money

Here are the key events on day 1,227 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here is how things stand on Saturday, July 5 :

Fighting

• Russian air defences have downed dozens of Ukrainian drones in widely dispersed parts of the country, including two near the country’s second-largest city, Saint Petersburg, according to officials.
• All external power lines supplying electricity to the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine were down for several hours before being restored, the UN nuclear watchdog said.
• Ukrainian authorities blamed Russian shelling for the power cut, adding that technicians had to take action to restore it.
• Dutch and German intelligence agencies say that Russia is increasing its use of prohibited chemical weapons in Ukraine, including the World War I-era poison gas chloropicrin. Moscow denies this.

Weapons

• United States President Donald Trump said he discussed sending Patriot interceptor missiles to Ukraine in calls with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
• A German government spokesman said the country was exploring the possibility of purchasing more Patriot air defence systems from the US for Ukraine.

Politics and diplomacy

• Trump said that he discussed sanctions with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a Thursday call, who is worried about them and understands they might be forthcoming.
• The US president repeated that he was “very unhappy” with his Russian counterpart, adding: “He wants to go all the way, just keep killing people – it is no good.”
• Zelenskyy says he agreed with Trump, to work to strengthen Ukraine’s air defences, as concerns mounted in Kyiv over US military aid deliveries. The two leaders had a “very important and fruitful conversation” by phone on Friday, Zelenskyy said.
• German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius will travel to Washington later this month for talks with his US counterpart about air defence systems, as well as production capacities, the ministry said.

There has been speculation over the succession plan for the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader.

The Dalai Lama has said that he hopes to live for another 40 years until he is 130 years old, on the eve of his 90th birthday, days after he sought to assuage rife speculation over his succession by saying he would reincarnate upon his death.

The Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader was speaking on Saturday during a ceremony organised by his followers to offer prayers for his long life, ahead of his 90th birthday on Sunday.

Leading thousands in the prayers as the sound of chanting, drums, horns rang out, he said: “So far, I have done my best and with the continued blessings of Avalokiteshvara (a Buddhist spiritual protector), I hope to live another 30 or 40 years, continuing to serve sentient beings and the Buddha Dharma”, he said, referring to the teachings of the Buddha.

The Dalai Lama previously told the Reuters news agency in December he might live to 110.

The Dalai Lama has confirmed that he will have a successor chosen in accordance with “past tradition”, ending years of speculation about the centuries-old office.

In a video message on Wednesday, he said the Gaden Phodrang Foundation, which he established to preserve the institution, will have the power to recognise his future reincarnation.

Tibetan Buddhist leaders will search for his successor, he added, stressing that “no one else has any such authority to interfere in this matter”.

The 14th Dalai Lama said he had received many messages in recent years from Buddhists calling for the office’s continuation.

“In accordance with all these requests, I am affirming that the institution of the Dalai Lama will continue,” he added.

He made the comments on Wednesday during a three-day religious conference in Dharamshala, the northern Indian town where he has been based since 1959, when he fled Tibet for India after a failed uprising against China.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, the Tibetan writer and activist Tenzin Tsundue described the Dalai Lama’s announcement on Wednesday as a “punch in the face” for China, which governs the Tibet Autonomous Region and which has claimed that it has the power to appoint his successor.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Dalai Lama, whom China brands a “separatist”, has previously warned Beijing not “to meddle in the system of reincarnation of lamas, let alone that of the Dalai Lama”.

In response to his comments on Wednesday, China said the Dalai Lama’s succession must be approved by the central government in Beijing and that it would be carried out “by drawing lots from a golden urn”, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told reporters.

That urn is held by China, and the Dalai Lama has already warned that, when used dishonestly, it lacks “any spiritual quality”.

Chelsea beat Palmeiras 2-1 to reach the semifinals of the FIFA Club World Cup where they will face Fluminense.

A late own goal off Palmeiras defender Agustin Giay lifted Chelsea to a 2-1 victory in Philadelphia, sending the Premier League side into the Club World Cup semifinals.

A shot by Chelsea’s Malo Gusto from the right side deflected off Palmeiras’ Richard Rios and Giay. Goalkeeper Weverton was unable to control the caroming ball before it went into the net.

Chelsea will play Fluminense on Tuesday in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The Brazilian side defeated Al Hilal 2-1 earlier on Friday.

Cole Palmer scored his first of the tournament in the 16th minute for Chelsea before Estevao, who will join Chelsea after the tournament, tied it in the 53rd minute.

Palmer had been criticised by the Chelsea fans for his lack of production despite leading the team in shots on goal during the tournament.

He proved his worth on the goal, taking a pass from Trevoh Chalobah and dribbling from just outside the box to 15 yards out before scoring with a left-footed strike.

“I’ve been working on … the shot in training. I just saw the space and went there,” Palmer told DAZN after the match.

“The manager just said to keep calm and do lots of passes, and we should be all right.”

Chelsea fans didn’t know whether to cheer or cry, however, when Estevao tied it with a brilliant, tight-angle shot for the equaliser.

He made a verbal agreement with Chelsea in May 2024 but was not permitted to move to England until he turned 18 on April 24, delaying his transfer to the current window.

The clubs arranged that he would remain with Palmeiras until their tournament run ended.

“You can see he [Estevao] is a top player, so we are excited for him [to join Chelsea after the tournament],” Palmer said of his soon-to-be teammate.

Joao Pedro made his Chelsea debut in the 54th minute, two days after his signing from Brighton & Hove Albion of the Premier League was confirmed.

The Brazilian had 10 goals and six assists for Brighton last season.

Pedro’s new manager at Chelsea, Enzo Maresca, was glowing about all aspects of the win.

“It has been a tough game, as we expected,” the Blues boss told DAZN.

“We needed lots of energy. At the end, congratulations to the players because they were very good.

“I’m happy because we won, and also happy because Estevao scored. The perfect night.”

Real Madrid face Borussia Dortmund, while Paris-Saint Germain take on Bayern Munich in the other quarterfinals on Saturday.

Eight migrants in United States custody have lost a last-ditch attempt to avoid deportation to South Sudan, a country facing ongoing criticism for human rights abuses.

On Friday, Judge Brian Murphy of Boston denied the eleventh-hour appeal, which has been the subject of a flurry of legal activity throughout the day.

The appeal argued that repeated efforts under President Donald Trump to deport the men to South Sudan was “impermissibly punitive”. It pointed out that the US Constitution bars “cruel and unusual punishment”.

In the past, the US Department of State has accused South Sudan of “extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and cases of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment”. It advises no American citizen to travel there due to an ongoing armed conflict.

But the US Supreme Court has twice ruled that the Trump administration could indeed deport the men to countries outside of their homelands. Its latest decision was issued on Thursday.

The US Department of Justice indicated that the eight men were set to be flown to South Sudan by 7pm US Eastern Time (23:00 GMT) on Friday. They hailed from countries like Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam.

The last-ditch appeal was filed on Thursday night, shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its decision.

Initially, the case was assigned to US District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, DC, who signalled he was sympathetic to the deportees’ request.

He briefly ordered the deportation to be paused until 4:30pm Eastern Time (20:30 GMT), but ultimately, he decided to transfer the case back to Murphy, the judge whose decisions helped precipitate the Supreme Court’s rulings.

Murphy had previously issued injunctions against the deportations to South Sudan, leading to successful appeals from the Trump administration. The eight men, meanwhile, had been held at a military base in Djibouti while the courts decided their fate.

Before he transferred the case back to Murphy, however, Judge Moss said it was possible the deportees could prove their case that the Trump administration intended to subject them to abuse.

“It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical wellbeing is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others,” Moss said during the hearing.

Lawyers for the Trump administration, meanwhile, argued that the deportation’s continued delay would strain relations with countries willing to accept migrants from other countries.

Murphy, who denied Friday’s request, had previously ruled in favour of the deportees, issuing an injunction against their removal to South Sudan and saying they had a right to contest the deportation based on fears for their safety.

The Supreme Court first lifted the injunction on June 23 and clarified its ruling again on Thursday, giving a subtle rebuke to Judge Murphy.

The Trump administration has been pushing for rapid removals as part of its campaign of mass deportation, one of President Trump’s signature priorities.

Opponents have accused the administration of steamrolling the human rights of undocumented people in order to achieve its aims, including the right to due process under the law.

But the Trump administration has framed undocumented migration as an “invasion” that constitutes a national security crisis, and it argued that its strong-armed efforts are needed to expel criminals.

The eight migrants slated to be sent to South Sudan, it said, were “barbaric, violent criminal illegal aliens”. It added that they had been found guilty of crimes, including first-degree murder, robbery and sexual assault.

“These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a news release on Thursday.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has signed his signature tax and spending bill, capping a months-long push to codify his top policy priorities into law.

The sweeping bill has prompted controversy among both Democrats and members of Trump’s own Republican Party for its deep cuts to social safety programmes and the hefty sum its tax cuts and spending are expected to add to the national debt.

