security

June 22 (UPI) — An armed gunman who opened fire Sunday inside a Michigan church was shot dead by a security guard, police said.

Police responded to 911 calls of an active shooter at Crosspointe Church in Wayne, about 30 miles west of Detroit, police said in a statement.

“Upon arrival, officers determined that a security guard for the church shot and killed the suspect,” police said. “One victim was shot in the leg.”

A police source told local news station WXYZ that the incident happened around 11:15 a.m. shortly after the start of the10:45 a.m. service.

“Our leadership and support teams are on the ground, at the scene, in Wayne, Michigan providing assistance and investigative support,” FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said in a statement after the shooting.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is also reportedly monitoring the incident.

Police encouraged local residents to avoid the area as the investigation continued. Further details about the shooting, including the identity of the suspect, was not provided.

Since its founding in 1948, Israel’s prime ministers have sought to leave legacies that would outlast them — some through war, others through diplomacy, and a few through historic blunders. David Ben-Gurion secured the state’s independence and built its foundational institutions. Golda Meir presided over a war that cost her office. Menachem Begin signed peace with Egypt while expanding illegal settlements. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

Each leader, in some way, left their mark. But none has ruled as long – or as divisively – as Benjamin Netanyahu. And now, more than ever, the question is not just what kind of legacy he wants to leave, but what legacy he is actually creating.

In 2016, I argued that the Arab world had effectively crowned Netanyahu “King of the Middle East” — a title that reflected his success in positioning Israel as a regional power without making any concessions to the Palestinians. Today, I believe he sees an opportunity not only to consolidate that title, but to reshape Israel’s regional position permanently — through force, impunity, and a strategy rooted in securitised dominance.

Since his first term, Netanyahu has insisted that Israel’s security must override all other considerations. In his worldview, a Palestinian state is not merely incompatible with Israel’s security; it is an existential threat. Even were such a state to be created, Netanyahu has made clear that Israel must retain what he calls “security sovereignty” over all of historic Palestine.

This has never been mere rhetoric. It has shaped his every major decision, none more so than the current war on Gaza. The assault has levelled entire neighbourhoods, killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, displaced most of its two million people, and created an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe.

Israel stands accused by human rights groups and United Nations agencies of committing war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. It is facing genocide charges, supported by multiple countries, at the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war.

Yet Netanyahu presses on, arguing that Gaza must never again pose a threat to Israel, and that the destruction is necessary to secure the country’s future.

This logic does not stop at Gaza. He has used similar arguments to justify Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, including targeted strikes on Hezbollah figures and the attempted assassination of the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

Using the same rationale, Israel has also launched strikes in Yemen and made clear that it will act in Iraq whenever and wherever it deems necessary.

The security argument has likewise been used to justify the continued occupation of Syrian territory and is currently invoked to legitimise ongoing attacks on Iran, ostensibly to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons and to degrade its missile and drone capabilities.

In every case, the same narrative is repeated: Israel cannot be safe unless its enemies are broken, its deterrence unchallenged, and its dominance undisputed. All dissent, disagreement, or resistance — whether military, political, or even symbolic — is cast as a threat to be eliminated.

Even Netanyahu’s diplomatic efforts follow this logic. The Abraham Accords, signed with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco during his premiership, were hailed as peace deals but functioned primarily as instruments of regional alignment that marginalised the Palestinians. For Netanyahu, normalisation is not a path to peace — it is a way to cement Israel’s position while avoiding a just resolution to the occupation.

What, then, is the legacy Netanyahu seeks?

He wants to be remembered as the prime minister who crushed all resistance to occupation, permanently ended the idea of a Palestinian state, and enshrined Israel’s dominance in the Middle East through sheer force. In his vision, Israel controls the land, dictates the rules, and answers to no one.

But history may remember him differently.

What Netanyahu calls security, much of the world increasingly sees as systemic violence. The global response to the war on Gaza — millions marching in protest, international legal action, growing boycotts, and diplomatic downgrades — suggests that under his leadership, Israel is not gaining legitimacy but losing it.

Even among its allies, Israel faces growing isolation. While the United States continues to provide diplomatic cover, terms like “apartheid”, “ethnic cleansing”, and “settler colonialism” are no longer confined to fringe activism. They are entering mainstream political discourse and shaping public consciousness, particularly among younger generations.

