.

Estimates in 2024 suggested that it controlled only one-fifth of the country, although the military-held areas include major urban areas.

Each year, the world produces about 400 million tonnes of plastic waste – more than the combined weight of all the people on Earth.

Just 9 percent of it is recycled, and one study predicts that global emissions from plastic production could triple by 2050.

Since 2022, the United Nations has been trying to broker a global treaty to deal with plastic waste. But talks keep collapsing, particularly on the issue of introducing a cap on plastic production.

Campaigners blame petrostates whose economies depend on oil – the raw ingredient for plastics – for blocking the treaty negotiations.

This week, the UN is meeting in Switzerland in the latest attempt to reach an agreement. But, even if the delegates find a way to cut the amount of plastic the world makes, it could take years to have a meaningful effect.

In the meantime, institutions like the World Bank are turning to the markets for alternative solutions. One of these is plastic offsetting.

So what is plastic offsetting? Does it work? And what do programmes like this mean for vulnerable communities who depend on plastic waste to make a living?

What is plastic offsetting, and how do credits work?

Plastic credits are based on a similar idea to carbon credits.

With carbon credits, companies that emit greenhouse gases can pay a carbon credit company to have their emissions “cancelled out” by funding reforestation programmes or other projects to help “sink” their carbon output.

For each tonne of CO2 they cancel out, the company gets a carbon credit. This is how an airline can tell customers that their flight is “carbon neutral”.

Plastic credits work on a similar model. The world’s biggest plastic polluters can pay a plastic credit company to collect and re-purpose plastic.

If a polluter pays for one tonne of plastic to be collected, it gets one plastic credit.

If the polluter buys the number of plastic credits equivalent to its annual plastic output, it might be awarded “plastic neutral” or “plastic net zero” status.

Does plastic offsetting work?

Like carbon credits, plastic credits are controversial.

Carbon markets are already worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, with their value set to grow to billions.

But in 2023, SourceMaterial, a nonprofit newsroom, revealed that only a fraction of nearly 100 million carbon credits result in real emissions reductions.

“Companies are making false claims and then they’re convincing customers that they can fly guilt-free or buy carbon-neutral products when they aren’t in any way carbon-neutral,” Barbara Haya, a US carbon trading expert, said at the time.

The same thing could happen with plastics. Analysis by SourceMaterial of the world’s first plastic credit registry, Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX) in the Philippines, found that only 14 percent of PCX credits went towards recycling.

While companies that had bought credits with PCX were getting “plastic neutral” status, most of the plastic was burned as fuel in cement factories, in a method known as “co-processing” that releases thousands of tonnes of CO2 and toxins linked to cancer.

A spokesperson for PCX said at the time that co-processing “reduces reliance on fossil fuels, and is conducted under controlled conditions to minimise emissions”.

Now, the World Bank is also pointing to plastic credits as a solution.

In January last year, the World Bank launched a $100m bond that “provides investors with a financial return” linked to the plastic credits projects backed by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, an industry initiative that supports plastic credit projects, in Ghana and Indonesia.

At the UN talks in December last year, a senior environmental specialist from the World Bank said plastic credits were an “emerging result-based financing tool” which can fund projects that “reduce plastic pollution”.

What do companies think of plastic credits?

Manufacturers, petrostates and the operators of credit projects have all lobbied for market solutions, including plastic credits, at the UN.

Oil giant ExxonMobil and petrochemicals companies LyondellBasell and Dow Chemical are all members of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste in Ghana and Indonesia – both epicentres of plastic pollution that produce plastic domestically and import waste from overseas.

But those companies are also members of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a lobby group that has warned the UN it does “not support production caps or bans”, given the “benefits of plastics”.

What do critics and affected local communities say?

Critics like Anil Verma, a professor of human resource management at the University of Toronto who has studied waste pickers in Brazil, call plastic offsetting a “game of greenwashing”.

Verma argues that offsetting lets polluters claim they are tackling the waste problem without having to cut production – or profit.

Patrick O’Hare, an academic at St Andrews University in Scotland, who has attended all rounds of the UN plastic treaty negotiations, said he has “noticed with concern the increasing prominence given to plastics credits”.

Plastic credits are being promoted in some quarters “despite the lack of proven success stories to date” and “the evident problems with the carbon credit model on which it is based”, he added.

Even some of the world’s biggest companies have distanced themselves from plastic credits.

Nestle, which had previously bought plastic credits, said last year that it does not believe in their effectiveness in their current form.

Coca-Cola and Unilever are also “not convinced”, according to reports, and like Nestle, they back government-mandated “extended producer responsibility” schemes.

Yet the World Bank has plans to expand its support for plastic offsetting, calling it a “win-win with the local communities and ecosystems that benefit from less pollution”.

