money

The Dalai Lama confirmed on Wednesday that he will have a successor to carry on the role of spiritual leadership to Tibetan Buddhists, in a statement issued during continuing celebrations to mark his 90th birthday.

He said that leaders of Tibet’s spiritual traditions, members of the Tibetan parliament and government in exile, both of which are in the Indian district of Dharamshala, and Buddhists from around the world, including mainland China and Tibet, had written to him, requesting that the institution continue.

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

His statement, issued at a time when Buddhist scholars and revered monks from around the world have converged on McLeodganj town in Dharamshala, where the Dalai Lama lives, to participate in the 90th birthday celebrations. The town, also known as “Little Lhasa” because it is in effect the capital of Tibetan Buddhists in exile, will also host an intense three-day religious conference that the Dalai Lama will preside over.

But the occasion isn’t only religious. How the next Dalai is chosen, and by whom, carries deep geopolitical significance.

For centuries, Tibetan Buddhist leaders have chosen and enthroned a new Dalai Lama only after an intense quest and subsequent schooling after the incumbent passes away. If the current Dalai Lama, the 14th, offers any more details in the coming days about how his successor might be chosen, or whom it might be, that would represent a dramatic break with tradition.

What he says, and doesn’t say, will be closely watched in Washington, New Delhi and Beijing.

The Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who fled Tibet for India in 1959, is seen as a separatist by Beijing. India, as his host for 66 years, has deep stakes in the future of the institution of the Dalai Lama, who has known every Indian prime minister since the country gained independence. And the United States, which has long cited the Tibetan movement in exile as evidence of China’s human rights excesses, will want to make sure that the glue that binds it all – the institution of the Dalai Lama – continues.

So, who will choose the next Dalai Lama? Can the incumbent Dalai Lama stump the Chinese government? And could there be two Dalai Lamas?

How is a Dalai Lama chosen?

Choosing the next Dalai Lama, who will be enthroned as the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, is a process rooted in centuries-old traditions, spiritual beliefs, and rituals.

Traditions consider the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, and each Dalai Lama is believed to be the successor in a line of reincarnations.

Traditionally, the search for the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation typically begins after a period of mourning. High-ranking lamas (spiritual leaders) form a search committee to identify the next Dalai Lama, based on signs such as the direction of the smoke blowing from his cremation, the direction where he was looking when he died, and oracles’ visions, including at Lhamo Latso, a lake considered holy in Tibet.

Once potential candidates are identified, they undergo a series of tests to confirm their identity as the reincarnation. Candidates are usually young boys born at about the time of the previous Dalai Lama’s death. But the current Dalai Lama has said that there is no reason why a woman cannot be the next reincarnation.

After a candidate is chosen, the child begins a rigorous education in Buddhist philosophy, scriptures and leadership responsibilities, preparing them to assume the role of both a spiritual and, historically, political leader of the Tibetan people.

Who is the current Dalai Lama and how was he chosen?

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th and current Dalai Lama, was born as Lhamo Dhondup on July 6, 1935, to a farming family in a region now in Qinghai province. He was identified as a reincarnation when he was barely two years old.

After the death of the 13th Dalai Lama, the search party concluded a four-year-long quest after the toddler identified belongings of his predecessor with the phrase, “It’s mine, it’s mine.” While the majority of Dalai Lamas have been born in Tibet, one was discovered in Mongolia, and another in a region that today lies in northeastern India.

In March 1959, after a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese control, the Dalai Lama fled Lhasa in disguise, crossing the Himalayas on horseback and foot, eventually reaching India on March 31 that year. Nearly 100,000 Tibetan refugees live in different parts of India today, the community’s largest exile population.

His escape marked the end of traditional Tibetan governance and the beginning of a life in exile, from where he led the Tibetan struggle for autonomy.

What has the 14th Dalai Lama said about his successor?

Addressing a beaming crowd of followers and monks in McLeodganj on Monday, June 30, the Dalai Lama, clad in his traditional red robes and yellow scarf, said: “As far as the institution of the Dalai Lama is concerned, there will be a framework for it to continue.

“I think I have been able to serve the Dharma and sentient beings and I am determined to continue to do so,” he added, noting that at 90 years old, he feels “physically healthy and well”.

He has also hinted about where to look for the next Dalai Lama. Noting that the purpose of a reincarnation is to carry on the work of the predecessor, the 14th Dalai Lama wrote in his book, Voice for the Voiceless, published in March 2025, that “the new Dalai Lama will be born in the free world”.

In effect, that has meant that the Dalai Lama has decreed that the reincarnation would not be in China or China-controlled Tibet. He had earlier said that his incarnation could be found in India.

For Tenzin Jigme, a 39-year-old who lives in McLeodganj and works with the Tibetan government-in-exile, the mere thought of the Dalai Lama passing away is heavy. His voice broke as he said, “We live in a free world because he led us here.”

“For all of us, living as refugees, His Holiness Dalai Lama is a fatherly figure,” Jigme told Al Jazeera. “We need his reincarnation; look at the world, we need someone to teach us compassion.”

Was there a risk that there wouldn’t be a successor?

The 14th Dalai Lama has suggested in the past that there may not be a successor at all.

In 2011, he said that when he turned 90, he would consult his fellow lamas and the Tibetan public and “re‑evaluate whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not”.

In 2014, during a visit to the 14th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates in Rome, the then-79-year-old spiritual leader said that whether another Dalai Lama would be enthroned after him would depend on the circumstances after his death and was “up to the Tibetan people”.

“The Dalai Lama institution will cease one day. These man-made institutions will cease,” the Dalai Lama said in an interview with the BBC. “There is no guarantee that some stupid Dalai Lama won’t come next, who will disgrace himself or herself. That would be very sad. So, much better that a centuries-old tradition should cease at the time of a quite popular Dalai Lama.”

Dibyesh Anand, a professor of international relations at the University of Westminster and the author of Geopolitical Exotica: Tibet in Western Imagination, said the institution of the Dalai Lama will face immense uncertainty in the coming decades.

But, he said, “the history shows that this institution has been more protean and resilient than politically power-based states.”

Subsequent exiled Dalai Lamas “will not have political power in conventional sense”; however, the institution will remain “symbolically the heart of the Tibetan nation and the most respected authority in Tibetan Buddhism,” he said.

What is China’s position on this?

China insists that only its government has the authority to approve the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, treating it as a matter of national sovereignty and religious regulation. This position was cemented in a 2007 law, which mandates that all reincarnations of Tibetan “living Buddhas” must be approved by the state and must follow Chinese laws, religious rituals and historical precedent.

Chinese officials have repeatedly stated that the next Dalai Lama must be born inside China, and any foreign-born or exile-appointed successor would be considered “illegitimate”.

A key element of China’s proposed process is the Golden Urn system, an 18th-century Qing Dynasty method in which the names of candidates are placed in a golden vessel and one is selected by lot.

The current Dalai Lama doesn’t favour this method, arguing that it lacks “spiritual quality”.

In March 2015, then Tibet Governor Padma Choling accused the Dalai Lama of “profaning religion and Tibetan Buddhism,” adding that the Dalai Lama was trying to usurp Beijing’s right to decide.

“If he says no reincarnation, then no reincarnation? Impossible. Nobody in Tibetan Buddhism would agree to that,” said Choling.

While talks over finding the next Dalai Lama traditionally occur after the death of the incumbent one, the Chinese position has left monks and Tibetans in exile worried that Beijing might try to hijack the institution.

The centrality of the Dalai Lama to the Tibetan national movement and his stature as a global icon is an irritant for Beijing, said Anand, the professor.

“This is a battle over legitimacy and not actual rule over territorial Tibet. Beijing seeks to win that battle of legitimacy but faces an institution and person in the 14th Dalai Lama that is beyond its control,” he told Al Jazeera.

Robert Barnett, a scholar of modern Tibetan history and politics and founder of Columbia University’s Modern Tibetan Studies Program, said that some “Chinese strategists see the succession issue purely as an opportunity to frustrate the exile project”.

Another reason could be the Chinese leaders’ anticipation of another plausible Tibetan uprising. It helps Beijing to “have a ‘tame’ Dalai Lama to dissuade Tibetans from protest,” Barnett told Al Jazeera.

Has China hijacked a selection before?

Yes. In 1995, the Dalai Lama recognised a young boy in Tibet as the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama – the second most important figure in Tibetan Buddhism. He was a six-year-old, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the son of a doctor and a nurse from the Tibetan town of Naqchu.

Soon after, Chinese authorities took the boy into custody and relocated the family. Their whereabouts are not known since.

In his place, Beijing appointed its own candidate, a move widely rejected by Tibetan Buddhists in exile and many inside Tibet, who view the Chinese-selected Panchen Lama as illegitimate.