Many commentators argue that Netanyahu is clinging to power merely to avoid prosecution for corruption or accountability for the failures of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. But I believe this analysis misses a deeper truth: that he sees this moment — this war, this absence of accountability — as a historic window of opportunity. In his mind, this is legacy work.

The tragedy is that in pursuing this legacy, he may achieve the opposite of what he intends. Not a stronger Israel, but a more isolated one. Not a secure homeland, but a state increasingly seen as a violator of international norms. Not a legacy of strength, but one of moral and political collapse.

Netanyahu will be remembered. Today, as Gaza burns and Iran faces strike after strike, there is no longer any doubt about that. The only question is whether his legacy will be one of national security, or one that leaves Israel more alone, more condemned, and more precarious than ever before.

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

WASHINGTON — The go-broke dates for Medicare and Social Security trust funds have moved up as rising health care costs and new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, according to an annual report released Wednesday.

The go-broke date — or the date at which the programs will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — was pushed up to 2033 for Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund, according to the new report from the programs’ trustees. Last year’s report put the go-broke date at 2036.

Meanwhile, Social Security’s trust funds — which cover old age and disability recipients — will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2034, instead of last year’s estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits.

The trustees say the latest findings show the urgency of needed changes to the programs, which have faced dire financial projections for decades. But making changes to the programs has long been politically unpopular, and lawmakers have repeatedly kicked Social Security and Medicare’s troubling math to the next generation.

President Trump and other Republicans have vowed not to make any cuts to Medicare or Social Security, even as they seek to shrink the federal government’s expenditures.

Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, sworn into his role in May, said in a statement that “the financial status of the trust funds remains a top priority for the Trump Administration.”

“Current-law projections indicate that Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that needs to be addressed with further legislation. Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers,” the trustees state in the report.

The trustees are made up of six people — the Treasury Secretary serves as managing trustee, alongside the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the commissioner of Social Security. Two other presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed trustees serve as public representatives, however those roles have been vacant since July 2015.

About 68 million people are enrolled in Medicare, the federal government’s health insurance that covers those 65 and older, as well as people with severe disabilities or illnesses.

Wednesday’s report shows a worsening situation for the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund compared to last year. But the forecasted go-broke date of 2033 is still later than the dates of 2031, 2028 and 2026 predicted just a few years ago.

Once the fund’s reserves become depleted, Medicare would be able to cover only 89% of costs for patients’ hospital visits, hospice care and nursing home stays or home health care that follow hospital visits.

The report said expenses last year for Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund came in higher than expected.

Income exceeded expenditures by nearly $29 billion last year for the hospital insurance trust fund, the report stated. Trustees expect that surplus to continue through 2027. Deficits then will follow until the fund becomes depleted in 2033.

The report states that the Social Security Social Security Fairness Act, enacted in January, which repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions of the Social Security Act and increased Social Security benefit levels for some workers, had an impact on the depletion date of SSA’s trust funds.

Romina Boccia, a director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at the libertarian CATO Institute called the repeal of the provisions “a political giveaway masquerading as reform. Instead of tackling Social Security’s structural imbalances, Congress chose to increase benefits for a vocal minority—accelerating trust fund insolvency.”

“It’s a clear sign that populist pressure now outweighs fiscal responsibility and economic sanity on both sides of the aisle,” She said.

Pair that with a Republican reconciliation bill that increases tax giveaways while refusing to rein in even the most dubious Medicaid expansions, and the message is unmistakable: Washington is still in giveaway mode.

AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan said “Congress must act to protect and strengthen the Social Security that Americans have earned and paid into throughout their working lives.” “More than 69 million Americans rely on Social Security today and as America’s population ages, the stability of this vital program only becomes more important.”

Social Security benefits were last reformed roughly 40 years ago, when the federal government raised the eligibility age for the program from 65 to 67. The eligibility age has never changed for Medicare, with people eligible for the medical coverage when they turn 65.

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the popular public benefit program said in a statement that “there are two options for action: Bringing more money into Social Security, or reducing benefits. Any politician who doesn’t support increasing Social Security’s revenue is, by default, supporting benefit cuts.”

Congressional Budget Office reporting has stated that the biggest drivers of debt rising in relation to GDP are increasing interest costs and spending for Medicare and Social Security. An aging population drives those numbers.

Several legislative proposals have been put forward to address Social Security’s impending insolvency.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Amanda Seitz and Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.