Recent polls have also shown tanking public support for the legislation – which Trump calls the “One Big Beautiful Bill” – as many of its provisions come to light.

Still, Trump on Friday took nothing short of a victory lap, hosting a White House signing ceremony aligned with the Independence Day celebrations in Washington, DC.

The address began with a flyover from a B-2 Spirit bomber, the same jet used in US strikes on Iran last month.

“The last two weeks, there has never been anything like it as far as winning, winning, winning,” Trump said from the White House balcony.

“I want to tell you that I’ve never seen people so happy in our country, because so many different groups of people are being taken care of.”

He also took a moment to revisit his victory in the 2024 election and reiterate his belief that voters gave him an ironclad mandate to carry out his policy agenda. He signed the bill flanked by Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson and Representative Steve Scalise.

“The American people gave us a historic mandate in November,” Trump said. “This is a triumph of democracy on the birthday of democracy.”

Opponents, meanwhile, used the occasion to again condemn the bill, with the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, again saying that the sweeping legislation is “betraying” US citizens.

“This bill isn’t freedom. This bill isn’t independence. This bill is betrayal,” Schumer wrote on the social media platform X.

A months-long journey

The legislation represents the most substantial salvo yet in Trump’s policy blitz, in which he has mostly relied on more presidential orders than on congressional action.

The passage of his mega-bill underscores the president’s deep hold on the Republican Party, which has largely been remade in his likeness since his first term from 2017 to 2021. The party currently controls both chambers of Congress.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is set to add an estimated $3.3 trillion to the national debt, an increase that might once have been considered a sacrilege for the party’s fiscal hawks.

It also tightens eligibility for the low-income healthcare programme Medicaid and the food assistance programme SNAP, in a move that could hurt Republicans facing tough re-election campaigns.

Still, in the end, only three Republicans in the Senate and two in the House were willing to break from Trump, in both cases leaving opponents just short of the votes needed to scuttle the bill.

For their part, Democrats were unified in their opposition.

In a last-ditch and largely symbolic effort on Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries embarked on a record-breaking speech to delay any voting on the bill.

Over the next eight hours and 45 minutes, Jeffries condemned Republicans for rushing to meet Trump’s July 4 deadline, accusing them of fast-tracking a bill that many conservatives had publicly voiced discomfort towards.

“We don’t work for Donald Trump. We work for the American people,” he said at one point. “That’s why we’re right here now, on the floor of the House of Representatives, standing up for the American people.”

He maintained Republicans would be punished at the ballot box over the bill during the midterm elections in 2026.

A wide-ranging bill

The legislation covers a range of issues, from immigration to tax reforms. For example, it extends sweeping tax cuts passed in 2017 during Trump’s first term, amounting to a total of $4.5 trillion in tax reductions.

It also allows taxpayers to deduct income earned from tips and overtime, as well as interest paid on loans for buying cars made in the US, while raising exemptions on estate taxes. It also extends a child tax credit.

The administration has hailed the cuts as a victory for working-class Americans, although several analyses have found that wealthier taxpayers are most likely to benefit.

Gains for lower-income taxpayers are likely to be offset by healthcare and food assistance cuts, according to Yale University’s Budget Lab.

All told, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, about 11.8 million more Americans will be uninsured over the next 10 years due to the Medicaid cuts, with another 4.2 million to lose health insurance due to cuts to pandemic-era subsidies.

The legislation also peels back green energy and electric vehicle tax incentives, part of Trump’s wider push to pivot away from clean energy and towards the influential fossil fuel industry.

It allocates $170bn for immigration and border enforcement funding, in what the American Immigration Council calls the “largest investment in detention and deportation in US history”.

Nonpartisan analysts have said the increase in the national debt from the spending has the potential to slow economic growth, raise borrowing costs and crowd out other government spending in the years ahead.

But on Friday, Trump dismissed the criticism.

“They [Democrats] have developed a standard line: ‘We can’t let them get away with it. It’s dangerous. Everybody’s going to die,’” Trump said. “It’s actually just the opposite. Everybody’s going to live.”

“After this kicks in, our country is going to be a rocket ship, economically.”

Brazil’s Fluminense earn hard-fought 2-1 victory over Saudi Arabia’s Al Hilal to book place in semifinals.

Substitute Hercules scored his second goal in as many second-half appearances to send Fluminense into the FIFA Club World Cup semifinals with a 2-1 quarterfinal win over Al Hilal in Orlando, Florida.

The tournament underdogs struck first on Friday through Matheus Martinelli in the first half before Al Hilal hit back after the break when Marcus Leonardo found the net.

But Fluminense refused to be denied and regained their lead in the 70th minute through Hercules to secure a memorable win over Al Hilal in the first meeting between the two clubs.

The Brazilian side, who entered the tournament as one of the biggest long shots, will now face the winners of Friday’s other quarterfinal clash between fellow Brazilians Palmeiras and English Premier League side Chelsea.

Al Hilal exit despite a fourth tournament goal for striker Leonardo.

The Saudi side was the last from Asia remaining, having pulled off the tournament’s biggest upset with a 4-3, extra-time victory over Manchester City in the second round on Monday.

Martinelli put Fluminense in front in the 40th minute with a brilliant strike. His first touch took Gabriel Fuentes’s pass beyond a charging Al Hilal defender, and his second unleashed a ferocious left-footed shot that beat goalkeeper Yassine Bounou to the top right corner from about 15 yards (14 metres).

A minute into first-half stoppage time, Fluminense keeper Fabio sprawled to his left to push Kalidou Koulibaly’s powerful header beyond the post.

After nearly levelling before halftime, Koulibaly won another dangerous header six minutes into the second from a corner.

This time it landed at the feet of Leonardo, who balanced himself and scooped a finish from close range past Fabio and two defenders on the line.

It remained level four minutes later when Bounou sprawled to his right to take the ball off the feet of German Cano, who was trying to dribble round him after intercepting a pass deep in the attacking half.

Hercules put Fluminense in front for good in the 70th when he was rewarded for his own persistence.

After his first long-range shot was deflected high into the air, he continued his run forward as teammate Samuel Xavier won the next header.

It landed at the feet of Hercules, whose wonderful first touch put him in shooting position before his second sent a right-footed shot into the bottom left corner, prompting jubilation from yet another largely pro-Brazilian crowd at this tournament.

Al Hilal pressured Fluminense in the dying stages, but could not create a clear chance on Fabio’s goal.

Fluminense head coach Renato Portaluppi praised his players after the match.

“We knew it was going to be a difficult game, but I am so pleased with the way my players reacted,” Portaluppi told DAZN. “I am so happy that we have gone through to the semifinals.”

Asked about what he said to Hercules when he came off the bench for the second half, he replied: “I told him just to keep doing what he has to do. He would have the opportunity to score, and when it came, he took it.”

Meanwhile, it was a tough day for Al Hilal’s Portuguese players competing just a day after the Liverpool FC and Portugal national team star Diogo Jota and his brother Andre Silva died in a car accident in Spain.

They were honoured with a pregame moment of silence, and cameras showed Al Hilal starters and Portuguese compatriots Ruben Neves and Joao Cancelo in tears during the tribute.

Immigrant advocates have warned that the tax and spending bill championed by United States President Donald Trump will send the administration’s controversial deportation campaign into overdrive.

The bill — called the “One Big Beautiful Bill” among its supporters — is slated to be signed into law on Friday, ushering in an influx of funds for Trump’s immigration crackdown.

That comes as experts say the Trump administration has already taken drastic measures to increase its immigration arrests and expulsions. Those arrests have cut deep into communities across the country, prompting protests and other forms of public outcry.

In a statement following the passage of the bill, Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director of the immigration reform group America’s Voice, took aim at White House adviser Stephen Miller.

He is widely seen as the architect of Trump’s hardline immigration policies across his first and second administrations.

“His dreams are America’s nightmare,” Cardenas said. “His mass deportation crusade already is imperiling our industries, spreading fear in American communities, and ripping American families apart and would become all the worse if the big ugly bill becomes law.”

Here’s how the bill could be transformative.

Historic deportation funding

All told, the bill passed by the House and Senate earmarks about $170bn for immigration and border enforcement funding.

That, according to the American Immigration Council (AIC), represents the “largest investment in detention and deportation in US history”.

Of that money, $45bn will go to new immigration detention centres for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a branch of the Department of Homeland Security that oversees immigration arrests and the detention of individuals already in the country.

That’s a whopping 265-percent increase from ICE’s fiscal year 2024 detention budget, at a time when advocates have continued to raise concerns about the conditions and oversight of immigration detention centres.

Those funds are projected to expand the capacity of the country’s detention centres from about 56,000 beds to more than 100,000, according to an analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy institute.

Much of that money is likely to go to private companies, the Brennan Center added. Private firms already oversee about 90 percent of detention centre capacity and will “reap major financial benefits” from the new bill, the analysis said.

“The plan to put hundreds of thousands more people in ICE detention facilities comes at a time when DHS is blocking oversight of those facilities,” Brennan Center analyst Lauren-Brook Eisen wrote.