The disappearance of the Panchen Lama in 1995 was a turning point in Chinese-Tibetan political history, said Barnett.

“The Chinese side decided that it has to control not just which child should be chosen, but whether a lama can reincarnate, where he or she can reincarnate, who should search for them,” he said. The Chinese were clear that the Dalai Lama needed to be excluded from the process.

That episode is a key reason why the current Dalai Lama and Tibetans in exile are opposed to the selection of any future reincarnation inside China, including Tibet. The chosen child might simply be abducted, as happened 30 years ago.

Anand said that China’s goal is to dishearten and divide Tibetans. “If [China] cannot achieve it through winning hearts and minds, they’d do it through divide and rule, and this is how we should see the battle over reincarnation,” he told Al Jazeera.

A case of two rival Dalai Lamas

Tibet observers and scholars believe that after the 14th Dalai Lama’s death, Tibetan Buddhists might well find a scenario where two rival successors jostle for legitimacy – an exiled leader, appointed by the lamas faithful to the incumbent Dalai Lama, and one appointed by the Chinese government.

It would be unprecedented in the history of Tibetan Buddhism, but “is highly likely to occur,” said Barnett.

While the reality of two Dalai Lamas may not matter to exiled Tibetans from a religious perspective, it “makes life very difficult for Tibetans inside Tibet who will be forced in huge numbers to publicly declare their loyalty to China over and over again”.

Barnett noted that Beijing could also use the succession issue as leverage to get foreign governments to marginalise organisations of Tibetans in exile in those countries.

Anand said that Beijing’s insistence on its candidate “will be a source of instability in China-Tibetan relations” and “may come back to haunt the Chinese Communist Party”.

In an interview in March 2019, the Dalai Lama acknowledged that following his death, there could be two rival Dalai Lamas. “In future, in case you see two Dalai Lamas come, one from here, in free country, one chosen by Chinese, then nobody will trust, nobody will respect [the one chosen by China],” he said.

“So that’s an additional problem for the Chinese! It’s possible, it can happen,” the Dalai Lama added, laughing.

Is the selection also a geostrategic issue?

It is, mainly for India and the United States.

For India, which hosts the Tibetan government-in-exile, the succession of the Dalai Lama intersects with national security and its fraught border relationship with China.

New Delhi will want to carry on giving hospitality and refuge to the Dalai Lama and his followers, said Anand. He added that the “Tibetan exiles in India offer a leverage and buffer to India vis-a-vis China’s influence in the Himalayan region”.

The US’s interest in Tibet dates back to the Cold War era, when the CIA backed Tibetan resistance against Chinese occupation, in the 1950s, including after the Dalai Lama’s exile.

Washington has long shown bipartisan support for the religious autonomy of Tibetan Buddhists, including in choosing the next Dalai Lama.

In 2015, when China claimed authority to select the next Dalai Lama, US officials publicly rejected this, asserting that Tibetan Buddhists alone should decide. The most forceful position came in 2020 with the passage of the Tibetan Policy and Support Act (TPSA) under President Donald Trump.

The new US position explicitly supported the Dalai Lama’s right to determine his own reincarnation and authorised sanctions on Chinese officials who interfered in the process.

The international support for the Tibetan right to decide on the institution of the Dalai Lama, Anand said, “is going to play out in geopolitical rivalry between the US and China as well as China and India in the future”.

ADVERTISEMENT

The EU and the US are moving toward an agreement that would take the form of a headline “political understanding” to resolve their tariffs dispute before a July 9th deadline, rather than a comprehensive deal, according to several diplomats and an EU official.

“If there is to be an agreement, the most realistic outcome would likely be a general framework or a ‘principle agreement’ — something that, due to time constraints, would resemble the kind of understanding the US has reached with the UK or even with China,” a senior EU diplomat said, adding: “This would not be a detailed, comprehensive trade deal, but rather a political understanding laying the groundwork for more concrete arrangements.”

The potential agreement was discussed at a behind closed doors meeting in Brussels on Monday, with European Commission officials briefing EU ambassadors about the ongoing negotiations between the EU and the US. Ambassadors were also informed of a new US counterproposal which offered  “nothing very concrete”, one of the diplomats said.

The EU and the US are under pressure from the looming 9th of July deadline, after which US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose 50% tariffs on EU imports if negotiations fail.

Since mid-March, Washington has implemented a new policy that calls into question its trade relations with partners across the globe. The US currently imposes tariffs of 50% on EU steel and aluminium, 25% on cars, and 10% on all EU imports.

After weeks of fruitless discussions, negotiations between the Commission — which holds the mandate to negotiate on behalf of the 27 member states in trade matters — and the Trump administration began in mid-June, but their outcome remains in doubt.

The Commission initially proposed a zero-tariff agreement on industrial products and an offer to purchase strategic goods such as US liquefied natural gas. But it now appears to be coming to terms with a deal that would maintain a baseline 10% tariff on EU imports. Lower tariffs might then be negotiated for strategic sectors such as aircraft, for which transatlantic production lines are interdependent.

However, member states are divided over a potential deal with a baseline 10% tariff. Germany and Italy are reportedly in favour, while countries like Ireland and France remain more sceptical.

“If the US maintain 10% tariffs, there will have to be compensation on goods and products imported from the US,” French president Emmanuel Macron stated on 26 June after an EU summit, adding: “The levy must be the same — 10% for 10%, or the equivalent of 10%.”

A second EU diplomat told Euronews that the agreement could be deliberately short in order for the two parties to reach further and more detailed agreements in different sectors.

“It is not excluded that some sectors could be addressed while others are not,” an EU official said.

Commission officials also asked ambassadors to consider several scenarios, including the possibility of an “asymmetrical agreement” in which the EU would make more concessions than the US, the prospect of no deal, and the option of the EU triggering retaliatory measures.

During the same meeting with the member states, the Commission indicated that a second list of countermeasures proposed on 8 May was still under development, according to a third EU diplomat. This list was subject to feedback from industry over several weeks and member states will still need to formally adopt it.

The proposed list targets €95 billions’ worth of US products. It would come on top of a first list or retaliation which covers  €21 billions’ worth of US products and was suspended until the 14 July after Donald Trump announced a 90-Day truce in the trade dispute.

A team of Commission experts is in Washington this week to advance the negotiation.

The EU’s trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is set to travel there on Wednesday for a meeting on Thursday with his US counterparts, US secretary of commerce Howard William Lutnick  and US trade representative Jamieson Lee Greer.

On Monday, Šefčovič confirmed that the bloc had received “the first draft of the [US] proposals for the eventual agreement in principle.”

University of Pennsylvania erases records set by trans swimmer as part of resolution to civil rights investigation.

A top university in the United States has agreed to bar transgender athletes from women’s sports and erase records set by a prominent trans swimmer following pressure from the administration of President Donald Trump.

The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) and the US Department of Education on Tuesday announced the agreement to resolve a federal civil rights investigation focused on transgender swimmer Lia Thomas.

Thomas, who was born male and came out as a trans woman in 2018, won a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I title in 2022, becoming the first trans athlete to accomplish the feat.

Thomas, who began hormone replacement therapy in 2019 as part of the transition from male to female, also set UPenn records in five women’s events, including the 100-metre and 500-metre freestyle competitions.

Thomas’s accomplishments became a focal point in the debate about fairness in sport, with LGBTQ campaigners hailing the swimmer’s participation as a victory for inclusion and critics, including some of Thomas’s teammates, casting it as an attack on women’s rights.

Larry Jameson, UPenn’s president, said in a statement that the university recognised that some student athletes had been disadvantaged by the NCAA eligibility rules that had been in place at the time of Thomas’s participation.

The NCAA changed its eligibility rules to limit participation in women’s events to female-born athletes in March, following Trump’s executive order denying funding to educational institutions that allow trans girls and women to compete.

“We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time,” Jameson said.

“We will review and update the Penn women’s swimming records set during that season to indicate who would now hold the records under current eligibility guidelines.”

UPenn later on Tuesday removed Thomas from its website’s list of “All-Time School Records”, and added a note stating that Thomas set records during the 2021-22 season under “eligibility rules in effect at the time”.

UPenn’s move comes after the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in April announced that it had determined the university to have violated Title IX by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities”.

US Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the agreement a “great victory for women and girls”.

“The Department commends UPenn for rectifying its past harms against women and girls, and we will continue to fight relentlessly to restore Title IX’s proper application and enforce it to the fullest extent of the law,” McMahon said in a statement.

Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD, two of the biggest LGBTQ advocacy organisations in the US, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

UPenn’s announcement is the latest in a series of moves to limit trans people’s participation in sport in the US and elsewhere since Trump returned to the White House in January.