Islamabad, Pakistan – In January 2024, Pakistan and Iran fired missiles into each other’s territory in a brief military escalation between the neighbours.

Yet 17 months later, after Israel attacked Iran with strikes on the latter’s nuclear facilities, and assassinated multiple Iranian generals and nuclear scientists, Pakistan was quick to condemn the Israeli action.

Islamabad described the Israeli strikes as violations of Iran’s territorial sovereignty and labelled them “blatant provocations”.

“The international community and the United Nations bear responsibility to uphold international law, stop this aggression immediately and hold the aggressor accountable for its actions,” Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on June 13.

As Israeli attacks on Iran, and Tehran’s retaliatory strikes, enter their sixth day, the deepening conflict is sparking fears in Islamabad, say analysts, rooted in its complex ties with Tehran and the even greater unease at the prospect of the Israeli military’s aerial influence extending close to the Pakistani border.

The human toll from the spiralling Israel-Iran conflict is growing. Israel’s attacks on Iran have already led to more than 220 deaths, with more than a thousand people injured. In retaliation, Iran has launched hundreds of missiles into Israeli territory, resulting in more than 20 deaths and extensive property damage.

While Pakistan, which shares a 905km (562-mile) border with Iran via its southwestern province of Balochistan, has voiced staunch support for Tehran, it has also closed five border crossings in Balochistan from June 15.

More than 500 Pakistani nationals, mainly pilgrims and students, have returned from Iran in recent days.

“On Monday, we had 45 students who were pursuing degrees in various Iranian institutions return to Pakistan. Almost 500 pilgrims also came back via the Taftan border crossing,” the assistant commissioner for Taftan, Naeem Ahmed, told Al Jazeera.

Taftan is a border town neighbouring Iran, situated in the Chaghi district in Balochistan, which is famous for its hills where Pakistan conducted its nuclear tests in 1998, as well as the Reko Diq and Saindak mines known for their gold and copper deposits.

At the heart of the decision to try to effectively seal the border is Pakistan’s worry about security in Balochistan, which, in turn, is influenced by its ties with Iran, say experts.

A complex history

Pakistan and Iran have both accused each other of harbouring armed groups responsible for cross-border attacks on their territories.

The most recent flare-up occurred in January 2024, when Iran launched missile strikes into Pakistan’s Balochistan province, claiming to target the separatist group Jaish al-Adl.

Pakistan retaliated within 24 hours, striking what it said were hideouts of Baloch separatists inside Iranian territory.

The neighbours patched up after that brief escalation, and during Pakistan’s brief military conflict with India in May, Iran studiously avoided taking sides.

On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ishaq Dar addressed Parliament, emphasising how Pakistan had been speaking with Iran and suggesting that Islamabad was willing to play a diplomatic role to help broker an end to the military hostilities between Iran and Israel.

“Iran’s foreign minister [Abbas Araghchi] told me that if Israel does not carry out another attack, they are prepared to return to the negotiating table,” Dar said. “We have conveyed this message to other countries, that there is still time to stop Israel and bring Iran back to talks.”.

Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry told Al Jazeera that other nations needed to do more to push for a ceasefire.

“We believe we are playing our role, but the world must also do its duty. Syria, Libya, Iraq – wars devastated them. It even led to the rise of ISIS [ISIL]. We hope this is not repeated,” he added.

Fahd Humayun, assistant professor of political science at Tufts University and a visiting research scholar at Stanford, said that any Pakistani bid to diplomatically push for peace would be helped by the fact that the administration of President Donald Trump in the United States is also, officially at least, arguing for negotiations rather than war.

But Umer Karim, a Middle East researcher at the University of Birmingham, suggested that for all the public rhetoric, Pakistan would be cautious about enmeshing itself too deeply in the conflict at a time when it is trying to rebuild bridges with the US, Israel’s closest ally.

“I doubt Pakistan has the capacity or the will to mediate in this conflict, but it definitely wants it to wind down as soon as possible,” he said.

Balochistan and security concerns

Pakistan’s greatest concern, according to observers, is the potential fallout in Balochistan, a resource-rich but restive province. Rich in oil, gas, coal, gold and copper, Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest province by area but smallest by population, home to about 15 million people.

Since 1947, Balochistan has experienced at least five rebellion movements, the latest beginning in the early 2000s. Rebel groups have demanded a greater share of local resources or outright independence, prompting decades of military crackdowns.