“And there have been growing reports of unsanitary, harsh, and unsafe conditions. At least 10 people have died in immigration detention so far this year, a rate nearly three times the number of deaths over the past four years.”

The bill’s language has also sparked concerns that it could override legal restraints over how long immigration authorities can detain children, as established in the 1997 Flores settlement.

The American Civil Liberties Union has said the legislation is “opening the door to prolonged detention of children and families”.

Growing immigration ‘dragnet’

The legislation also allocates nearly $29.9bn for ICE’s deportation and enforcement operations, a threefold increase compared to the fiscal year 2024 budget, according to the American Immigration Council.

Immigrant advocates say the agency has already begun to employ increasingly severe tactics to surge its arrest numbers to fulfil Trump’s campaign promise of mass deportation.

In May, immigration officials reportedly set a daily arrest target of 3,000 per day, three times the previously reported goal.

But immigration agents averaged only about 778 arrests per day during Trump’s first months in office, according to government data from January 26 to May 3.

Speaking during a news conference in June, Cardenas warned that the pressure campaign was already creating a “situation on the ground where ICE is literally just trying to go after anybody that they can catch”.

That included raids on workplaces and locations like hardware store parking lots, where immigrants are known to gather for informal construction gigs. Undocumented individuals brought to the US as children, known as “Dreamers”, have also been caught up in the arrest sweeps.

Cardenas described the strategy as a “dragnet” that touched “long-established, deeply rooted Dreamers and other folks that have been in the United States for a long time”.

To increase their arrest numbers, immigration officials have instructed ICE agents to “get creative”, according to a June report from The Guardian newspaper. They encouraged agents to remain vigilant for undocumented individuals whom they may encounter by chance, referred to as “collaterals” in internal emails.

The Trump administration has also sought to expand its cooperation with local law enforcement. The Tennessee Highway Patrol and ICE, for example, collaborated on a series of traffic stops in May that local immigrant advocates decried as blatant racial profiling.

The new legislation includes $3.5bn to reimburse states for immigration enforcement and cooperation.

“We are becoming a police state,” said Gaby Pacheco, the president of TheDream.US, which helps undocumented students pursue higher education and careers.

During a June news conference, Pacheco warned of increased cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration officials.

“It’s difficult to see that those individuals in our community that we have always cherished, like police officers and campus safety, are now acting to the detriment of our communities and going after immigrants,” she said.

Rounding out the immigration funding in the bill is $46.6bn for border wall construction and $4.1bn to hire and train more border patrol agents.

Will the funding ‘make America safe’?

Trump has, for years, pushed the premise that mass deportations are the only way to repair a country beset by dangerous foreign criminals.

Studies, however, show that undocumented people commit crimes at lower rates than US-born citizens.

After Trump’s bill was passed by the House on Thursday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote on social media that the legislation is “a win for law and order and the safety and security of the American people”.

She added it will “further deliver on President Trump’s mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens and MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN”.

But new data has continued to cast doubt on the administration’s claims.

On Thursday, The Washington Post published an analysis that found that, while the number of immigration arrests has risen in recent months, the proportion of those arrested with criminal convictions has fallen.

In January, about 46 percent of immigration detainees had been convicted of a crime, according to the report, which relied on statistics obtained by the Deportation Data Project and the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy.

By June, that proportion had dropped to 30 percent.

The report noted that the details of the charges, and their severity, were not available.

Meanwhile, 61 percent of the 93,818 people deported from the country since Trump took office had no criminal convictions, according to the Post. Entering the US without documentation is a civil, not criminal, offence.

Another data analysis, from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), offered similar findings.

Out of the 56,397 people held in immigration detention as of June 15, about 71 percent did not have criminal convictions, though 25 percent did have pending charges.

Hector Sanchez Barba, president of Mi Familia Vota, a Hispanic voters advocacy group, was among those decrying Trump’s bill as it passed in the House on Thursday.

In a statement, he pointed to the estimated $3.3 trillion the bill is expected to add to the national debt, as well as the cuts to the programmes for low-income individuals, like Medicaid, used to offset the spending.

“Our children and grandchildren will have to pay for its massive debt,” he said, “while obscene amounts of money will go to ICE policies that punish families and the essential workers our economy needs for their hard work and tax dollars.”

Trade Minister Piyush Goyal’s remarks come before the deadline set by the White House for July 9 for nations to make their individual deals with the US.

India is ready to make trade deals in the national interest, but not just to meet deadlines, Piyush Goyal, minister of trade and industry, has said.

When asked if a deal could be reached by the July 9 deadline set by United States President Donald Trump for all countries to negotiate trade agreements, Goyal said on Friday that “National interest will always be supreme. Keeping that in mind, if a good deal can be made, then India is always ready to make a deal with developed countries.”

“India never does any trade deal on the basis of deadline or timeframe … we will accept it only when it is completely finalised and in the national interest,” Goyal told reporters.

On April 2, Trump threatened a range of tariffs for all US imports. For India, that was set at 26 percent. On April 9, he paused those tariffs for 90 days and set in place a rate of 10 percent in the interim while countries worked out their respective trade deals with Washington, DC. That deadline is set to expire July 9.

“Free trade agreements are possible only when there is two-way benefit; it should be a win-win agreement,” Goyal said.

Indian officials returned from Washington this week after an extended visit to iron out lingering concerns on both sides. Trade talks between India and the US have hit roadblocks over disagreements on import duties for car components, steel, and farm goods.

India is resisting opening up its agriculture and dairy sectors while asking for a favourable tariff for its goods entering the US compared with the ones available for countries like Vietnam and China.

Separately, India has proposed retaliatory duties against the US at the World Trade Organization, saying Washington’s 25 percent tariff on automobiles and some car parts would affect $2.89bn of India’s exports, according to an official notification.

A year after a deadly crackdown, Kenya’s streets are alive with protests again, this time after a blogger died in police custody and officers shot a demonstrator at close range. As outrage grows, so do calls for accountability. Why does police brutality persist in Kenya, and how do officers continue to evade justice?

Champions League holders Paris Saint-Germain face German giants Bayern Munich in FIFA’s Club World Cup quarterfinals.

Who: PSG vs Bayern Munich
What: FIFA Club World Cup quarterfinals
Where: Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta, United States
When: Saturday, July 4 at 12pm (16:00 GMT)

How to follow: We’ll have all the build-up on Al Jazeera Sport from 9am local (13:00 GMT) in advance of our live text commentary stream.

Fresh from lifting the UEFA Champions League for the first time, Paris Saint-Germain will continue their plight for a first FIFA Club World Cup when they face German giants Bayern Munich.

The Parisian lifted both the French league and cup along with their European success this season, while Bayern won their 34th Bundesliga title.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a closer look at the all-European clash for a place in the final four.

How did PSG reach the quarterfinals?

PSG lost their final group stage match 1–0 to Brazil’s Botafogo, but progressed with earlier wins against Atletico Madrid and Seattle Sounders.

A meeting with former star Lionel Messi awaited in the round of 16, where the Parisians beat Inter Miami 4-0 with Joao Neves netting twice.

How did Bayern Munich reach the quarterfinals?

The Germans opened with a 10-0 thrashing of New Zealand side Auckland City, before confirming their progress with a 2-1 win against Argentina’s Boca Juniors.

Benfica shocked Bayern with a 1-0 win in the final group-stage match, which left the Munich-based club to face Flamengo in the round of 16.

Bayern raced into an early two-goal lead before running out 4-2 winners with a Harry Kane double.

Have Bayern Munich won the Club World Cup?

Yes. Bayern had lifted FIFA’s club competition on two occasions – beating Morocco’s Raja Casablanca in 2013 and UANL of Mexico in 2020.

Who will PSG or Bayern face in the semifinal?

The winner of this match will play the winner of quarterfinal four – between Real Madrid and Borussia Dortmund – in the last four.

The final quarterfinal match follows the conclusion of the PSG and Bayern tie, and will be played at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

Head-to-head

This is the 15th meeting between the sides, with Bayern winning eight and PSG six of the matchups so far.

Their first meeting came in 1994, with PSG winning both matches in the Champions League group stages.

The teams were also pitted together in the 2020 UEFA Champions League final in Lisbon, with Bayern winning 1-0 thanks to a header from former PSG player Kingsley Coman.

PSG team news

PSG could hand Ousmane Dembele his first start of the tournament, following his substitute appearance in the 4-0 win against Inter Miami.

Bayern Munich team news

Jamal Musiala managed 18 minutes after coming on as a substitute in the win against Flamengo and could feature once again as he continues his comeback from injury.

Leroy Sane has left the club, having completed his move to Galatasaray, while Coman could miss out with a knock.

PSG coach Luis Enrique’s pre-match thoughts

“At this stage of the competition, it will be difficult no matter who the opponent is. Now is the time to think about resting, we need to prepare well for the match, but we have the time to do so. We’re very happy.”