In March, World Athletics said it would require participants in women’s events to undergo DNA testing to prove their biological sex.

Opinion polls have pointed to growing public opposition to trans women and girls competing against female-born athletes.

In a New York Times/Ipsos poll published in January, 79 percent of Americans said that trans women should be barred from female sports, up from 62 percent in 2021.

The FBI has accused the pair of working on behalf of China’s Ministry of State Security to gather naval intelligence.

The United States Department of Justice has charged two Chinese citizens for spying and trying to recruit from within the country’s military ranks.

According to Tuesday’s statement, Yuance Chen, 38, and Liren “Ryan” Lai, 39, are accused of working on behalf of China’s foreign intelligence arm, the Ministry of State Security (MSS).

The pair allegedly carried out a range of “clandestine intelligence taskings”, including facilitating payments in exchange for national security information, gathering intelligence on Navy bases and attempting to recruit MSS assets.

“This case underscores the Chinese government’s sustained and aggressive effort to infiltrate our military and undermine our national security from within,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

According to an affidavit from the FBI, Lai was part of an MSS network “who could travel more easily” between China and the US “to facilitate clandestine operations”.

Starting around 2021, he began developing Chen, who is a legal permanent resident, into his asset.

After ascertaining that Chen knew people in the US military, Lai urged him to travel abroad to discuss his connections in person, even offering to pay for the tickets, according to the affidavit.

The men reportedly met with MSS agents, and in 2022, they left a backpack with $10,000 in cash in a California locker as payment to other individuals for intelligence gathering.

In the years that followed, the affidavit says that Chen collected information about the Navy and sent it to Lai, while also discussing recruitment efforts directly with the MSS.

Some of that information included personal details from Navy employees. In one case, Chen travelled to San Diego, California, to meet with a Navy hire and tour the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier.

Photos included in the affidavit show a visitor’s badge as well as Chen posing with the employee and their child on top of the aircraft carrier’s deck.

The FBI says that such interactions are part of China’s campaign to extend its military’s reach.

“The PRC [People’s Republic of China] government seeks blue-water naval capabilities as part of their effort to modernize their navy and establish hegemony in the South China Sea,” the affidavit reads.

“Blue-water capabilities” generally refer to long-distance maritime efforts, as opposed to operations based closer to domestic shores.

“As such, the PRC government tasks and deploys the MSS to surreptitiously target the US Navy and collect intelligence,” the affidavit continues.

Both men were charged under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, or FARA, which requires that those working on behalf of another country register with the US government.

In recent years, the US government has ramped up its use of the law in its effort to combat alleged Chinese espionage activity.

Beijing typically denies such claims and has accused the US of discriminatory tactics.

“These charges reflect the breadth of the efforts by our foreign adversaries to target the United States,” US Attorney Craig H Missakian said in the Justice Department statement.

“We will continue to undertake counterespionage investigations and prosecutions, no matter how complex and sensitive, to disrupt attempts to weaken our national security.”

The United States Senate has passed a sweeping tax bill championed by President Donald Trump, sending the controversial legislation to the House of Representatives for what could be a final vote.

Lawmakers passed the bill by a 51-to-50 vote in the Republican controlled-chamber on Tuesday, after Vice President JD Vance broke the tie.

The successful vote ended what was a marathon 27 hours of debate in the upper chamber. Three Republicans joined with Democrats to vote against the bill, which would enshrine many of Trump’s signature policies, including his 2017 tax cuts, reductions for social safety net programmes, and increased spending on border enforcement and deportations.

Critics on both sides of the aisle have taken aim at the estimated $3.3 trillion the bill would add to the national debt.

Others have blasted reductions to programmes like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They argue that the bill takes support away from low-income families to finance tax cuts that will primarily help the wealthy.

Trump, however, has pressed for the bill to be passed by July 4, the country’s Independence Day. The legislation — informally known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — now heads back to the House of Representatives for a Wednesday vote on the updated version.

The president found out about the Senate’s passage in the midst of a news conference in south Florida, where he was touting his crackdown on immigration.

Despite tight odds in the House of Representatives, Trump struck an optimistic tone about the upcoming vote.

“ I think it’s going to go very nicely in the House,” Trump said. “Actually, I think it will be easier in the House than it was in the Senate.”

The president also downplayed one of the most controversial provisions in the bill: cuts to Medicaid, a government health insurance programme for low-income families. About 11.8 million people are anticipated to lose their health coverage in the coming years if the bill becomes law.

“I’m saying it’s going to be a very much smaller number than that, and that number will be all waste, fraud and abuse,” Trump said.

Criticisms in the Senate

Trump was not the only Republican to be celebrating the passage of the omnibus bill. In the Senate, leading Republican John Thune touted the bill as a victory for American workers.

“It’s been a long road to get to today,” Thune said from the Senate floor. “Now we’re here, permanently extending tax relief for hard-working Americans.”

But not all Republicans were as enthused about the bill. Three party members — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine — all voted against its passage. And even a critical vote in favour, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, appeared to express regret in the aftermath.

“Do I like this bill? No,” she told a reporter for NBC News. “I know, that in many parts of the country, there are Americans who are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don’t like that.”

She later took to social media to criticise the haste of its passage. “Let’s not kid ourselves. This has been an awful process – a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution.”

Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said that Republicans had “betrayed the American people and covered the Senate in utter shame”.

“In one fell swoop, Republicans passed the biggest tax break for billionaires ever seen, paid for by ripping away healthcare from millions of people,” said Schumer.

Still, Schumer announced one symbolic victory on Tuesday, writing on the social media platform X that Trump’s name for the legislation — “One Big Beautiful Bill” — had been struck from its official title.

Republicans currently hold a trifecta in US government, with control of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House, giving Democrats reduced power in legislating.

But the Republicans have narrow majorities in Congress, leading to uncertainty about the bill’s fate. In the Senate, they hold 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. In the House, where the bill heads now, they have a majority of 220 representatives to the Democrats’ 212.

‘Not fiscal responsibility’

The bill is therefore likely to face a razor-thin margin in the House. An early version that passed on May 22 did so with just one Republican vote to spare.

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of hardline conservatives, has continued to baulk at the bill’s high price tag and could push for deeper spending cuts in the coming days.

“The Senate’s version adds $651 billion to the deficit — and that’s before interest costs, which nearly double the total,” the caucus wrote in a statement on Monday.

“That’s not fiscal responsibility. It’s not what we agreed to.”

Billionaire Elon Musk, whose endorsement and funding helped propel Trump to victory in the 2024 presidential election, has also been a vocal opponent of the bill.

“What’s the point of a debt ceiling if we keep raising it?” Musk asked on social media on Tuesday. “All I’m asking is that we don’t bankrupt America.”

Musk has threatened to fund primary challenges against Republicans who support the bill and even floated on Monday launching a new political party in the US.

Trump, however, has brushed aside Musk’s criticism as a reaction to the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles: The billionaire owns one of the most prominent manufacturers, Tesla.

The president also threatened to use the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which Musk helped to found — to strip the billionaire’s companies of their subsidies.

“DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump said as he travelled to Florida.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera correspondent Alan Fisher said that public support has been slipping as a clearer picture of the bill has emerged.

“The longer this has been talked about and the more details that become public, the fewer Americans support him,” Fisher said.

Several recent polls have shown a majority of Americans oppose the bill. A survey last week from Quinnipiac University, for example, found just 29 percent of respondents were in favour of the legislation, while 55 percent were against it.

Increase to national debt

All told, the legislation in its current form would make permanent Trump’s 2017 cuts to business and personal income taxes, which are set to expire by the end of the year.

It would also give new tax breaks for income earned through tips and overtime, a policy promise Trump made during his 2024 campaign.

At the same time, the bill would provide tens of billions of dollars for Trump’s immigration crackdown, including funding to extend barriers and increase technology along the southern border. The bill would also pay for more immigration agents and build the government’s capacity to quickly detain and deport people.

Beyond cuts to electric vehicle tax breaks, the bill also guts several of former President Joe Biden’s incentives for wind and solar energy.

Faced with criticism about the knock-on effects for low-income families, Republicans have countered that the new restrictions to Medicaid and SNAP — formerly known as food stamps — would help put the programmes on a more sustainable path.

Many Republicans have also rejected the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment that the legislation would add $3.3 trillion to the country’s already $36.2 trillion debt.

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

The Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra has 15 days to make her case after the country’s high court suspended her for a breach of ethics.

This comes after a phone call between Shinawatra and Cambodia’s Senate President Hun Sen, discussing an earlier border dispute.