The province also hosts the strategic Gwadar port, central to the $62bn China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), linking western China to the Arabian Sea.

Baloch nationalists accuse the state of exploiting resources while neglecting local development, heightening secessionist and separatist sentiments. Baloch secessionist groups on both sides of the border, particularly the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLA), have been waging a rebellion in Pakistan to seek independence.

“There is a major concern within Pakistan that in case the war escalates, members of armed groups such as BLA and BLF, many of whom live in Iran’s border areas, might try and seek protection inside Pakistan by crossing the very porous boundaries shared by the two countries,” Abdul Basit, a research fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, told Al Jazeera.

“Thus, Pakistan had to shut down the crossing in an attempt to control the influx. It remains to be seen whether they can successfully do that, but at least this is their objective.”

Worries about an Afghanistan redux

Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, waves of Afghan refugees have sought shelter in Pakistan. The latest mass entry occurred after the Taliban took over Kabul in August 2021. At their peak, there were close to 4 million Afghans living in the country.

In 2023, however, Pakistan launched a campaign to send the refugees back to Afghanistan. According to government estimates, close to a million of them have been expelled so far. Pakistan has cited rising incidents of armed violence in the country, which it blames on groups that it says find shelter in Afghanistan, as a key justification for its decision. The Taliban reject the suggestion that they allow anti-Pakistan armed groups sanctuary on Afghan territory.

Basit said Pakistan would likely want to avoid any repeat of what happened with Afghan refugees.

“With such a long border [with Iran], and a history of deep connection between people of both sides, it is not out of realm of possibility that it was this factor which factored in Pakistan’s decision to close the border,” he added.

Fears of Israeli aerial superiority

Baloch armed groups and the prospect of a refugee influx are not the only concerns likely worrying Pakistan, say experts.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that his air force has control over Tehran’s skies. And while both Israel and Iran continue to strike each other’s territory, Pakistan, which does not recognise Israel and views it as a sworn enemy, will not want Israeli influence over the Iranian airspace to grow and creep towards the Iran-Pakistan border.

“Pakistan is also averse to Israel achieving complete air superiority and control of Iranian airspace, as it would upend the current security status quo on Pakistan’s western flank,” Karim, the University of Birmingham scholar, told Al Jazeera.

Break from the past

Security analyst Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud, based in Islamabad, noted that Pakistan has historically sided with the US in regional wars, including in Afghanistan, but may hesitate this time.

A majority Sunni nation, Pakistan still boasts a significant Shia population – more than 15 percent of its population of 250 million.

“Pakistan has already dealt with sectarian issues, and openly supporting military action against [Shia-majority] Iran could spark serious blowback,” he said.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he rushed to pick up papers dropped by US President Donald Trump at the G7 Summit partly because he feared what the White House security team might do if anyone else tried to help.

Starmer and Trump were talking to reporters about their newly signed off UK-US trade deal when the moment descended into farce as the president brandished a folder containing the arrangements and the papers spilled out onto the floor.

Sir Keir fell to his knees to scoop them up and hand them back to President Trump.

“There are quite strict rules about who can get close to the president,” he told reporters.

“I mean, seriously, I think if any of you had stepped forward other than me, I was just deeply conscious that in a situation like that it would not have been good for anybody else to have stepped forwards, not that any of you rushed to!”

The prime minister added that President Trump “was on good form” when they met on Monday.

He said that the US-UK trade deal was a “huge relief in terms of the protection of their jobs and their livelihoods” for tens of thousands of people working for Jaguar Land Rover in the West Midlands and in the firm’s supply chain.

There were widespread fears that without a deal job losses would have been inevitable.

“I was on the phone to the CEO of JLR, who rightly reminded me, although I didn’t need much reminding, that 44,000 workers at JLR are extremely relieved and pleased that we got that order signed,” Sir Keir said.

The new arrangement removes tariffs, or import taxes, on the aerospace sector and cuts the levy on cars exported from the UK to the US to 10%.

But the deal did not address the expected removal of charges on steel imports, which are currently at 25%. Negotiations over steel are ongoing.

Trump has raised taxes on goods entering the US, in a series of rapid-fire announcements he says are aimed at encouraging businesses and consumers to buy more American-made goods.

It sparked financial turmoil and alarm around the world, including in the UK, where car manufacturers and steelmakers rely on the US as a key destination for exports.