Bayern striker Harry Kane’s pre-match thoughts

“We have to believe [we can win the Club World Cup] for sure. We’re going up against a tough opponent in the next round, no doubt, Champions League winners. We have to be ready for that, but we feel like, on our day, we can beat anyone. It would be a dream come true to go all the way and win it, but there’s games before that.”

Possible PSG starting lineup

Donnarumma; Hakimi, Marquinhos (C), Pacho, Mendes; Neves, Ruiz, Vitinha; Doue, Dembele, Kvaratskhelia

Possible Bayern Munich starting lineup

Neuer (C); Laimer, Tah, Upamecano, Stanisic; Goretzka, Kimmich; Olise, Musiala, Gnabry; Kane

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has weighed in publicly for the first time since the passage of President Donald Trump’s signature piece of budget legislation, commonly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill“.

On Friday, Musk took to his social media platform X to once again float the possibility of a third party to rival the two major ones — the Democrats and the Republicans — in United States politics.

“Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system! Should we create the America Party?” Musk asked his followers, attaching an interactive poll.

Musk has maintained that both major parties have fallen out of step with what he describes as the “80 percent in the middle” – a number he estimates represents the moderates and independents who do not align with either end of the political spectrum.

His desire to form a new party, however, emerged after a public fallout with Trump over the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, a sweeping piece of legislation that passed both chambers of Congress on Thursday.

Yet again on Friday, Musk revisited his objections to the bill, albeit indirectly. He shared Senator Rand Paul’s critique that the bill “explodes the deficit in the near-term”, responding with a re-post and the “100” emoji, signifying his full agreement.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” has long been a policy priority for Trump, even before he returned to office for a second term on January 20.

His aim was to pass a single piece of legislation that included several key pillars from his agenda, allowing him to proceed with his goals without having to seek multiple approvals from Congress.

But the “One Big Beautiful Bill” has been controversial among Democrats and even some Republicans. The bill would make permanent the 2017 tax cuts from Trump’s first term, which critics argue disproportionately benefit the wealthy over middle- to low-income workers.

It also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion and is projected to add $3.3 trillion to the country’s deficit, according to a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

Further funding is earmarked to bolster Trump’s campaign to crack down on immigration into the US. But to pay for the tax cuts and the spending, the bill includes cuts to critical social services, including Medicaid, a government health insurance programme for low-income households, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps.

Fiscal conservatives opposed the debt increase, while several other Republicans worried about how Medicaid restrictions would affect their constituents.

But in recent weeks, Trump and other Republican leaders rallied many of the holdouts, allowing the bill to pass both chambers of Congress by narrow margins.

Senator Paul of Kentucky was one of only three Republicans in the Senate to vote “no” on the bill. In the aftermath of its final passage on Thursday, he wrote on social media: “This is Washington’s MO: short-term politicking over long-term sustainability.”

Trump is slated to sign the bill into law in a White House ceremony on Friday.

The debate over the bill, however, proved to be a tipping point for Trump and Musk’s relationship. In late May, during his final days as a “special government adviser”, Musk appeared on the TV programme CBS Sunday Morning and said he was “disappointed” in the legislation, citing the proposed increase to the budget deficit.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” Musk told a CBS journalist.

By May 30, his time in the Trump administration had come to an end, though the two men appeared to part on cordial terms.

But after leaving his government role, Musk escalated his attacks on the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, warning it would be disastrous for the US economy.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote on June 3.

Musk went so far as to suggest Trump should be impeached and that he had information about the president’s relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, though he did not offer evidence. Those posts have since been deleted.

Trump, meanwhile, accused Musk on social media of going “CRAZY” and seeking to lash out because the bill would peel back government incentives for the production of electric vehicles (EVs).

On June 5, Musk began to muse about launching his own political party. “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” he wrote.

In follow-up posts, he noted that his followers appeared to agree with him, and he endorsed a commenter’s suggestion for the party’s potential name.

“‘America Party’ has a nice ring to it. The party that actually represents America!” Musk said.

As the world’s richest man and the owner of companies like the carmaker Tesla and the rocket manufacturer SpaceX, Musk has billions of dollars at his disposal: The Bloomberg Billionaires Index estimates his net worth at $361bn as of Friday.

But experts warn that third parties have historically struggled to compete in the US’s largely two-party system, and that they can even weaken movements they profess to back, by draining votes away from more viable candidates.

Musk’s estimate about the “80 percent in the middle” might also be an overstatement. Polls vary as to how many people identify as independent or centrists.

But in January, the research firm Gallup found that an average of 43 percent of American adults identified as independent, matching a record set in 2014. Gallup’s statistics also found a decline in the number of American adults saying they were “moderate”, with 34 percent embracing the label in 2024.

Still, on Friday, Musk shared his thoughts about how a potential third party could gain sway in the largely bifurcated US political sphere. He said he planned to take advantage of the weak majorities the major parties are able to obtain in Congress.

“One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,” he wrote.

“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people.”

Russia has become the first country to accept the Taliban government in Afghanistan since the group took power in 2021, building on years of quieter engagement and marking a dramatic about-turn from the deep hostilities that marked their ties during the group’s first stint in power.

Since the Taliban stormed Kabul in August four years ago, taking over from the government of then-President Ashraf Ghani, several nations – including some that have historically viewed the group as enemies – have reached out to them. Yet until Thursday, no one has formally recognised the Taliban.

So what exactly did Russia do, and will Moscow’s move pave the way for others to also start full-fledged diplomatic relations with the Taliban?

What did Russia say?

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement saying that Moscow’s recognition of the Taliban government will pave the way for bilateral cooperation with Afghanistan.

“We believe that the act of official recognition of the government of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will give impetus to the development of productive bilateral cooperation between our countries in various fields,” the statement said.

The Foreign Ministry said it would seek cooperation in energy, transport, agriculture and infrastructure.

How did the Taliban respond?

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote in an X post on Thursday that Russian ambassador to Kabul Dmitry Zhirnov met Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi and conveyed the Kremlin’s decision to recognise the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

The Ambassador of the Russian Federation, Mr. Dmitry Zhirnov, called on IEA-Foreign Minister Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi.

During the meeting, the Ambassador of Russian Federation officially conveyed his government’s decision to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, pic.twitter.com/wCbJKpZYwm

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Afghanistan (@MoFA_Afg) July 3, 2025

Muttaqi said in a video posted on X: “We value this courageous step taken by Russia, and, God willing, it will serve as an example for others as well.”

What is the history between Russia and Afghanistan?

In 1979, troops from the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to establish a communist government. This triggered a 10-year war with the Afghan mujahideen fighters backed by US forces. About 15,000 Soviet soldiers died in this war.

In 1992, after rockets launched by rebel groups hit the Russian embassy in Kabul, Moscow closed its diplomatic mission to Afghanistan.

The Russian-backed former president, Mohammad Najibullah, who had been seeking refuge in a United Nations compound in Kabul since 1992, was killed by the Taliban in 1996, when the group first came to power.

During the late 1990s, Russia backed anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, including the Northern Alliance led by former mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud.

Then, on September 11, 2001, suicide attackers, affiliated with the armed group al-Qaeda, seized United States passenger planes and crashed into two skyscrapers in New York City, killing nearly 3,000 people. This triggered the so-called “war on terror” by then-US President George W Bush.

In the aftermath of the attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin was one of the first foreign leaders to call Bush and express his sympathy and pledge support. Putin provided the US with assistance to attack Afghanistan. Russia cooperated with the US by sharing intelligence, opening Russian airspace for US flights and collaborating with Russia’s Central Asian allies to establish bases and provide airspace access to flights from the US.

In 2003, after the Taliban had been ousted from power by the US-led coalition, Russia designated the group as a terrorist movement.

But in recent years, as Russia has increasingly grown concerned about the rise of the ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) group – a regional branch of the ISIS/ISIL armed group – it has warmed to the Taliban. The Taliban view ISIS-K as a rival and enemy.

Since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, accompanied by the withdrawal of US forces supporting the Ghani government, Russia’s relations with the group have become more open. A Taliban delegation attended Russia’s flagship economic forum in Saint Petersburg in 2022 and 2024.

With the ISIS-K’s threat growing (the group claimed a March 2024 attack at a concert hall in Moscow in which gunmen killed 149 people), Russia has grown only closer to the Taliban.

In July 2024, Russian President Putin called the Taliban “allies in the fight against terrorism”. Muttaqi met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow in October 2024.

In April 2025, Russia lifted the “terrorist” designation from the Taliban. Lavrov said at the time that “the new authorities in Kabul are a reality,” adding Moscow should adopt a “pragmatic, not ideologised policy” towards the Taliban.

How has the rest of the world engaged with the Taliban?

The international community does not officially recognise the Taliban. The United Nations refers to the administration as the “Taliban de facto authorities”.

Despite not officially recognising the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, several countries have recently engaged diplomatically with the group.

China: Even before the US pulled out of Afghanistan, Beijing was building its relations with the Taliban, hosting its leaders in 2019 for peace negotiations.