A leaked audio of that call, in which the prime minister referred to Hun Sen as “uncle” and appeared to criticise a Thai army commander, has sparked outrage and protests.

So, what’s next for Paetongtarn Shinawatra?

And for a country that’s seen its fair share of military coups, what will it mean for democracy?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Sean Boonpracong – Political analyst.

Thitinan Pongsudhirak – Political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.

Kasit Piromya – Former Thai minister of foreign affairs.

From Paris to Lisbon, locals and tourists are struggling as a powerful heatwave grips European countries. Temperatures are soaring past 40°C, prompting school closures, tourist attraction restrictions, and warnings about wildfires and climate change.

Amid their public feud over the looming tax bill, US President Donald Trump has suggested that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) review subsidies tied to once ally Elon Musk, including those received by Tesla and SpaceX, in order to save money.

“Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!,” the president said in an early morning post on Trump’s social media platform Truth Social.

Trump’s remarks on Tuesday came after Musk renewed his criticism of the sweeping tax-cut and spending bill — which the White House hopes to sign into law by July 4th — pledging to unseat lawmakers who supported it after campaigning on limiting government spending.

Shortly after, Senate Republicans hauled Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill to passage Tuesday on the narrowest of margins, pushing past opposition from Democrats and their own GOP ranks after a turbulent overnight session.

The outcome capped an unusually tense weekend of work at the Capitol, the president’s signature legislative priority teetering on the edge of approval or collapse. In the end, that tally was 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

Musk and Trump spar over bill

Feuding with Trump could create hurdles for Tesla and the rest of Musk’s business empire.

The US Transportation Department regulates vehicle design and would play a key role in deciding whether Tesla can mass-produce robotaxis without pedals and steering wheels, while Musk’s rocket company SpaceX has about $22bn in federal contracts.

Trump previously threatened to cut Musk’s government contracts when their relationship erupted into an all-out social media brawl in early June over the bill, which non-partisan analysts have said would add about $3 trillion to the US debt.

But after weeks of relative silence, Musk rejoined the debate on Saturday as the Senate took up the package, calling it “utterly insane and destructive” in a post on X.

On Monday, he said lawmakers who campaigned on cutting spending but backed the bill “should hang their heads in shame!” “And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” Musk added.

The criticism marked a dramatic shift after the billionaire spent nearly $300m on Trump’s re-election campaign and led the administration’s controversial DOGE initiative.

Musk has argued that the legislation would greatly increase the national debt and erase the savings he says he achieved through DOGE.

Conflicts of interest

Musk was long slammed for his conflicts of interest while leading DOGE — accused of going after government agencies that had open investigations against him and his associated companies.

A report from the left-leaning think tank Public Citizen found that 70 percent of the agencies in May found that Musk aimed to make significant cuts to agencies, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which had been investigating Tesla.

The Food and Drug Administration, which had been investigating his brain implant chip, Neuralink, and cuts to the Department of Defense, which has been called for by both progressive Democrats as well, comes as SpaceX receives more than $22bn in federal contracts from the agency, according to the report.

The market response

There are conflicts with Musk within the bill he’s actively rallying against. The bill, which Trump eliminated the EV tax credit, Musk originally said would not hurt Tesla. The EV tax credit, however, has helped other carmakers make more affordable electric vehicles for more consumers, and Musk has recently changed his tune.

In a note last month, JP Morgan said cutting the EV tax credit could cost Tesla $1.2bn annually. Now the market is reacting as these plans might come to fruition in a matter of days, and amid the president’s Truth Social post, spooking investors.

Tesla stock tumbled roughly 6 percent as of 11:00am ET (15:00 GMT) and about 13 percent over the last five days.

“[This] BFF situation has now turned into a soap opera that remains an overhang on Tesla’s stock with investors fearing that the Trump Administration will be more hawkish and show scrutiny around Musk related US government spending related to Tesla/SpaceX and most importantly the autonomous future with the regulatory environment key to the future of Robotaxis and Cybercabs,” Dan Ives, senior analyst at Wedbush Securities said in a note provided to Al Jazeera earlier this morning.

Musk’s other companies include SpaceX, X Corp, and Neuralink are privately held companies.

More broadly the markets erased some of the gains in the last few days. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is down by about a full percentage point and the S&P 500 down 0.3 percent.  Dow Jones Industrial Average, on the other hand, is trending upwards, roughly 0.6 percent higher than the market open.

“Law is interpreted for friends and applied to enemies,” Italian statesman Giovanni Giolitti once said.

There are few better examples of this than the way the European Union bends over backwards to avoid addressing Israel’s severe breaches of international law and the terms of its association agreement with the bloc.

On May 20, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) voted to conduct a review of whether Israel was denying Palestinians’ human rights by preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza.

A month later, the same body concluded: “There are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.” Indications …

On June 26, EU heads of government at a European Council meeting concluded that they “noted” those indications and invited the FAC to “continue discussions” in July.

It is understandable that some initially welcomed the vote to review the EU-Israel Association Agreement back in May. It is only human to hold on to anything that gives hope that action will finally be taken to protect the human rights of the Palestinian people.

Unfortunately, the entire “debate” over the EU-Israel Association Agreement is simply a sham. It does not represent serious action on by the EU to address the atrocities Israel is committing in Gaza and elsewhere in the occupied Palestinian territory. It deflects growing criticism by giving the impression that the EU may finally be thinking of doing something. More importantly, it distracts from the obligations which the EU and its members are legally bound to fulfil.

Human rights pretences

Twenty months into Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, Israel’s breaches of human rights and international law are so extensive that there can be no doubt about their relevance to the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

They are so numerous that they must be organised into categories to capture the depth and breadth of destruction wrought onto every aspect of life in Gaza.

Israel has been accused of intentionally creating conditions calculated to destroy the possibility for Palestinian life in the Strip, which amounts to genocide. This includes domicide and the laying to waste of Gaza’s urban landscape; medicide – systematically dismantling the healthcare system; scholasticide – destroying schools, universities and libraries; ecocide – wiping out Gaza’s agriculture and nature; econocide – the devastation of Gaza’s economy; and unchilding – making childhood impossible.

More than 90 percent of Gaza’s population, or 1.9 million people, have been displaced, and in the past three months alone, over 600,000 people have been displaced again, as many as 10 times or more. A full blockade was imposed by the Israelis since March 2, and meagre aid deliveries were reinstated only in late May. Famine is widespread; 66 children have died of starvation, and more than 5,000 were hospitalised with acute malnutrition in May alone.

Under pressure from European public opinion, which is increasingly rejecting European support for Israel, the EU finally decided to do something. But that something involved a fair bit of talking and – so far – no action.

The bloc decided to vote on reviewing the EU-Israel Association Agreement. But this was nothing out of the ordinary because all association agreements should be subject to regular reviews, which can trigger either advances or scaling back the depth and breadth of relations.

In fact, those who called for the vote knew very well that suspension of the agreement requires a unanimous vote by 27 member states, which is currently impossible. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and member states, such as Germany, Italy and Hungary, have made crystal clear their unwavering support for Israel. In these circumstances, hoping for a unanimous vote to suspend the agreement is close to delusional. A qualified majority vote might suspend parts of the agreement on trade, but that is the most one can hope for.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Union’s commitment to human rights and “fundamental values”. Instead, public invocations by governments and officials of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which states that all areas covered by the agreement itself “shall be based on respect for human rights”, are no more than empty rhetoric.

In reality, the EU never intended for these human rights conditionalities to be taken seriously. It is easy to see why; it never specified by what criteria human rights should be assessed, and it chose not to make these assessments routine, compulsory, and public.

In this way, the EU leaves itself enough space to claim it values “human rights and fundamental values” while, in fact, “interpreting away” its own rules to avoid having to take any significant action.

Empty rhetoric

Some European states have decided to take individual action, but what they have done has been just as meaningless as the EU agreement review.

The United Kingdom suspended trade talks with Israel, but not trade. Its recent communique alongside France and Canada was trumpeted as “tougher” than the EU’s statements. Yet, the communique opposes only Israel’s “expansion of military operations in Gaza”: It takes issue only with the extension and intensification of Israel’s assault, not with the devastation wrought upon the Strip so far.

Nor does it mention the war crimes Israel has been accused of, or declare a commitment to uphold the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

In fact, despite the UK summoning Israel’s ambassador after its “tough” joint statement with France and Canada, it continued its surveillance flights over or close to Gaza’s airspace, which are suspected of gathering intelligence for the Israeli army.

France, for its part, declared it would recognise a Palestinian state in June. June came and went without recognition.