Sir Keir said on Monday the signing off of the deal marked a “very important day” for both the UK and the US, while Trump said Sir Keir had done a “great job” in doing “what other people… haven’t been able to do” in securing a deal with the US.

The pact has drawn criticism by opposition parties in the UK, with Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch calling it a “tiny tariff deal”.

China’s response was to strongly condemn Israel’s actions, which violate all basic norms governing international relations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry considered the attacks on Tehran’s nuclear facilities to set a dangerous precedent, the repercussions of which could be disastrous for international peace and stability. In response to this direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran, Beijing has consistently taken a firm pro-Iran stance, with China officially declaring that Tehran is not an instigator of regional instability. Beijing also immediately linked this Israeli escalation against Iran to the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip, a conflict that China has long advocated for resolving through the United Nations. All Chinese political and intelligence analyses have emphasized that the current situation and the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran are the latest extension of the conflict that has been raging for more than two years in the Gaza Strip. This serves as yet another reminder that the Palestinian issue remains central to the Middle East and impacts long-term peace, stability, and security in the region. To this end, Chinese circles believe that if the conflict in Gaza is allowed to continue, the negative impact of the conflict is expected to spread further, making the region even more unstable.

 Reflecting the same context of official Chinese statements, Chinese experts view these events not only as another chapter in the Israeli-Iranian conflict but also as an extension of the war in the Gaza Strip. According to Chinese Professor Liu Zhongmin of Shanghai International Studies University and Professor Tang Qichao, Director of the Research Center for Development and Governance in the Middle East at the Institute of West Asian and African Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the confrontation that began in the Gaza Strip has now expanded to five additional fronts: the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the Red Sea, where Israel’s enemies are trying to divert its attention and deplete its resources.

  Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Director of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Central Committee of the ruling Communist Party of China, held talks with his Israeli counterpart. Minister Wang Yi affirmed China’s opposition to Israel’s violation of international law by attacking Iran with force, describing Israeli behavior as internationally unacceptable. China affirmed that diplomatic means regarding the Iranian nuclear issue have not been exhausted, and there is still hope for a peaceful solution to the issue. The Chinese leadership confirmed to President Xi Jinping that “the force used by Israel against the Iranians cannot establish lasting peace between the two sides.” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi also affirmed that “China is ready to play a constructive role in containing the escalation of the conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv.”

  These Chinese talks with Iranian and Israeli officials to stop the war should be understood as part of China’s efforts to prevent relations between Tel Aviv and Tehran from destabilizing the region’s security, maritime, navigational, and logistical stability. This is particularly true given Iran’s explicit accusations that several regional powers facilitated Israeli airspace attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is in addition to the current link between US President Trump’s recent visit to three Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE) and the coordination of Israel’s current military strike on Iran. This is in addition to analyses by several Chinese political and intelligence circles that several regional powers have shared intelligence with Israel regarding the attack on Iran. Through China’s analysis of all these current developments, Beijing’s interest in neutralizing the course of Israeli-Iranian relations, at least for the time being, stems from its pivotal role in mediating the restoration of diplomatic relations between these two regional rivals as a price for restoring stability to the Middle East. 

  Supporting the Chinese view in this context is what Chinese officials consistently praise as a wave of regional reconciliation, as evidence of the effectiveness of the Global Security Initiative launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping. This alternative security framework is often positioned in contrast to the Western system, which Chinese officials and researchers often portray as a front for American hegemony.

  Beijing is leveraging Tehran’s support for several groups in the Middle East to advance its interests in confronting the balance of power with the United States in the Middle East, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. China and Russia also appear to be working to establish closer relations with Hamas. A delegation of senior leaders from Hamas and other Palestinian movements, including Islamic Jihad, which the United States officially designates as a terrorist group, has visited Moscow and Beijing several times to coordinate their positions on the Israeli escalation in the Gaza Strip, with explicit American support. Chinese think tanks described this Iranian retaliatory attack against Israel, after its war against it, as an unprecedented development in its long-standing proxy conflict with Israel. They expected Iran to respond militarily soon through a third party, such as the Houthis in Yemen, to disrupt maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Bab Al-Mandab, and the Suez Canal in Egypt. This would be part of Iran’s leverage over Israel and the United States to halt its war and refrain from continuing to attack its nuclear facilities, harm its interests, and assassinate its military leaders and scientists.