But relations have picked up further since the group returned to power, including through major investments. In 2023, a subsidiary of the state-owned China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) signed a 25-year contract with the Taliban to extract oil from the basin of the Amu Darya river, which spans Central Asian countries and Afghanistan. This marked the first major foreign investment since the Taliban’s takeover.

In 2024, Beijing recognised former Taliban spokesperson Bilal Karim as an official envoy to China during an official ceremony, though it made clear that it was not recognising the Taliban government itself.

And in May this year, China hosted the foreign ministers of Pakistan and the Taliban for a trilateral conclave.

Pakistan: Once the Taliban’s chief international supporter, Pakistan’s relations with the group have frayed significantly since 2021.

Islamabad now accuses the Taliban government of allowing armed groups sheltering on Afghan soil, in particular the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), to target Pakistan. TTP, also called the Pakistani Taliban, operates on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is responsible for many of the deadliest attacks in Pakistan in recent years. Afghanistan denies Pakistan’s allegation.

In December 2024, the Pakistani military launched air strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktia province, which borders Pakistan’s tribal district of South Waziristan. While Pakistan said it had targeted sites where TTP fighters had sought refuge, the Taliban government said that 46 civilians in Afghanistan were killed in the air strikes.

This year, Pakistan also ramped up the deportation of Afghan refugees, further stressing ties. Early this year, Pakistan said it wants three million Afghans to leave the country.

Tensions over armed fighters from Afghanistan in Pakistan continue. On Friday, the Pakistani military said it killed 30 fighters who tried to cross the border from Afghanistan. The Pakistani military said all the fighters killed belonged to the TTP or its affiliates.

Still, Pakistan has tried to manage its complex relationship with Afghanistan. In April this year, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar met Muttaqi and other Afghan officials in Kabul. Dar and Muttaqi spoke again in May.

India: New Delhi had shut its Kabul embassy in 1996 after the Taliban took over. India refused to recognise the group, which it viewed as a proxy of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.

New Delhi reopened its embassy in Kabul after the Taliban was removed from power in 2001. But the embassy and India’s consulates came under repeated attacks in the subsequent years from the Taliban and its allies, including the Haqqani group.

Yet since the Taliban’s return to Kabul, and amid mounting tensions between Pakistan and the group, India’s approach has changed. It reopened its embassy, shut temporarily in 2021, and sent diplomats to meet Taliban officials. Then, in January 2025, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri flew to Dubai for a meeting with Muttaqi.

And in May, India’s Foreign Minister S Jaishankar spoke to Muttaqi over the phone, their first publicly acknowledged conversation.

Iran: As with Russia and India, Iran viewed the Taliban with antagonism during the group’s rule in the late 1990s. In 1998, Taliban fighters killed Iranian diplomats in Mazar-i-Sharif, further damaging relations.

But it views ISIS-K as a much bigger threat. Since the Taliban’s return to Kabul, and behind closed doors, even earlier, Tehran has been engaging with the group.

On May 17, Muttaqi visited Iran to attend the Tehran Dialogue Forum. He also met with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and President Massoud Pezeshkian.

After Russia, will others recognise the Taliban?

While each country will likely decide when and if to formally recognise the Taliban government, many already work with the group in a capacity that amounts, almost, to recognition.

“Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries don’t necessarily have much of an option but to engage with the Taliban for both strategic and security purposes,” Kabir Taneja, a deputy director at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, told Al Jazeera.

“Most would not be doing so out of choice, but enforced realities that the Taliban will be in Afghanistan for some time to come at least.”

Taneja said that other countries which could follow suit after Russia’s recognition of the Taliban include some countries in Central Asia, as well as China.

“Russia’s recognition of the Taliban is a geopolitical play,” Taneja said.

“It solidifies Moscow’s position in Kabul, but more importantly, gives the Taliban itself a big win. For the Taliban, international recognition has been a core aim for their outreach regionally and beyond.”

On June 16, The New York Times disclosed that United States President Donald Trump is considering broadening his travel ban list to include as many as 36 additional countries, most of them African – including my country, Zimbabwe.

Twelve days earlier, Trump had enacted a proclamation barring citizens from 12 nations from entering the US. Seven of them – Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan – are African.

He also imposed partial travel restrictions, rather than a complete ban, on individuals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Citizens from these nations are barred from permanently relocating to the US or obtaining tourist or student visas.

As promised on the campaign trail, Trump is cracking down on immigration.

For the first time in my life, I now face the extraordinary prospect of being barred from travelling to the US – a nation that several of my family members and friends call home.

My cousin, Dr Anna Mhaka, for example, completed her medical studies and practised exclusively in the US. Spencer Matare, a former classmate, has lived in Indianapolis for more than two decades and is a US citizen.

Despite the Trump administration’s political grandstanding and vilification of migrants – both legal and undocumented – Anna and Spencer, like millions of others, are industrious, law-abiding members of US society.

I know many in Africa hope to follow in their footsteps, and are deeply alarmed by the growing barriers to migration that Trump has erected.

Yet, I am not one of them.

Since graduating from the University of Cape Town in 1997, I have never felt inclined to travel to America – let alone live there.

I recognise that this makes me something of an anomaly.

I come from a time and place where the West was idealised – romanticised through the assimilated lens of an Anglicised upbringing. That longing was all around me, not just in my community but across the African continent, shaped by the enduring legacies of French, Portuguese, Spanish and British colonial rule. Yet it was never mine.

On International Migrants Day – December 18, 2024 – Afrobarometer released a report based on data from 24 African countries. It found that 49 percent of Africans had considered emigrating, with North America and Europe the top destinations – though a significant number preferred relocation within Africa.

Nearly 49 percent cited the search for better work opportunities as their reason for wanting to emigrate; 29 percent pointed to poverty and economic hardship.

Many Africans still believe in the “American dream” – or its European equivalent – and I do not begrudge them. Across the US, Africans have found success in business, academia, and sport. The late NBA star Dikembe Mutombo, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), is a case in point.

During his lifetime, Mutombo donated $15m of his wealth to establish the Biamba Marie Mutombo Hospital in Kinshasa – a $29m medical and research centre built in memory of his mother, who died in 1997 after failing to receive timely care.

Her tragic, though common, story reflects the deep-rooted socioeconomic challenges across Africa – the very conditions that continue to drive emigration: Broken healthcare systems, entrenched corruption, unemployment, poverty. In contrast, the US often appears as a refuge.

A January 2022 report by the Pew Research Center on Black immigrants in the US showed that African-born Black immigrants are among the most recent arrivals: Three-quarters came in 2000 or later, with 43 percent arriving between 2010 and 2019.

Though the Caribbean remains the top source region, Africa has spurred much of the recent growth. Between 2000 and 2019, the number of Black African immigrants rose by 246 percent – from about 600,000 to two million. Today, individuals of African descent account for 42 percent of the US’s foreign-born Black population – up from 23 percent in 2000.

When I first heard of Trump’s proposed visa bans, I felt profound disdain. It was impossible not to recall his infamous “shithole countries” comment from January 11, 2018 – another act of racial profiling aimed at African nations.

But, on reflection, I have come to see his divisive, insular policies in a different light.

On January 20, he froze US aid to Africa.

Now, he is close to denying many of us visas – from Burkina Faso to Cameroon and Ivory Coast.

Unwittingly, Trump is nudging African nations towards greater self-reliance – forcing us to confront the unmet needs of our restless populations.

But he is not alone in “anti-African” politicking.

Anti-immigration rhetoric has hardened across the US political spectrum. For Africans, even securing a student visa has become harder. In 2023, sub-Saharan African countries had the highest US visa refusal rates – averaging 57 percent. Excluding Southern Africa, where rejection sits at about 19 percent, the rate across other regions rises to 61 percent.

These declining approvals do not affect me, as I have no desire to visit or settle in the United States.

My reluctance to set foot in the so-called “land of the free” stems from a deep-seated fear: The fear of becoming yet another victim of American police brutality – as the world witnessed with the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. I know that Black people – African or otherwise – are far too often subjected to racism, violence and discrimination in the US, regardless of their immigration status.

But racially charged police brutality is not the only reason I choose to stay away. There are many more reasons for an African never to consider settling there.

Many Americans struggle with the same, deep-rooted problems facing Africans across the continent. Roughly 29 million adults in the US struggle to access affordable healthcare, according to the West Health-Gallup healthcare indices – a challenge as familiar in Kinshasa as it is in many parts of America. In 2023, the US Census Bureau reported that 36.8 million Americans were living in poverty.

Despite the glossy illusion projected by Hollywood, the US is no utopia.

While people like Anna and Spencer have succeeded there, for most Africans there is no path to achieving the “American dream”. They must find their futures within their own countries or in other parts of Africa.

A huge transformation is needed.

China, after all, achieved sweeping economic reform in just 40 years.

With Africa’s vast mineral wealth and its young, educated population, similar change is possible. A focus on domestic processing of raw materials could drive industrial growth, job creation, and higher gross domestic product.