In October 2023, Spain claimed that it stopped selling weapons to Israel. In May, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared, “We do not do business with a genocidal state.” And yet, a Barcelona-based think tank revealed recently the existence of more than 40 contracts between Spanish state institutions and Israeli defence companies.

Germany, France, the UK and Italy also continue to supply weapons in breach of the spirit of international law.

Legal obligations

If European governments were serious about responding to Israel’s crimes, they could do that by simply abiding by their legal obligations under the various EU treaties and international law.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Lisbon Treaty require the bloc to embed respect for “democracy, human rights and fundamental values” into all EU policies. This is why all association agreements have human rights conditionalities in the first place.

The Genocide Convention imposes a preventive duty to use “all means reasonably available” to prevent genocide. Already in January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accepted that Palestinians’ right to be protected from genocide may be being violated.

The actions EU states can take include, but are not limited to: halting arms contracts with the Israeli government and Israeli companies; suspending intelligence cooperation; and cutting commercial, cultural and research exchanges with and funding for Israeli private and public institutions on occupied Palestinian land. They should also support the rigorous application of international law, including backing the case against Israel at the ICJ and enforcing arrest warrants issued by the ICC.

Currently, the EU is in flagrant violation of its legal duties and its own rules. That is a direct consequence of decades of ignoring gross abuses by Israel and other associated states, including Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt.

No amount of “interpreting” law or hiding behind procedure can mask the fact that the EU is in flagrant violation of its legal obligations and the spirit of its own rules. It has a track record of ignoring continued human rights abuses in associated states, including Israel, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan. This track record has reached an ignominious peak since October 2023.

Inaction on Gaza reveals the limits of Europe’s commitment to its self-proclaimed values: by sacrificing Palestine, Europe betrays itself.

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

The attack comes shortly after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy promises to increase Ukraine’s drone production.

A Ukrainian drone attack at an industrial plant in central Russia has killed three people and injured 35 others, a Russian regional governor has said.

Alexander Brechalov, head of the Udmurt Republic, said in a post on Telegram on Tuesday that the attack took place at a factory in Izhevsk city. Ten of the wounded were in a serious condition, he noted.

There was no immediate official comment from Kyiv. But a Ukrainian security official confirmed the attack, telling the news agency Reuters that the Kupol plant had been hit, with a fire breaking out as a result.

The facility, which produces air defence systems and drones for the Russian army, is located roughly 1,300km (800 miles) from the Ukrainian border.

If confirmed, the Ukrainian mission would be one of the deepest attacks of its kind inside Russia since the start of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion.

However, it is not as far as one Kyiv claimed last May, which reportedly hit an early-warning radar in the Russian city of Orsk, some 1,800km (1,120 miles) from Ukraine.

Speaking to the AFP news agency on Tuesday, an unnamed Ukrainian security service (SBU) official hailed the most recent drone mission.

“Each such special operation reduces the enemy’s offensive potential, disrupts military production chains and demonstrates that even deep in Russia’s rear, there are no safe zones for its military infrastructure,” they said in written comments.

The attack came a day after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukraine would increase its drone production, following a surge in Russian drone attacks.

Moscow fired some 5,438 long-range drones at Ukraine in June, its highest monthly total yet, according to an analysis by AFP.

“The priority is drones, interceptor drones and long-range strike drones,” Zelenskyy said on Telegram late on Monday about Ukraine’s manufacturing drive.

The message followed a promise last month by Ukraine’s top military commander to improve the “scale and depth” of strikes on Russia.

In other developments, the Kremlin has denied the suggestion from one of United States President Donald Trump’s special envoys that it was deliberately stalling ceasefire talks.

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s Ukraine envoy, said on Monday, “Russia cannot continue to stall for time while it bombs civilian targets in Ukraine.”

In response, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed that Russia was “not interested in drawing out anything”.

A date for a third round of negotiations has yet to be agreed.

Meanwhile, a Russian-backed official in the eastern Ukrainian region of Luhansk said it is now fully under the control of Moscow. Ukraine is yet to respond to the claim.

Billionaire Elon Musk said on Monday that he would form a new political party in the United States if a Republican-leaning Congress passes President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which proposes tax breaks and funding cuts for healthcare and food programmes.

Musk has voiced criticism of the bill on multiple occasions over the past month and began suggesting the idea of the new party on social media starting early June.

Here is more about Musk’s reservations about the bill, and about his new proposed party.

What has Musk said about the America Party?

Musk has been saying that if the bill is passed, Republicans are no different from Democrats, who are often accused by conservatives of being profligate with spending taxpayers’ dollars.

The version of the bill that the Senate is discussing at the moment, if passed by both chambers of Congress, would expand the national debt by $3.3 trillion between 2025 and 2034. The current US national debt stands at more than $36 trillion.

“If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day,” Musk posted on his social media platform, X, on Monday.

“Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.”

In an earlier post, Musk wrote: “It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!”

The debt ceiling, set by the US Congress, determines the upper limit to the amount of money that the US Treasury can borrow. The current debt limit is $36.1 trillion.

Why does Musk oppose the bill?

Once a key aide and major campaign donor for Trump, Musk had a public online falling out with the president in June over his criticism of the bill.

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

Musk alleged that Trump was linked to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in a now-deleted post on X. However, Trump and Musk seemed to have reached a detente when Trump told reporters that he wished Musk well while the latter wrote on X on June 11 that he had gone “too far” in his criticism of the US president.

However, since then, Musk has argued in a series of online posts that the bill would increase the debt ceiling, “bankrupt America”, and “destroy millions of jobs in America”.

Musk owns the electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer Tesla. The current version of the bill, with amendments made by the Senate, seeks to end the tax credit for purchases of EVs worth up to $7,500, starting on September 30. This could reduce the consumer demand for EVs in the US.

What is the America Party that Musk proposed?

On June 5, Musk posted a poll on his X account, asking his followers: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle?”

While social media polls are known to be nonrepresentative of broader public sentiment, 5.6 million people voted on the poll, and 80.4 percent responded with “yes”. Since then, Musk has repeatedly reposted the poll result, citing it as evidence that most Americans want a new party to be formed.

“Musk believes that 80 percent of Americans are unhappy with the two major parties and are not being represented,” Natasha Lindstaedt, a professor at the Department of Government, the University of Essex, told Al Jazeera.

While that number might not reflect the wider American public, it does point to a trend in the electorate; according to a Gallup poll from 2024, 43 percent of Americans identified as independent, 28 percent identified as Republican and 28 percent identified as Democrat. In other words, more Americans identify as independent than as either Democrat or Republican.

One of Musk’s followers replied to a post on X with an image with the text “America Party”. The world’s richest man responded: “‘America Party’ has a nice ring to it. The party that actually represents America!”

How real is Musk’s threat?

Experts say Musk, whose net worth is $363bn as of Monday according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, would realistically be able to fund a third party in the US. However, it is still unclear whether he would go ahead with his plan or whether his party would have a significant effect on US elections.

“Musk certainly has the financial power to back a third party that could be very disruptive to the Republican Party, but it’s not certain if Musk will take on this risk,” Lindstaedt said.

Lindstaedt recalled how earlier this month, Musk backed down from his criticism of Trump on X. “If we take him at his word, he could spend hundreds of millions on this project,” she added.

“Musk has been ramping up his criticism of the bill lately, and he may find specific legislators [particularly from the House] would be willing to defect if their constituencies are more negatively affected by Trump’s policies,” Lindstaedt said, referring to the House of Representatives. “He will also have the attention of fiscal hawks in particular.”

Lindstaedt added that among American voters, there is a “huge appetite” for a third party.

“The bill will leave the US spending hundreds of billions just in the interest, and the more Americans understand this, the more they may want to flock to something different. US public frustration with the traditional parties is at an all-time high, and Musk may be able to capitalise on this.”

However, Thomas Gift, an associate professor of political science in the UCL School of Public Policy in London, said it was unclear whether Musk is serious and suggested that the barriers to breaking the Republican-Democrat duopoly are hard to scale for anyone.

“This is Elon Musk bluffing,” he told Al Jazeera. “He knows as well as anyone that the power of party machines behind Democrats and Republicans is too much to surmount.”

Gift added that while forming a party is possible, “winning seats in Congress or the White House is another matter entirely”.

“At best, a third party will have little impact on US elections; at worst, it will play ‘spoiler’, taking votes from one of the two parties and de facto giving it to another.”

What has Trump said about Musk?

On Monday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, saying: “Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one.”

Trump added: “Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE.”

“Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!” Trump wrote, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory body aimed at boosting government efficiency and upgrading Information Technology, that Musk formed and led at the start of Trump’s second administration, before leaving on May 30.

In 2022, Robert Ellis pledged $200,000 to create a garden in the Los Angeles Zoo’s bird theater.