Some of the poorest people in Ghana eke out a living by collecting plastic waste for recycling.

Johnson Doe, head of a refuse collectors’ group in the capital, Accra, says funds for offsetting would be better spent supporting local waste pickers.

Doe wants his association to be officially recognised and funded, instead of watching investment flow into plastic credits. They’re a “false solution”, he says.

This story was produced in partnership with SourceMaterial 

READ MORE: Ghana’s waste pickers brave mountains of plastic – and big industry

EPA

Inflation

Even as the United States slaps India with a 50 percent tariff, the highest among all countries so far and one that will push their relationship to its lowest moment in years, one thing is clear: US President Donald Trump is more interested in onshoring than friend-shoring, experts say.

On Wednesday, the US announced an additional 25 percent tariff on India over its import of Russian oil, taking the total to 50 percent. The move caught most experts by surprise as New Delhi was one of the first to start trade negotiations with Washington, DC, and Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have repeatedly admired each other in public statements and called each other friends. Brazil is the only other country facing tariffs as high as India’s.

“The breakdown of the trade negotiations was a surprise,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president of strategy and research at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

“This is a very difficult moment, arguably the worst in many, many years in their relationship and puts India in a very small group of countries that find themselves without a deal and with the highest tariff rates. They now need some pragmatic path forward and need to find a way to rebuild trust,” Nadjibulla said.

While the 50 percent tariffs, set to kick in in three weeks, have come as a shock, there has been a series of events in the past few weeks that hinted at disagreements between the two countries.

Just last week, Trump threatened that he would penalise New Delhi for buying Russian oil and arms, venting his frustration over an impasse in trade talks and referred to both countries as “dead economies”.

Negotiations deadlock

Last year, bilateral trade between India and the US stood at approximately $212bn, with a trade gap of about $46bn in India’s favour. Modi has said in the past that he plans to more than double trade between the two countries to $500bn in the next five years.

As part of the tariff negotiations, New Delhi had offered to remove levies from US industrial goods and said it would increase defence and energy purchases, the Reuters news agency reported. It also offered to scale back taxes on cars, despite a strong auto lobby at home pressuring it not to.

But it refused to remove duties from farm and dairy products, two politically sensitive sectors that employ hundreds of millions of predominantly poor Indians, and a stance similar to some other countries like Canada.

There are also geopolitical layers to what was supposed to be a trade conversation, pointed out Farwa Aamer, director of South Asia Initiatives at the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York.

A very public one was the difference in perception on how the latest clash between India and archenemy Pakistan in May was brought to an end. Trump has repeatedly said that he mediated a ceasefire. India has repeatedly said that Trump had no role in bringing about a truce and has said that Modi and Trump never spoke during the conflict.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has said it will nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize and has so far walked away with deals with the US to explore its reserves of critical minerals and oil as its efforts to reset ties with the US play out after years of ambivalence under former US President Joe Biden, said Aamer.

All of this has caused unease for New Delhi, which is now trying to navigate a tough road. “This will test India’s foreign policy,” said Aamer, “and the question is if we will see it grow with the US even as it maintains its ties with Russia,” its longstanding defence and trade partner.

New Delhi has called Wednesday’s tariff “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable” and said its imports of Russian oil are based on its objective of securing the energy needs of its nation of 1.4 billion people.

But beyond that, “India doesn’t want to look weak”, said Aamer. “India has this global standing, and Modi has this global standing, so it has to hold its own. It will maintain its stance that its national security is driving its foreign policy.”

Robert Rogowsky, a professor of international trade at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, said he expected “very creative diplomacy” in the “near term” as India and the US try to reset ties despite tensions.

“Strong-arming individuals like Modi will inevitably lead to shifts and counter-shifts,” he told Al Jazeera.

Adding instability

For now, India can focus on strengthening its bilateral trade agreements, said Aamer, such as the one it signed with the United Kingdom last month and another with the European Union, which is currently in the works.

India is also trying to stabilise relations with China –  just as Australia, Canada and Japan have done in recent months since Trump took office and hit allies with tariffs. Modi is planning to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit at the end of the month. It would be his first visit to China since the two countries had a face-off in 2020 in the Galwan River valley.

But the trade blow from the US also comes at a time when India has been trying to position itself as a manufacturing hub and as an option for businesses that were looking to add locations outside China.

In April, Apple, for instance, said all iPhones meant to be sold in the US would be assembled in India by next year. While electronics are exempt for now from the tariffs, a country with a 50 percent tariff tag on it is hardly attractive for business, and this just “adds to the instability and uncertainty that businesses were already feeling” because of all the Trump tariffs, Nadjibulla said.

“Trump has made it clear that he’s interested in onshoring rather than friend-shoring.”

Authorities charged the defendant with carrying out a hate crime, with the murder of the embassy officials described as calculated and planned.