But peace and good governance must come first. And our investment priorities must change. Rather than pouring money into defence and security, African governments should focus on artificial intelligence, healthcare, and scientific research.

As Africans, we must stop defining ourselves through Western aid, validation, or instruction.

Whatever comes, I will remain in the motherland.

Keep your America, Mr Trump – and we will keep our Africa.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

On July 3, the United States House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump’s signature tax cut and spending package, which he has called the “One Big Beautiful Bill“.

The bill combines tax reductions, spending hikes on defence and border security, and cuts to social safety nets.

Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warned that the bill “hurts everyday Americans and rewards billionaires with massive tax breaks”.

Trump’s erstwhile ally, billionaire Elon Musk, publicly opposed the bill, arguing it would bloat expenditure and the country’s already unmatched debt.

Trump is expected to sign the bill into law on Friday, July 4 – the US’s independence day – at 4pm ET.

Here’s what’s next – and whom the bill will affect:

How have taxes been lowered?

The main goal of the bill was to extend Trump’s first-term tax cuts.

In 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered taxes and increased the standard deduction for all taxpayers, primarily benefitting higher-income earners.

More than a third of the total cuts went to households with an income of $460,000 or more.

The top 1 percent (roughly 2.4 million people) received average tax cuts of about $61,090 by 2025 – higher than any other income group. By contrast, the middle 60 percent of earners (78 million people) saw cuts in the range of $380 to $1,800.

Those tax breaks were set to expire this year, but the new bill has made them permanent. It also adds some more cuts Trump promised during his latest campaign.

For instance, there is a change to the US tax code called the State and Local Taxes deduction.

This will let taxpayers deduct certain local taxes (like property taxes) from their federal tax return.

Currently, people can only deduct up to $10,000 of these taxes. The new bill would raise that cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years.

Taxpayers will also be allowed to deduct income earned from tips and overtime, until 2028, as well as interest paid on loans for buying cars made in the US from this year until 2028.

Elsewhere, the estate tax exemption will rise to $15m for individuals and $30m for married couples.

In all, the legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

How big are social welfare cuts?

To help offset the cost of the tax cuts, Republicans plan to scale back Medicaid and food assistance programmes for low-income families.

Their stated goal was to focus these programmes on certain groups – primarily pregnant women, people with disabilities and children – while also reducing what they deem to be waste, including by limiting access to immigrants.

Currently, more than 71 million people depend on Medicaid, the government health insurance program.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would leave an additional 17 million Americans without health cover in the next decade.

While Medicaid helps Americans suffering from poor health, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps poor people afford groceries.

About 40 million Americans currently receive benefits through SNAP, also known as food stamps.

The CBO calculates that 4.7 million SNAP participants will lose out over the 2025-2034 period, due to program reductions.

Changes to Medicaid and SNAP could become permanent provisions, with no sunset clauses attached to them.

A recent White House memo pointed to more than $1 trillion in welfare cuts from the new bill – the largest spending reductions to the US safety net in modern history.

Will there be new money for national security?

The bill sets aside about $350bn, to be spread out over several years, for Trump’s border and national security plans. This includes:

• $46bn for the US-Mexico border wall
• $45bn to fund 100,000 beds in migrant detention centres
• Billions more to hire an extra 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents by 2029, as part of Trump’s plan to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in US history.

Will clean energy be affected?

Republicans have rolled back tax incentives that support clean energy projects powered by renewables like solar and wind, instead giving tax breaks to coal and oil companies.

These “green” tax breaks were a part of former President Joe Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act, which aimed to tackle climate change and reduce healthcare costs.

A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles will expire on September 30 this year, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law.

How will the bill affect the US debt profile?

The legislation would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, from $36.2 trillion currently (which amounts to 122 percent of gross domestic product or GDP), going beyond the $4 trillion outlined in the version passed by the House in May.

Washington cannot borrow more than its stated debt ceiling. But since 1960, Congress has raised, suspended or changed the terms of the debt ceiling 78 times, facilitating more leverage and undermining the US’s long-term fiscal stability.

In his first term, Trump oversaw a roughly $8 trillion increase in the federal debt, which surged due to 2017 tax cuts and emergency spending, approved by Congress, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Debt as a share of GDP was already higher last year than it was anytime outside of World War II, the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic. Deficit concerns contributed to Moody’s downgrading of the US credit score in May.

For its part, the White House claims the new tax bill will reduce projected deficits by more than $1.4 trillion over the next decade, in part by spurring additional growth. But economists on both sides of the aisle have strongly disputed that.

Indeed, according to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, interest payments on national debt will rise to $2 trillion per year by 2034 owing to the legislation, crowding out spending on other goods and services.

How did the House of Representatives vote on the bill?

The lower house of the US Congress voted by a margin of 218 to 214 in favour of the bill on Thursday.

All 212 Democratic members of the House opposed the bill. They were joined by Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who broke from the Republican majority.

On July 1, the Senate narrowly passed the bill by a 51–50 vote, with the deciding vote cast by Vice President JD Vance.

Who will benefit the most?

According to Yale University’s Budget Lab, wealthier taxpayers are likely to gain more from this bill than lower-income Americans.

They estimate that people in the lowest income bracket will see their incomes drop by 2.5 percent, mainly because of cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, while the highest earners will see their incomes rise by 2.2 percent.

The catastrophe unfolding in Gaza cannot be understood solely through the lens of humanitarian crisis. What we are witnessing is not just a tragic consequence of war, but the deliberate use of starvation as a tool of political and demographic control. This strategy, designed to dismantle Palestinian society, amounts to a form of structural genocide.

The Israeli military and political leadership, in its pursuit of dominance and the erasure of Palestinian national aspirations, has moved beyond the tactics of bombardment and physical destruction. Today, its methods are more insidious: they target the core of Palestinian survival: food, water, and the means to endure.

Breaking the will of a people by denying them the ability to feed themselves is not collateral damage. It is policy. According to reports from independent international bodies, more than 95 percent of Gaza’s farmland has been destroyed or rendered unusable. That figure is not just an economic loss; it is the intentional dismantling of food sovereignty, and with it, any hope of future independence.

The destruction is systematic. Seed access has been blocked. Water infrastructure has been targeted. Fisherfolk and farmers – already operating under extreme siege conditions – have been repeatedly attacked. These are not random acts. They are part of a broader plan to re-engineer Gaza’s demographic and economic future in line with Israel’s long-term strategic goals: absolute control and political submission.

What makes this all the more alarming is the complicity of the international community. Whether through silence or vague diplomatic statements that describe the situation as a “humanitarian crisis”, global actors have helped normalise the use of starvation as a weapon of war. The refusal to name these actions for what they are – war crimes committed as part of a genocide – has given Israel the cover to continue them with impunity.

Even more disturbing is how food itself has become a bargaining chip. Access to essentials like flour, baby formula, and bottled water is now being tied to political and military negotiations. This reveals a grim logic of power. The goal is not stability or mutual security – it is to impose political conditions through the calculated manipulation of civilian suffering.

By making Gaza entirely dependent on outside aid while systematically dismantling local means of survival, Israel has created a trap in which Palestinians are stripped of all political and economic agency. They are being reduced to a population that can be managed, controlled, and bartered.

Every statistic coming out of Gaza must be read through this lens. That 100 percent of the population now suffers from food insecurity is not simply tragic; it is a marker of the strategy’s progress. This is not about feeding the hungry. It is about breaking the spirit of a people and forcing them to accept a new reality on the occupier’s terms.

And yet, Gaza’s resilience persists. That defiance, under siege and starvation, has exposed the moral collapse of an international order that prefers managed crises to political accountability. This is not a famine born of drought. This is not the chaos of a failed state. This is a crime in progress – carried out with eyes wide open, under the protective cover of global indifference.

Let me also add that international civil society organisations and global social movements – such as La Via Campesina – are not standing by in silence. In fact, this September, some of the world’s most prominent movements of farmers, fishers, and Indigenous Peoples – many of them from conflict-affected regions – will gather in Sri Lanka for the 3rd Nyéléni Global Forum. There, we aim to build a unified global response to the widespread indifference that turns a blind eye to the dispossession of entire communities. From the ground up, we are working to develop concrete proposals to ensure that food is never weaponised and that starvation is never used as a tactic of war. At the same time, countless acts of solidarity are unfolding across the globe, led by people of conscience who are demanding that their governments take action.

History will remember what is happening in Gaza. It will also remember those who chose to remain silent. Justice may be delayed, but it will come, and it will ask who stood by as starvation was used to try to break a people.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

India and Pakistan – nuclear-armed neighbours – have gone to war before. But a brief, intense battle in May this year marked a dramatic shift in their equations.

India says it has drawn a new red line – that every act of terror it believes has come from Pakistan will be treated as an act of war.

In this series – a first of its kind on Al Jazeera – journalist Sreenivasan Jain interviews leading voices from both sides of the border and examines what India’s new normal – which Pakistan calls a new “abnormal” – means for the countries.