By January, the city of Los Angeles had sued its nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., amid longstanding tensions over spending and other issues.

Ellis, a GLAZA board member, redirected his donation to a fund for the nonprofit’s legal fees.

At stake in the messy divorce between the city and the association is a nearly $50-million endowment that each side claims is theirs and that funds much of the zoo’s special projects, capital improvements and exhibit construction.

The city’s contract with GLAZA, which governs fundraising, special events and more, ends Tuesday, leaving the zoo in a precarious place, with no firm plan for how to proceed.

The elephant exhibit is empty after the last two Asian elephants, Billy and Tina, were transferred to the Tulsa Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

The zoo, which houses more than 1,600 animals, has become increasingly dilapidated. Exhibits including the lions, bears, sea lions and pelicans have closed because they need major renovations. The last two elephants, Billy and Tina, recently departed for the Tulsa Zoo after decades of campaigning by animal rights advocates over living conditions and a history of deaths and health challenges.

The 59-year-old zoo, which occupies 133 acres in the northeast corner of Griffith Park, is struggling to maintain its national accreditation, with federal regulators finding peeling paint and rust in some exhibits.

U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors and the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums found a “critical lack of funding and staffing to address even the most basic repairs,” L.A. Zoo officials wrote in a budget document in November 2024.

A sign designating a closed exhibit is posted in an animal enclosure at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Meanwhile, attendance has declined to a projected 1.5 million visitors in 2024-25, down about 100,000 from the previous year, the zoo said, citing “outdated infrastructure” and closed exhibits as part of the reason.

“We’re not vibrant like we should be,” said Karen Winnick, president of the city Board of Zoo Commissioners.

GLAZA has been the zoo’s main partner since it opened in 1966, handling fundraising, special events, membership, publications, volunteers and sponsorship.

The zoo’s $31-million operating budget comes largely from tickets and other sources, with only 1% to 2% directly from the association, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.

But the indirect amount is higher, since GLAZA raises money through membership and special events, depositing some of it in a fund that covers most of the zoo’s budget.

Outside of the operating budget, the group also raises money for facility renovations and programs such as animal care, conservation and education.

Through a spokesperson, Ellis and other GLAZA board members declined to comment.

Devin Donahue, a lawyer for GLAZA, said in a statement that the nonprofit “spent more than 60 years building up an eight-figure endowment that the City of Los Angeles is now attempting to seize without concern for the intent of the donors who chose to give to a trusted charity, and not to a city running a billion-dollar deficit. To remove GLAZA’s safeguarding hand from Zoo funding would be catastrophic for both the LA Zoo and its animals.”

A flamingo basks in water at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

One GLAZA insider blamed the conflicts on Zoo Director and CEO Denise Verret, saying she has tried to take power away from the association since she assumed the role in 2019.

Another source familiar with the relationship said that zoo officials believe they don’t need GLAZA and have wanted to end the partnership for years.

“They [the city] believe they could do this on their own,” said the second source, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the partnership amid the ongoing litigation. “There’s a lot of animosity, as opposed to it being a healthy relationship or one of gratitude.”

The relationship between the zoo and GLAZA has been fraught for decades, stemming from issues regarding money and power, said Manuel Mollinedo, who was zoo director from 1995 to 2002.

“They would make the zoo literally beg for money,” Mollinedo said. “The problem with GLAZA is they see themselves as an entity only responsible in answering to themselves. They don’t see themselves as an organization there to support and work with the zoo.”

Mollinedo said he always thought the zoo would be better off taking some power away from GLAZA and instead partnering with different organizations.

GLAZA has accused the zoo of not properly spending the money that the association raises.

“Notwithstanding red flag warnings of disrepair at the Zoo, enclosure and exhibit closures, and troubling risks to the health and safety of the Zoo’s animals, the City has failed to spend money raised by GLAZA and available to it for necessary remediation,” the nonprofit said in court papers.

In 2023, more than 20 years after Mollinedo left the zoo, city officials announced that they would open up “requests for proposals” for organizations interested in performing GLAZA’s functions, in what they described as an effort to promote fairness and transparency and ensure that the zoo was getting the best services.

By initiating the application process, the city showed that it had no interest in continuing its “overarching partnership” with the organization, Erika Aronson Stern, chair of the GLAZA Board of Trustees, said in a letter to Mayor Karen Bass in October.

GLAZA declined to apply and announced that it would be walking away, along with its nearly $50-million endowment.

A giraffe watches as people pass by its enclosure at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Some of the endowment money still needed to spent on the zoo, according to donors’ wishes, and GLAZA would transfer that money to the facility — but it refused to cede control of the fund.

Late last year, the city sued the association, arguing that it was the rightful owner of the endowment.

“GLAZA has only been permitted to raise funds on behalf of the City, never on its own exclusive behalf,” wrote Deputy City Atty. Steven Son.

GLAZA said it does have the right to raise funds for itself and asserted that the city has been mismanaging zoo money for years.

Los Angeles Zoo Director Denise Verret stands in front of an area of the zoo slated for redevelopment. The 20-acre expansion would include a new hilltop Yosemite lodge-style California Visitor Center with sweeping views of a 25,000- square-foot vineyard.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Verret, the zoo’s director, spent exorbitant amounts on activities unrelated to the zoo, GLAZA alleged in court documents, including $22,000 on a party celebrating her own appointment in 2019, $13,000 improving her office and $14,000 on the assistant director’s office.

The association also said in court documents that it provided at least $1.7 million at Verret’s request for conservation organizations that are “separate and distinct” from the zoo.

Verret argued in court papers that her use of the money was appropriate. She modernized “1960s-era” administrative offices, and her welcome party helped “strengthen relationships.” Conservation is one of the zoo’s “core purposes,” she said, noting that GLAZA didn’t raise the spending questions until after the city sued.

In a statement, Verret said the zoo is prepared to be on the international stage for the Summer Olympics in 2028.

“With the new structure and … new business partners in place, the L.A. Zoo is in a very healthy place now and continues to focus on its mission,” she said.

As for fundraising, she was less clear.

“Although we are still developing plans to establish a new fundraising model, we are future-focused with our priorities and efforts grounded in the gold-standard care and well-being for the animals at the zoo,” she said.

On Wednesday, a judge ruled that GLAZA cannot solicit donations “that are not for the exclusive benefit of the Los Angeles Zoo” and may not use funds from the endowment without the city’s permission. The question of who controls the endowment is still open.

Donahue, the GLAZA lawyer, called the judge’s ruling “wrong on the law and facts, deeply flawed analytically and not in the best interest of the Zoo, its animals, its donors, or the people of Los Angeles.” He said was confident that an appellate court would reach a different decision.

As the lawsuit moves forward, the City Council is working to approve new contracts with other organizations to handle concessions, memberships and other functions. City employees perform many core jobs, such as feeding and caring for the animals, but volunteers supplied by GLAZA, including the docents that gave tours, played a major role in the zoo’s day-to-day operations.

“It’s really a shame that it has devolved to this point,” said Ron Galperin, a former city controller who conducted a special review of the relationship between the nonprofit and the zoo in 2018 and found it “cumbersome and confusing.”

Galperin has advocated for the zoo to be run as a public-private partnership, with the city leasing the land and animals to an organization like GLAZA that would run it, similar to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or the Hollywood Bowl.

The city previously explored that option after the 2008 financial crisis, but it was opposed by unions that represent zoo workers, as well as by animal rights activists who believed there would be less transparency surrounding the care of the animals.

About 73% of accredited zoos are managed by non-government entities — 57% by nonprofits and 16% by for-profit organizations, according to a study by the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums.

Winnick, the Zoo Commission president, believes a privately run zoo would raise funds more effectively and save the city money.

“We need new governance for our zoo, and this is the time to do it, with our city overwhelmed by so many problems,” she said. “It would serve people of L.A. and the community for us to go into public-private partnership.”

Instead, the city will run the zoo piecemeal, with at least two organizations taking over what GLAZA once did.

The city recently came to an agreement with SSA Group, LLC to run membership, special events and publications, while The Superlative Group will run sponsorship programs. The city plans to manage volunteers itself.

But the zoo still has not found a fundraising partner.

“For the city to lose a fundraising partner at this point in time, with the deficit we have and visitors we’re expecting to L.A., is sad,” said Richard Lichtenstein, a former member of the GLAZA board and a former zoo commissioner, who said he was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the association.

“The city does deserve, and its residents deserve, a first-class facility, and without a funding partner, it is difficult to see how the zoo is going to be able to maintain itself as a world-class facility,” he said.

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order lifting US sanctions on Syria and requesting a review of terrorism designations related to the nation. Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna looks at how the decision aims to facilitate rebuilding post-war Syria.