A man accused of shooting dead two Israeli embassy staff members in Washington, DC, has been indicted on federal hate crime and murder charges, as President Donald Trump suggested he may call on the National Guard to bring down crime rates in the United States capital.

Court documents filed in federal court in Washington and unsealed on Wednesday show that defendant Elias Rodriguez has been charged with nine counts, including a hate crime resulting in death.

The 30-year-old is accused of shooting dead Israeli embassy staffers Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, a young couple who were about to become engaged, as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington in May.

Rodriguez, who witnesses described as pacing outside the museum before the attack, approached the couple and opened fire.

Surveillance footage then showed him advance on Lischinsky and Milgrim as they fell to the ground, firing additional shots as he stood over them. Rodriguez appeared to reload before jogging off, according to officials.

Two other people who were standing with the couple at the time of the attack escaped unharmed.

Rodriguez then entered the museum and confessed to the killings. He was heard shouting “Free Palestine” as he was led away. Rodriguez also told police, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza “, according to federal authorities.

Prosecutors described the killings as calculated and planned in court papers, alleging that Rodriguez flew to Washington from Chicago with a handgun in his checked luggage. Authorities also claimed Rodriguez purchased a ticket for the American Jewish Committee-organised event at the museum three hours before it started.

Rodriguez was previously charged with the murder of foreign officials and other crimes. Prosecutors added the hate crimes charges after bringing the case to a grand jury.

Also included in the indictment is a notice of special findings allowing the Department of Justice to potentially pursue the death penalty.

Prosecutors are now tasked with proving that Rodriguez was motivated by anti-Semitism when he opened fire on Lischinsky and Milgrim.

Lischinsky was a research assistant at the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC, while Milgrim organised trips to Israel for the embassy. Lischinsky, a German-Israeli citizen, had reportedly bought an engagement ring days before he and Milgrim, a Jewish US citizen, were killed.

Also on Wednesday, President Trump said he may deploy the National Guard to police Washington’s streets, telling reporters outside the White House that the capital is “very unsafe” and it “has to be the best-run place in the country”.

“We’re going to beautify the city. We’re going to make it beautiful. And what a shame, the rate of crime, the rate of muggings, killings and everything else. We’re not going to let it,” Trump said.

“And that includes bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly, too,” he added.

Trump made his latest threat of a federal takeover of the US capital after a staffer who was part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was assaulted during a carjacking over the weekend.

According to records on the police department’s website, violent crime in Washington was down 26 percent in the first seven months of 2025 compared with last year, while overall crime was down some 7 percent.

US President Donald Trump said the tariff will not impact companies if they have already invested in US facilities.

United States President Donald Trump says he will impose a 100 percent tariff on foreign-made semiconductors, although exemptions will be made for companies that have invested in the US.

“We’ll be putting a tariff on of approximately 100 percent on chips and semiconductors, but if you’re building in the United States of America, there’s no charge, even though you’re building and you’re not producing yet,” Trump told reporters at the Oval Office on Wednesday evening.

The news came after a separate announcement that Apple would invest $600bn in the US, but it was not unexpected by US observers.

Trump told CNBC on Tuesday that he planned to unveil a new tariff on semiconductors “within the next week or so” without offering further details.

Details were also scant at the Oval Office about how and when the tariffs will go into effect, but Asia’s semiconductor powerhouses were quick to respond about the potential impact.

Taiwan, home of the world’s largest chipmaker TSMC, said that the company would be exempt from the tariff due to its existing investments in the US.

“Because Taiwan’s main exporter is TSMC, which has factories in the United States, TSMC is exempt,” National Development Council chief Liu Chin-ching told the Taiwanese legislature.

In March, TSMC – which counts Apple and Nvidia as clients – said it would increase its US investment to $165bn to expand chip making and research centres in Arizona.

South Korea was also quick to extinguish any concerns about its top chipmakers, Samsung and SK Hynix, which have also invested in facilities in Texas and Indiana.

Trade envoy Yeo Han-koo said South Korean companies would be exempt from the tariff and that Seoul already faced “favourable” tariffs after signing a trade deal with Washington earlier this year.

TSMC, Samsung and SK Hynix are just some of the foreign tech companies that have invested in the US since 2022, when then-President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan CHIPS Act offering billions of dollars in subsidies and tax credits to re-shore investment and manufacturing.

Less lucky is the Philippines, said Dan Lachica, president of Semiconductor and Electronics Industries in the Philippines Foundation.

He said the tariffs will be “devastating” because semiconductors make up 70 percent of the Philippines’ exports.

Trump’s latest round of blanket tariffs on US trade partners is due to go into effect on Thursday, but the White House has also targeted specific industries like steel, aluminium, automobiles and pharmaceuticals with separate tariffs.