In this episode – Jain speaks with Bilawal Bhutto Zardari – former foreign minister of Pakistan, son of Pakistan’s late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and leader of the Pakistan People’s Party.

The question Jain puts to Bhutto: is Pakistan legitimately able to claim that it no longer provides safe harbour to extremist groups that attack India?

You can also watch Jain’s interview with India’s Shashi Tharoor here:

Published on
04/07/2025 – 10:57 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

The AI chipmaker Nvidia’s shares hit a new all-time high on Thursday, briefly giving the company a market capitalisation of $3.92 trillion (€3.33tn), the highest in history for any company.

This surpassed Apple’s record of $3.91tr set in December 2024, even though Nvidia’s market capitalisation dipped once again below this level at market close. 

The chipmaker’s shares traded as high as $160.98 at their peak on Thursday, before the price dipped below this level, placing the market capitalisation at around $3.89tr when daily trading wrapped up.

Tech companies’ shares benefitted from a better-than-expected nonfarm payrolls report in the US, an indicator of a resilient US economy.

This optimism was boosted by forecasts that businesses would continue to spend on AI advances, boosting demand for AI chips.

Nvidia shares are up more than 50% in just less than two months. Analysts expect that the company will break the valuation record soon and retain its elevated share price by the close of the trading day.

“Chip giant Nvidia is on track to achieve a new closing high,” said Dan Coatsworth, investment analyst at AJ Bell, adding that the “AI revolution is still intact”.

AJ Bell head of financial analysis Danni Hewson added that, “After all the gloomy predictions that this might be the year the AI bubble bursts, Nvidia’s found another gear. The chipmaker is on track to smash a coveted record and become the world’s most valuable company ever.”

The value of Nvidia currently is more than three times the total market capitalisation of the stock market in Spain and more than four times that of the Italian stock exchange.

The unarmed man was found in the central-west border section before being led to safety by South Korean troops.

A North Korean man has crossed the heavily fortified land border with South Korea and is now being held in custody, the South Korean military has confirmed.

The unarmed individual was located on Thursday in the central-west section of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), before being guided by South Korean troops to safety, according to South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Seoul’s army carried out “a standard guiding operation to secure custody”, a process that involved a considerable number of soldiers, it said.

After the North Korean was detected early on Thursday morning, the task of bringing him to safety took about 20 hours to complete, the Joint Chiefs of Staff added.

He was mainly still during the day, with South Korean soldiers approaching him at night, it noted.

Seoul has not commented on whether it viewed the border crossing as a defection attempt.

There were no immediate signs of unusual military activity in North Korea, the South Korean army said.

Crossing between the two Koreas is relatively rare and extremely risky, as the border area is strewn with mines.

It is more common for defectors to first travel across North Korea’s border with China, before heading on to South Korea.

Last August, a North Korean soldier reportedly defected to the South and was taken into custody in the northeastern county of Goseong.

And then in April, South Korean troops fired warning shots after roughly 10 North Korean soldiers briefly crossed the military demarcation line. Pyongyang’s officers returned to their own territory without returning fire, Seoul said.

The crossing on Thursday comes a month after the liberal politician Lee Jae-myung was elected as the new South Korean president, following months of political chaos, which began with the conservative President Yoon Suk-yeol’s short-lived attempt to impose martial law in December.

Lee has taken a different stance from his predecessor on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, promising to “open a communication channel with North Korea and establish peace on the Korean Peninsula through talks and cooperation”.

“Politics and diplomacy must be handled without emotion and approached with reason and logic,” he said on Thursday. “Completely cutting off dialogue is really a foolish thing to do.”

As part of his attempt to rebuild trust with his neighbour, Lee has banned loudspeaker broadcasts at the border and attempted to stop activists flying balloons with propaganda into North Korea.

However, it remains to be seen whether Kim will cooperate.

In response to Yoon’s decision to strengthen military alliances with Washington, DC, and Tokyo, Kim called South Korea his country’s “principal enemy” last January.

Diplomatic efforts have stalled on the Korean Peninsula since the collapse of denuclearisation talks between Washington and Pyongyang in 2019 during the first US President Donald Trump administration, after a series of Trump-Kim summits, globally watched spectacles that bore little concrete progress.

Joypurhat/Dhaka, Bangladesh, and New Delhi/Kolkata, India – Under the mild afternoon sun, 45-year-old Safiruddin sits outside his incomplete brick-walled house in Baiguni village of Kalai Upazila in Bangladesh, nursing a dull ache in his side.

In the summer of 2024, he sold his kidney in India for 3.5 lakh taka ($2,900), hoping to lift his family out of poverty and build a house for his three children – two daughters, aged five and seven, and an older 10-year-old son. That money is long gone, the house remains unfinished, and the pain in his body is a constant reminder of the price he paid.

He now toils as a daily labourer in a cold storage facility, as his health deteriorates – the constant pain and fatigue make it hard for him to carry out even routine tasks.

“I gave my kidney so my family could have a better life. I did everything for my wife and children,” he said.

At the time, it didn’t seem like a dangerous choice. The brokers who approached him made it sound simple – an opportunity rather than a risk. He was sceptical initially, but desperation eventually won over his doubts.

The brokers took him to India on a medical visa, with all arrangements – flights, documents, and hospital formalities – handled entirely by them. Once in India, although he travelled on his original Bangladeshi passport, other documents, such as certificates falsely showing a familial relationship with the intended recipient of his kidney, were forged.

His identity was altered, and his kidney was transplanted into an unknown recipient whom he had never met. “I don’t know who got my kidney. They [the brokers] didn’t tell me anything,” Safiruddin said.

By law, organ donations in India are only permitted between close relatives or with special government approval, but traffickers manipulate everything – family trees, hospital records, even DNA tests – to bypass regulations.

“Typically, the seller’s name is changed, and a notary certificate – stamped by a lawyer – is produced to falsely establish a familial relationship with the recipient. Forged national IDs support the claim, making it appear as though the donor is a relative, such as a sister, daughter, or another family member, donating an organ out of compassion,” said Monir Moniruzzaman, a Michigan State University professor and a member of the World Health Organization’s Task Force on Organ Transplantation, who is researching organ trafficking in South Asia.

Safiruddin’s story isn’t unique. Kidney donations are so common in his village of Baiguni, that locals know the community of less than 6,000 people as the “village of one kidney”. The Kalai Upazila region that Baiguni belongs to is the hotspot for the kidney trade industry: A 2023 study published in the British Medical Journal Global Health publication estimated one in 35 adults in the region has sold a kidney.

Kalai Upazila is one of Bangladesh’s poorest regions. Most donors are men in their early 30s lured by the promise of quick money. According to the study, 83 percent of those surveyed cited poverty as the main reason for selling a kidney, while others pointed to loan repayments, drug addiction or gambling.

Safiruddin said that the brokers – who had taken his passport – never returned it. He didn’t even get the medicines he had been prescribed after the surgery. “They [the brokers] took everything.”

Brokers often confiscate passports and medical prescriptions after the surgery, erasing any trail of the transplant and leaving donors without proof of the procedure or access to follow-up care.

The kidneys are sold to wealthy recipients in Bangladesh or India, many of whom seek to bypass long wait times and the strict regulations of legal transplants. In India, for example, only about 13,600 kidney transplants were performed in 2023 – compared with an estimated 200,000 patients who develop end-stage kidney disease annually.

Al Jazeera spoke with more than a dozen kidney donors in Bangladesh, all of whom shared similar stories of being driven to sell their kidneys due to financial hardship. The trade is driven by a simple yet brutal equation: Poverty creates the supply, while long wait times, a massive shortage of legal donors, the willingness of wealthy patients to pay for quick transplants and a weak enforcement system ensure that the demand never ceases.

The cost of desperation

Josna Begum, 45, a widow from Binai village in Kalai Upazila, was struggling to raise her two daughters, 18 and 20 years old, after her husband died in 2012. She moved to Dhaka to work in a garment factory, where she met and married another man named Belal.

After their marriage, both Belal and Josna were lured by a broker into selling their kidneys in India in 2019.

“It was a mistake,” Josna said. She explained that the brokers first promised her five lakh taka (about $4,100), then raised the offer to seven lakh (around $5,700) to convince her. “But after the operation, all I got was three lakh [$2,500].”

Josna said she and Belal were taken to Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences in Kolkata, the capital of India’s West Bengal state, where they underwent surgery. “We were taken by a bus through the Benapole border into India, where we were housed in a rented apartment near the hospital.”

To secure the transplant, the brokers fabricated documents claiming that she and the recipient were blood relatives. Like Safiruddin, she doesn’t know who received her kidney.

Despite repeated attempts, officials at Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences have not responded to Al Jazeera’s request to comment on the case. Kolkata police have previously accused other brokers of facilitating illegal kidney transplants at the same hospital in 2017.

Josna said her passport and identification documents were handled entirely by the brokers. “I was OK with them taking away the prescriptions. But I asked for my passport. They never gave it back,” she said.