A Thai court has accepted a petition from senators that accuse the PM of dishonesty and breaching ethical standards.

Thailand’s Constitutional Court has suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra from office pending an ethics investigation over a leaked phone call with a senior Cambodian official, heaping pressure on Thailand’s governing political dynasty.

The court said in a statement that it had accepted a petition from 36 senators, which accuses Paetongtarn of dishonesty and breaching ethical standards, in violation of the constitution, over a leaked telephone conversation with Cambodia’s influential former leader, Hun Sen.

Deputy Prime Minister Suriya Juangroongruangkit will assume a caretaker role while the court decides the case against Paetongtarn, who has 15 days to respond.

Paetongtarn will remain in the cabinet as the new culture minister following a cabinet reshuffle.

The controversy stems from a June 15 phone call with Cambodia’s influential former leader Hun Sen that was intended to defuse escalating border tensions between the neighbours.

During the call, Paetongtarn, 38, referred to Hun Sen as “uncle” and criticised a Thai army commander, a red line in a country where the military has significant clout. She has apologised and said her remarks were a negotiating tactic.

The leaked call led to domestic outrage and has left Paetongtarn’s coalition with a razor-thin majority, with a key party abandoning the alliance and expected to soon seek a no-confidence vote in parliament, as protest groups demand the premier resign.

Legal perils

Paetongtarn’s battles after only 10 months in power underline the declining strength of the Pheu Thai Party, the populist juggernaut of the billionaire Shinawatra dynasty, which has dominated Thai elections since 2001, enduring military coups and court rulings that have toppled multiple governments and prime ministers.

It has been a baptism of fire for political novice Paetongtarn, who was thrust into power as Thailand’s youngest premier and replacement for Srettha Thavisin, who the Constitutional Court dismissed for violating ethics by appointing a minister who had once been jailed.

Paetongtarn’s government has also been struggling to revive a stuttering economy, and her popularity has declined sharply, with a June 19-25 opinion poll released at the weekend showing her approval rating sinking to 9.2 percent from 30.9 percent in March.

Paetongtarn’s father, Thaksin, the 75-year-old family patriarch and billionaire who was twice elected leader in the early 2000s, is also facing legal hurdles.

Divisive tycoon Thaksin, according to his lawyer, appeared at his first hearing at Bangkok’s Criminal Court on Tuesday on charges that he insulted Thailand’s powerful monarchy, a serious offence punishable by up to 15 years in prison if found guilty.

Thaksin denies the allegations and has repeatedly pledged allegiance to the crown.

The case stems from a 2015 media interview Thaksin gave while in self-imposed exile, from which he returned in 2023 after 15 years abroad to serve a prison sentence for conflicts of interest and abuse of power.

Thaksin dodged jail and spent six months in hospital detention on medical grounds before being released on parole in February last year.

The Supreme Court will this month scrutinise that hospital stay and could potentially send him back to jail.

Did you know that women’s clothing and personal care products are often priced higher than men’s? It’s been that way for years and there’s even a name for it. Pink Tax. Now with Trump implementing widespread tariffs, how will this impact women’s goods and jobs?

This week on Now You Know, we talk to Prachi Agarwal, a research fellow at the International Economic Development Group at ODI Global. She focuses on trade policy and women in trade, explaining how tariffs work and why they disproportionately impact women.

Saudi Arabia’s Al Hilal have sent English giants Manchester City crashing out of the Club World Cup, snatching a shock 4-3 victory in extra time in the biggest upset of the tournament so far.

The match finished 2-2 at full-time on Monday, but at the end of an eventful extra-time, Marcos Leonardo grabbed the winner and pulled off one of the greatest wins in Middle Eastern football history.

The Saudi club now advance to the quarterfinals, where they will face Brazilian club Fluminense, ensuring a non-European team will reach the last four.

Man City had taken the lead in the ninth minute in controversial fashion, with Bernardo Silva finishing after Rayan Ait-Nouri’s cross.

Al Hilal players protested that Ait-Nouri had controlled with his arm in the build-up, but the goal stood.

Man City had plenty of opportunities to extend their lead before the break, but a combination of poor finishing and inspired goalkeeping from Moroccan goalkeeper Yassine Bounou kept the lead at a single goal.

Al Hilal offered several reminders of their threat on the break but Man City had even more chances, with Jeremy Doku volleying straight at Bounou, who moments later reacted superbly again to keep out a Bernardo effort.

The question as to whether Man City would live to regret not converting those chances was answered within a minute of the resumption.

Former City full-back Joao Cancelo’s low cross was parried out by Ederson. Malcolm pounced but saw his shot blocked by Ruben Dias, only for the ball to loop to Marcos Leonardo to head home the equaliser.

Six minutes later, and City’s high defensive line was exposed by a long ball from Cancelo, which Brazilian Malcolm raced onto, showing power and pace as he broke away before coolly slotting past Ederson.

The Saudi fans in the crowd went wild while City manager Pep Guardiola responded immediately with a triple substitution, with midfielder Rodri and defenders Nathan Ake and Manuel Akanji introduced.

That brought some much-needed stability to a shaky back line but City needed improvement at the other end too, and it came, albeit in scruffy circumstances.

The Al Hilal defence were unable to deal with a Bernardo corner and Haaland pounced to steer home the loose ball and make it 2-2.

City piled on the pressure as they looked for the winner but yet again Bounou proved their nemesis as he denied Akanji and Ruben Dias, and even when he was beaten by Haaland, substitute Ali Lajami produced a magnificent goal-line clearance.

Guardiola took off Haaland and introduced Egyptian forward Omar Marmoush as the game went into extra time.

But for all City’s depth, Al Hilal had a deep well of spirit to draw upon. Just four minutes into the opening period, Al Hilal regained the lead when Kalidou Koulibaly rose superbly to meet a Ruben Neves corner with a brilliantly angled header.

City responded with a goal of real quality when Rayan Cherki’s brilliantly floated ball towards the back post was poked home masterfully by Phil Foden, at full stretch and from the tightest of angles.

But incredibly, Al Hilal responded again to restore their lead: Sergej Milinkovic-Savic’s header was saved by Ederson but Marcos Leonardo followed in to bundle the ball over the line.

As the celebrating Al Hilal fans poured out of the stadium, the Brazilian striker let his emotions pour out, too.

“I’ve had a difficult time in the last two months. My mother spent 70 days in the ICU,” he said.

“Today, she’s fine, thank God. When I scored those two goals, I thought of her. She was able to watch the match.”

City skipper Bernardo Silva said his team had paid the price for being unable to deal with Al Hilal’s counter-attacking.

“We scored three and could’ve scored five, six. It was all about controlling when we lost the ball, controlling the transitions, don’t let them run, and they ran way too many times,” he said.

“With one, two passes, there was always a feeling of danger coming from them. When we allow teams to run like this, we always suffer a lot, and today was the case,” he said.

New Delhi, India — When models sashayed down the ramp at Milan Fashion Week last week, Harish Kurade looked at them on his smartphone in awe, sitting in his village in southern Maharashtra state, more than 7,000km (4,350 miles) away.

Models were showcasing a new line of open-toe leather sandals, designed by Prada, the iconic luxury fashion house. However, in India, the visuals raised a furore among artisans and politicians after the Italian giant failed to credit the ancient Maharashtra roots of its latest design.

“They [Prada] stole and replicated our crafty work, but we are really happy,” said Kurade in a chirpy tone. “Today, the world’s eyes are on our Kolhapuri ‘chappals’ [Hindi for sandals].” Kolhapur is a city in Maharashtra after which the sandals are named.

After facing backlash, Prada acknowledged that its new sandal designs “are inspired by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear, with a centuries-old heritage”, in a letter to the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce.

While Kurade is chuffed about the centuries-old sandal-making craft from his village potentially gaining global exposure, other artisans, politicians and activists are wary of cultural appropriation and financial exploitation by Prada.

So, what is the controversy about? And what are artisans in Kolhapur saying about Prada? Can it change anything for the workers behind the original sandals?

What did Prada step into?

Prada showcased the classic T-strapped leather flats at the Spring/Summer 2026 menswear collection at Milan Fashion Week.

In its show notes, the Italian brand described the new range of footwear only as “leather sandals”. The notes made no mention of any Indian connection, despite its uncanny resemblance to Kolhapuri sandals, which are wildly popular across India and often worn on special occasions, such as weddings and festivals, along with traditional Indian clothing.

Outraged, a delegation of Kolhapuri sandals manufacturers met Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Thursday last week to register their protest.

Showing his support for the delegation is Dhananjay Mahadik, a member of parliament from the state’s Kolhapur district, belonging to the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Mahadik told reporters that the sandal makers and their supporters are in the process of filing a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court against Prada.