  On the other hand, China has several leverage points against Israel. It has significant investments in Israel, particularly in the infrastructure and technology sectors, and has maintained them throughout the conflict in the Gaza Strip. China also relies heavily on Iran for 90% of its crude oil imports, which go directly to China. To this end, China will attempt to play a calming role between Tehran and Tel Aviv, especially since these Israeli retaliatory strikes targeted Iranian oil infrastructure in a way that could impact Iranian oil exports to China. Therefore, Beijing is likely to raise its voice in condemning Israel’s actions against the Iranians and even intervene and broker a peace agreement between the two parties to preserve its oil interests with Tehran. China remains one of the few countries that buys oil from Iran despite US sanctions. Beijing also brokered the agreement to restore diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023, which could play a role in establishing a peace agreement between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

   Regarding the views of senior Chinese military leaders regarding Iran’s role in confronting the Israeli war against it, Chinese experts Teng Jiankun, a senior researcher at the China Institute of International Studies, and Wang Mingzhi, director of the Strategic Education and Research Office at the People’s Liberation Army Air Force Command College, believe a direct attack from Iran is unlikely and instead expect Iran to respond through its proxies, such as the Houthis. In a previous interview with China Central Television (CCTV), Colonel “Du Wenlong” of the People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences stated, “If Iran transfers its weapons to areas in Syria, Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon, then through intermediaries, it could achieve war feats similar to those of the Israeli war against it. Therefore, in the next step, Iran could influence actors throughout the Middle East to carry out joint retaliatory operations against both Israel and the United States.” Chinese military expert “Li Li” also emphasized that “Iran has effectively demonstrated its ability to retaliate against Israel, as well as the Iranians’ prowess in operational planning and the capabilities of their military industry,” which she described as “extremely systematic and extensive.” Professor Li Li emphasized that “Iran’s real goal now is to demonstrate its ability to strike deep into Israeli territory and enhance its deterrence to secure political and strategic goals.” Professor Ding Jun, a well-known Chinese professor of Middle East politics and head of the Institute of Middle East Studies at Shanghai International Studies University, emphasized that “the political nature of the operation outweighs its military significance.” According to Chinese political and military analyst Wang Mingqi, “Iran’s restraint in the attack on Tel Aviv may have been due to Tehran’s goal of not diverting the international community’s attention away from Gaza and Israel, which is the same goal the Israelis are aiming to achieve by launching their current, unexpected attack on Tehran.”

    By understanding this previous analysis, we find that the American side is counting heavily on China as well to play a role in calming the situation between Tehran and Tel Aviv. The closest example of this is the United States’ request that China use its influence over Tehran to curb the Iranian-backed Houthi group in Yemen, which is attacking ships in the Red Sea.

You may be surprised to know that the London-based airport enforces a ‘two-bag policy’ at its security point to avoid delays

With summer on the horizon, many Brits are preparing for sunny vacations overseas. However, before heading to Heathrow Airport, familiarising yourself with its current policies and regulations is essential.

Carrying flammable substances or toxic items is a clear no-go when flying from any airport. However, what may be less known is Heathrow’s baggage limit for travellers at its security checkpoints.

You may be surprised to know that the London-based airport enforces a ‘two-bag policy’ at its security point to avoid delays. This means only two hand baggage items can be taken through the control area.

“To avoid delays, Heathrow operates a two-bag policy at airport security,” advice at the airport’s site reads. “Handbags and laptop bags count as a piece of hand baggage.”

READ MORE: Love Island’s Cara De La Hoyde-Massey urges fans to get a key health check

As part of this rule, any item larger than 56cm x 45cm x 25cm (22in x 18in x 10in) must be checked in as hold luggage. In turn, passengers are more likely to keep their security tray usage to a minimum, limiting delays for others.

Besides this, it’s also important to consider the dos and don’ts of what to put in this hand luggage. For instance, only specific electronic devices are permitted on flights from the UK.

While some airlines might have different restrictions, the UK Government outlines nine key items you can take in both your hand luggage and hold luggage:

• Hairdryers
• Straighteners
• Travel iron
• Electric shaver
• Most cameras
• Mobile phones
• Laptops
• Tablet devices
• MP3 players

It is essential for passengers using e-cigarettes to carry them in their hand luggage rather than in their hold luggage. When passing through security checks, placing electronic devices in a designated tray allows staff to see and verify that no prohibited items are hidden.