She stayed in India for nearly two months before returning to Bangladesh – escorted by the brokers who had her passport, and still held out the promise of paying her what they had committed to.

The brokers had also promised support for her family and even jobs for her children, but after the initial payment and a few token payments on Eid, they cut off contact.

Soon after he was paid – also three lakh taka ($2,500) – for his transplant, Belal abandoned Josna, later marrying another woman. “My life was ruined,” she said.

Josna now suffers from chronic pain and struggles to afford medicines. “I can’t do any heavy work,” she said. “I have to survive, but I need medicine all the time.”

‘In front of this gang’s gun’

In some cases, victims have become perpetrators of the kidney scam, too.

Mohammad Sajal (name changed), was once a businessman in Dhaka selling household items like pressure cookers, plastic containers and blenders through Evaly, a flashy e-commerce platform that promised big returns. But when Evaly collapsed following a 2021 scam, so did his savings – and his livelihood.

Drowning in debt and under immense pressure to repay what he owed, he sold his kidney in 2022 at Venkateshwar Hospital in Delhi. But the promised 10 lakh taka ($8,200) never materialised. He received only 3.5 lakh taka ($2,900).

“They [the brokers] cheated me,” Sajal said. Venkateshwar Hospital has not responded to repeated requests from Al Jazeera for comment on the case.

There was only one way he could earn what he had thought he would get for his kidney, Sajal concluded at the time: by joining the brokers to dupe others. For months, he worked as a broker, arranging kidney transplants for several Bangladeshi donors in Indian hospitals. But after a financial dispute with his handlers, he left the trade, fearing for his life.

“I am now in front of this gang’s gun,” he said. The network he left behind operates with impunity, he said, stretching from Bangladeshi hospitals to the Indian medical system. “Everyone from the doctors to recipients to the brokers on both sides of borders are involved,” he said.

Now, Sajal works as a ride-share driver in Dhaka, trying to escape the past. But the scars, both physical and emotional, remain. “No one willingly gives a kidney out of hobby or desire,” he said. “It is a simple calculation: desperation leads to this.”

Acknowledging the cross-border kidney trafficking trade, Bangladesh police say they are cracking down on those involved. Assistant Inspector General Enamul Haque Sagor of Bangladesh Police said that, in addition to uniformed officers, undercover investigators have been deployed to track organ trafficking networks and gather intelligence.

“This issue is under our watch, and we are taking action as required,” he said.

Sagor said that police have arrested multiple individuals linked to organ trafficking syndicates, including brokers. “Many people get drawn into kidney sales through these networks, and we are working to catch them,” he added.

Across the border, Indian law enforcement agencies, too, have cracked down on some medical professionals accused of involvement in kidney trafficking. In July 2024, the Delhi Police arrested Dr Vijaya Rajakumari, a 50-year-old kidney transplant surgeon associated with a Delhi hospital. Investigations revealed that between 2021 and 2023, Dr Rajakumari performed approximately 15 transplant surgeries on Bangladeshi patients at a private hospital, Indian officials said.

But experts say that these arrests are too sporadic to seriously dent the business model that underpins the kidney trade.

And experts say Indian authorities face competing pressures – upholding the law, but also promoting medical tourism, a sector that was worth $7.6bn in 2024. “Instead of enforcing ethical standards, the focus is on the economic advantages of the industry, allowing illegal transplants to continue,” said Moniruzzaman.

‘More transplants mean more revenue’

In India, the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA) of 1994 regulates organ donations, permitting kidney transplants primarily between close relatives such as parents, siblings, children and spouses to prevent commercial exploitation. When the donor is not a near relative, the case must receive approval from a government-appointed body known as an authorisation committee to ensure the donation is altruistic and not financially motivated.

However, brokers involved in kidney trafficking circumvent these regulations by forging documents to establish fictitious familial relationships between donors and recipients. These fraudulent documents are then submitted to authorisation committees, which – far too often, say experts – approve the transplants.

Experts say the foundation of this illicit system lies in the ease with which brokers manipulate legal loopholes. “They fabricate national IDs and notary certificates to create fictitious family ties between donors and recipients. These papers can be made quickly and cheaply,” said Moniruzzaman.

With these falsified identities, transplants are performed under the pretence of legal donations between relatives.

In Dhaka, Shah Muhammad Tanvir Monsur, director general (consular) at Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that the country’s government officials had no role in the document fraud, and that they “duly followed” all legal procedures. He also denied any exchange of information between India and Bangladesh on cracking down on cross-border kidney trafficking.

Over in India, Amit Goel, deputy commissioner of police in Delhi, who has investigated several cases of kidney trafficking in the city, including that of Rajakumari, the doctor, said that hospital authorities often struggle to detect forged documents, allowing illegal transplants to proceed.

“In the cases I investigated, I found that the authorisation board approved those cases because they couldn’t identify the fake documents,” he said.

But Moniruzzaman pointed out that Indian hospitals also have a financial incentive to overlook discrepancies in documents.

“Hospitals turn a blind eye because organ donation [in general] is legal,” Moniruzzaman said. “More transplants mean more revenue. Even when cases of fraud surface, hospitals deny responsibility, insisting that documentation appears legitimate. This pattern allows the trade to continue unchecked,” he added.

Mizanur Rahman, a broker who operates across multiple districts in Bangladesh, said that traffickers often target individual doctors or members of hospital review committees, offering bribes to facilitate these transplants.​ “Usually, brokers in Bangladesh are in touch with their counterparts in India who set up these doctors for them,” Rahman told Al Jazeera. “These doctors often take a major chunk of the money involved.”

Dr Anil Kumar, director of the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) – India’s central body overseeing organ donation and transplant coordination – declined to comment on allegations of systemic discrepancies that have enabled rising cases of organ trafficking.

However, a former top official from NOTTO pointed out that hospitals often are up against not just brokers and seemingly willing donors with what appear to be legitimate documents, but also wealthier recipients. “If the hospital board is not convinced, recipients often take the matter to higher authorities or challenge the decision in court. So they [hospitals] also want to avoid legal hassles and proceed with transplants,” this official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, organ trafficking networks continue to adapt their strategies. When police or official scrutiny increases in one location, the trade simply moves elsewhere. “There is no single fixed hospital; the locations keep changing,” Moniruzzaman said. “When police conduct a raid, the hospital stops performing transplants.

“Brokers and their network – Bangladeshi and Indian brokers working together – coordinate to select new hospitals at different times.”

Porous borders and the fallout

For brokers and hospitals that are involved, there is big money at stake. Recipients often pay between $22,000 and $26,000 for a kidney.

But donors get only a tiny fraction of this money. “The donors get three to five lakh taka [$2,500 to $4,000] usually,” said Mizanur Rahman, the broker. “The rest of the money is shared with brokers, officials who forge documents, and doctors if they are involved. Some money is also spent on donors while they live in India.”

In some cases, the deception runs even deeper: traffickers lure Bangladeshi nationals with promises of well-paying jobs in India, only to coerce them into kidney donations.

Victims, often desperate for work, are taken to hospitals under false pretences, where they undergo surgery without fully understanding the consequences. In September last year, for instance, a network of traffickers in India held many Bangladeshi job seekers captive, either forced or deceived them into organ transplants, and abandoned them with minimal compensation. Last year, police in Bangladesh arrested three traffickers in Dhaka who smuggled at least 10 people to New Delhi under the guise of employment, only to have them forced into kidney transplants.

“Some people knowingly sell their kidneys due to extreme poverty, but a significant number are deceived,” said Shariful Hasan, associate director of the Migration Programme at BRAC, formerly the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, one of the world’s largest nongovernmental development organisations. “A rich patient in India needs a kidney, a middleman either finds a poor Bangladeshi donor or lures someone in the name of employment, and the cycle continues.”

Vasundhara Raghavan, CEO of the Kidney Warriors Foundation, a support group in India for patients with kidney diseases, said that a shortage of legal donors was a “major challenge” that drove the demand for trafficked organs.

“Desperate patients turn to illicit means, fuelling a system that preys on the poor.”

She acknowledged that India’s legal framework was aimed at preventing organ transplants from turning into an exploitative industry. But in reality, she said, the law had only pushed organ trade underground.

“If organ trade cannot be entirely eliminated, a more systematic and regulated approach should be considered. This could involve ensuring that donors undergo mandatory health screenings, receive postoperative medical support for a fixed period, and are provided with financial security for their future wellbeing,” Raghavan said.

Back in Kalai Upazila, Safiruddin nowadays spends most of his time at home, his movements slower, his strength visibly diminished. “I am not able to work properly,” he said.

He says there are nights when he lies awake, thinking of the promises the brokers made, and the dreams they shattered. He doesn’t know when, and if, he will be able to complete the construction of his house. He thought the surgery would bring his family a pot of cash to build a future. Instead, his children have been left with an ailing father – and he with a sense of betrayal that Safiruddin can’t shake off. “They took my kidney and vanished,” he said.

Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from Journalists for Transparency.