Mahadik also wrote to Fadnavis, drawing “urgent attention to a serious infringement on Maharashtra’s cultural identity and artisan rights”, and called on him to “protect the cultural heritage of Maharashtra”.

In his letter, he noted that the sandals are reportedly priced at approximately $1,400  a pair. By contrast, the authentic Kolhapuri sandals can be found in local markets for about $12.

How has Prada responded?

The Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) also wrote to Patrizio Bertelli, the chairperson of Prada’s Board of Directors, about the concerns of sandal makers.

Two days later, the company responded, acknowledging that the design was inspired by the centuries-old Indian sandals. “We deeply recognise the cultural significance of such Indian craftsmanship. Please note that, for now, the entire collection is currently at an early stage of design development, and none of the pieces are confirmed to be produced or commercialised,” Prada said.

The company added that it remains “committed to responsible design practices, fostering cultural engagement, and opening a dialogue for a meaningful exchange with local Indian artisan communities, as we have done in the past in other collections to ensure the rightful recognition of their craft.

“Prada strives to pay homage and recognise the value of such specialised craftspeople that represent an unrivalled standard of excellence and heritage.”

Srihita Vanguri, a fashion entrepreneur from the city of Hyderabad, said that Prada’s actions were “disappointing but not surprising”.

“Luxury brands have a long history of borrowing design elements from traditional crafts without giving due credit – until there’s a backlash,” she told Al Jazeera. “This is cultural appropriation if it stops at inspiration without attribution or benefit-sharing.”

Kolhapuris, which the sandals are also known as, are not just a design, she insisted. They carry the legacy of centuries of craft communities in Maharashtra and the neighbouring state of Karnataka. “Ignoring that context erases real people and livelihoods,” she added.

What about artisans of Kolhapur?

Kolhapur, nestled in southwestern Maharashtra, is a city steeped in royal heritage, spiritual significance and artisanal pride. Beyond its crafts, Kolhapur is also home to several revered Hindu temples and a rich culinary legacy – its food is spicy.

Its famed sandals date back to the 12th century, with more than 20,000 local families still involved in this craft.

The family of Kurade, who was happy about Prada showcasing the sandals, lives on the outskirts of Kolhapur, and has been in this business for more than 100 years.

But he said the business has taken a beating in recent years. “In India, people don’t really understand this craft or want to put money in this any more. If an international brand comes, steals it and showcases it on global platforms, maybe that is good for us,” he told Al Jazeera.

He said that craftsmen like those in his family “still stand where they were years ago”.

“We have the craft and the capacity to move ahead, but the government has not supported us,” the 40-year-old said.

Rather, Kurade said, politics has made things worse.

Since 2014, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu majoritarian government came to power in New Delhi, cows have transformed from just symbols of reverence into a flashpoint for religious identity and social conflict. Cow protection, once largely cultural, has become violent, with vigilantes hunting down Dalits and Muslims, the communities that mostly transport cows and buffaloes to trading markets where they are bought for slaughter.

That has disrupted a reliable supply of cow and buffalo hides, which are then tanned with vegetables to make Kolhapuri chappals.

“The original hide we use for quality is restricted in several states because of politics around cows,” said Kurade. “The supply has touched new lows due to politics on cows – and we have been suffering because it has become really expensive for us to keep doing it with the same quality.”

Craftsmen like Kurade believe that if they can make the sandals cheaper and more accessible, “people will wear this because it is what people have loved for centuries”.

Still, Kurade said, while Prada can try and imitate Kolhapuri aesthetics, it cannot replicate the intricate hand-woven design patterns, mastered by the Dalit community in southern Maharashtra and some parts of bordering Karnataka. Dalits are traditionally the most marginalised segment of India’s complex caste hierarchy.

“The authentic design is something which is rare and unique,” he said. “Even shops in Kolhapur city may not have them.”

The real designs, Kurade said, are still made in villages by using centuries-old craft.

But because of the challenge of sourcing quality hides, and faced with an increasingly digital marketplace that artisans are unfamiliar with, Dalit sandal makers need help, he said.

“People who know markets, who can sell it ahead, are the ones cashing in on this. Poor villagers like us cannot run a website; we do not have the marketing knowledge,” he said.

“The government should look into this, to bridge this gap – it is their duty to look into this. The benefits never reached the real makers from the Dalit groups.”

Has it happened before?

Since 2019, after sustained advocacy by artisan groups, India has protected Kolhapuri sandals under its Geographical Indications of Goods Act (1999), preventing commercial use of the term “Kolhapuri Chappal” by unauthorised producers. But this protection is limited within national borders.

Prada has previously faced significant criticism over alleged cultural appropriation, most notably in 2018 when it released the “Pradamalia” collection – keychains and figurines that resembled racist caricatures with exaggerated red lips, drawing immediate comparisons with blackface imagery. After the backlash, Prada pulled the products from stores and issued a public apology.

Prada has also been criticised for store displays that have evoked racial stereotypes, as well as for its use of animal-based luxury materials like ostrich and exotic leathers, which have drawn criticism from environmental and labour rights groups.

But Prada is not alone.

In 2019, Christian Dior drew criticism for incorporating elements inspired by the traditional attire of Mexican horsewomen in its Cruise collection, without formal acknowledgement or collaboration.

In 2015, French designer Isabel Marant came under fire in Mexico for marketing a blouse that closely mirrored the traditional embroidery patterns of the Mixe community in Oaxaca, sparking accusations of cultural appropriation.

Rather than apologise, Vanguri, the fashion entrepreneur, said that the “real respect would be Prada co-creating a capsule collection with Kolhapuri artisan clusters – giving them fair design credit, profit share, and global visibility”.

“Structurally, they could commit to long-term partnerships with craft cooperatives or even fund capacity-building and design innovation for these communities,” she said.

US Treasury says it removed 518 Syrian individuals and entities from its list of sanctions after president’s decree.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to dismantle a web of sanctions against Syria, a move that will likely unlock investments in the country more than six months after the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad.

Trump’s decree on Monday offers sanction relief to “entities critical to Syria’s development, the operation of its government, and the rebuilding of the country’s social fabric”, the US Treasury said in a statement.

The Syrian government has been under heavy US financial penalties that predate the outbreak of the civil war in the country in 2011.

The sprawling sanction programme, which included provisions related to the former government’s human rights abuses, has derailed reconstruction efforts in the country. It has also contributed to driving the Syrian economy under al-Assad to the verge of collapse.

Trump promised sanctions relief for Syria during his visit to the Middle East in May.

“The United States is committed to supporting a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbours,” the US president said in a statement on Monday.

“A united Syria that does not offer a safe haven for terrorist organisations and ensures the security of its religious and ethnic minorities will support regional security and prosperity.”

The US administration said Syria-related sanctions against al-Assad and his associates, ISIL (ISIS) and Iran and its allies will remain in place.

While the US Treasury said it already removed 518 Syrian individuals and entities from its list of sanctions, some Syria penalties may not be revoked immediately.

For example, Trump directs US agencies to determine whether the conditions are met to remove sanctions imposed under the Caesar Act, which enabled heavy penalties against the Syrian economy for alleged war crimes against civilians.

Democratic US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar had partnered with Republican lawmaker Anna Paulina Luna to introduce earlier this week a bill that would legislatively lift sanctions on Syria to offer long-term relief.

Real relief for the Syrian people requires repealing certain laws.

My bill with @RepLuna permanently repeals the sanctions and gives the post-Assad Syria a fighting chance. https://t.co/gExbLiKS7z

— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) June 30, 2025

As part of Trump’s order, the US president ordered Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review the designation of interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist”.

Moreover, the US president ordered a review of the status of al-Sharaa’s group, al-Nusra Front – now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – as a designated “foreign terrorist” organisation. Al-Nusra was al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, but al-Sharaa severed ties with the group in 2016.

Al-Nusra later became known as Jabhat Fath al-Sham before merging with other rebel groups as HTS.

Al-Sharaa was the de facto leader of a rebel enclave in Idlib in northwest Syria for years before leading the offensive that overthrew al-Assad in December 2024.

Trump met with al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia in May and praised the Syrian president as “attractive” and “tough”.

The interim Syrian president – who was previously known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Julani – has promised inclusive governance to allay concerns about his past ties to al-Qaeda.

But violence and kidnappings against members of al-Assad’s Alawite sect by former rebel fighters over the past months have raised concerns among some rights advocates.

Al-Sharaa has also pledged that Syria would not pose a threat to its neighbours, including Israel, which has been advancing in Syrian territory beyond the occupied Golan Heights and regularly bombing the country.