Heathrow Airport’s advice also adds: “Please ensure your electronic devices are charged. If they don’t switch on, you may not be allowed to take them onto the aircraft. Charging points are available throughout the airport.”

On the flipside, most UK airports – including Heathrow – require liquids to fit inside a single transparent plastic bag when passing through security. Each liquid container must hold a maximum of 100ml, and the plastic bag must be approximately 20cm x 20cm.

The Government’s website clarifies that all items should fit ‘comfortably inside the bag’ so that it can be sealed. To avoid complications, do not attempt to seal it by tying a knot at the top, as it will not be accepted.

READ MORE: Look around Amanda Holden family thatched cottage with ‘sweeping’ gardens which is up for sale

Below is the UK Government’s complete list of items categorised as hand luggage liquids:

• Liquid or semi-liquid foods, for example, soup, jam, honey and syrups
• Any other solutions and items of similar consistency
• Sprays, including shaving foam, hairspray and spray deodorants
• Contact lens solution
• Pastes, including toothpaste
• Gels, including hair and shower gel
• All drinks, including water
• Cosmetics and toiletries, including creams, lotions, oils, perfumes, mascara and lip gloss

Solid products like deodorant sticks, soap bars, wet wipes, and lip balms are usually considered non-liquids. Therefore, they typically don’t require storage in the bag.

Guidance from Heathrow Airport adds: “Only limited quantities of liquids may be carried through airport security into the departure lounge. This includes bottled drinks, suntan lotion, fragrances, cosmetics, toiletries and all frozen liquids.

“…Liquids in containers over 100ml will not be permitted through security – please pack them in your hold baggage instead.”

WASHINGTON, June 12 (UPI) — Taiwan may be an island of just over 23 million people, but what happens there could ripple across the global economy. The small democratic nation produces the vast majority of the world’s most advanced semiconductors — chips that are used in everything from smartphones and electric cars to defense systems and spacecraft.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. “produces roughly 90% of the most sophisticated computer chips, and the loss of that would be devastating,” said Steven David, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “We can’t get around without it.”

For Taiwan, this manufacturing dominance isn’t just economic — it’s strategic. Analysts call it the island’s “silicon shield.” The world relies heavily on Taiwan’s chips, which deters China from launching a military attack and pushes allies like the United States to come to Taiwan’s defense.

The geopolitical stakes around Taiwan’s semiconductor dominance have soared as China escalates military pressure, through increased fighter jet incursions, large-scale naval drills and explicit threats of reunification.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties have increasingly voiced concern that a Chinese invasion could upend global chip supply chains and empower Beijing with outsized economic leverage.

“It [would be] monumentally stupid to try to keep something as fragile as chips production going during the time of war,” said Kitsch Liao, associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub.

The United States has taken steps to address this vulnerability. In 2022, former President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, allocating $280 billion to support domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research, including subsidies for Taiwan Semiconductor to build a plant in Phoenix.

In March, President Donald Trump announced a new $100 billion deal with the company to dramatically expand its manufacturing presence in the United States.

“America is building plants with Taiwanese investment and cooperation in Arizona and elsewhere, but it would still be devastating,” David said, referring to the potential impact of a Chinese attack on chip production.

Taiwan’s government has had to carefully balance cooperation with the United States against growing fears at home that shifting too much chip production abroad could weaken its security.

Taiwan’s two main political parties, the Kuomintang, or KMT, and the Democratic Progressive Party, or DPP, have debated the best approach to cross-strait relations.

While the KMT supports closer ties with China, the DPP, which currently holds the presidency under Lai Ching-te, has leaned toward reinforcing Taiwan’s democratic independence and diversifying trade, actions that could increase already mounting pressure from China.

“If China does successfully invade Taiwan and takes over the TSMC plant, it won’t be able to use the plant the way Taiwan does,” David said. “But it would deny its use to others, and that would be devastating to the world economy. Several percentages of world GDP would drop as a result.”

Analysts worry that even the threat of invasion could destabilize markets. Blockades or gray zone tactics by Beijing, short of all-out war, could still limit Taiwan Semiconductors’ ability to export.

“Any erosion in Taiwan’s ability to trade with the rest of the world would have a significant impact on the global economy,” said Jack Burnham, a research analyst at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“It would disrupt the flow of semiconductors to a variety of different industries that are incredibly valuable to the United States, its allies and partners, and the global community.”

Taiwan has long been one of the most contentious issues in United States-China relations. After the Chinese Civil War, the Nationalist government fled to Taiwan in 1949, and the Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China on the mainland. Since then, Beijing has claimed Taiwan as an inalienable part of its territory.

In 1979, the United States. ended formal diplomatic recognition of Taipei in favor of Beijing, but passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which commits the United States to help Taiwan maintain a “sufficient self-defense capability.”

The United States, though, has remained deliberately vague about whether it would come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of a Chinese invasion — a policy known as strategic ambiguity.

But as threats of an invasion increased, this stance continued to be tested. In a speech in Singapore last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth vowed that “devastating consequences” could result should China seek to “conquer” Taiwan, warning that an invasion could be “imminent.”

Beyond semiconductor and chips manufacturing, Taiwan remains a core interest in the Indo-Pacific region. The island sits at the heart of the “first island chain,” a line of U.S.-aligned territories stretching from Japan to the Philippines.

If China were to take over Taiwan, experts warned it could use the island as a launchpad to project power deep into the Pacific, posing a direct challenge to U.S. interests.

“Should China be successful [in a reunification scenario], it would have a significant impact on the lives of everyday Americans — both in their wallets and in the political situation they find themselves in,” Burnham said.

“What’s at stake when it comes to Taiwan is the free flow of trade, a significant part of the American economy, and the health and stability of the United States’ key allies and partners in the region.”

A warrant has been issued for the arrest of former NFL superstar Antonio Brown stemming from an altercation outside a celebrity kickboxing event last month in Miami.

Brown is charged with the first-degree felony of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. A judge from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County signed the warrant Wednesday.

The warrant, which has been viewed by The Times, states that once Brown is arrested, he will be held on a $10,000 bond before being released and under house arrest before a trial.

Just before midnight on May 16, the warrant states, Miami police were dispatched to a location on NE 67th St. in the Little Haiti neighborhood in response to a report of gunshots being fired in the area.

Brown had already been detained by off-duty Florida Highway Patrol officers serving as security for the amateur boxing event held in the area. One of those officers stated that “several patrons from the event identified Mr. Brown as the shooter and informed him that Mr. Brown was armed,” the warrant states.

After being patted down and deemed to be unarmed at that point, Brown was released “due to the absence of identified victims at the time.”

A Miami police review of surveillance camera footage revealed that an altercation between Brown and another man took place before the shooting. The footage showed Brown striking the man with a closed fist, and a fight that involved additional individuals ensued, the warrant states.

Security broke up the fight, according to the warrant, but Brown “appears to retrieve a black firearm from the right hip area” of one of the security staff members and ran with the gun out of the parking area in the direction that the man he was fighting with had gone.

The warrant states that “cell phone video obtained from social media” shows Brown advancing toward the other man with the gun in hand and captures “two shots which occur as Mr. Brown is within several feet” of the other man, who can be seen “ducking after the first shot is heard.”

In a May 21 interview with a police detective, the alleged victim identified Brown in the surveillance video and said they had known each other since 2022, the warrant states. He also indicated he possibly had been grazed in the neck by one of the bullets, was in fear for his life during the incident and went to a hospital afterward to treat his injuries.

Brown appeared to address the alleged incident in a May 17 post on X.

“I was jumped by multiple individuals who tried to steal my jewelry and cause physical harm to me,” Brown wrote. “Contrary to some video circulating, Police temporarily detained me until they received my side of the story and then released me. I WENT HOME THAT NIGHT AND WAS NOT ARRESTED. I will be talking to my legal council and attorneys on pressing charges on the individuals that jumped me.”

Brown posted on X several times on Friday, with none of those posts mentioning the arrest warrant. One seemed to indicate he’s not in the U.S. at the moment — it features a video of a grinning Brown riding a bike with the hashtag #lovefromthemiddleeast.

A seven-time Pro Bowl receiver, Brown played nine of his 12 NFL seasons with the Pittsburgh Steelers and won a Super Bowl with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers following the 2020 season. He made a bizarre, shirtless exit from the field during a regular-season game Jan. 2, 2022, and has not played since.

He has a history of legal troubles. In 2019, Brown was sued by a former trainer who said he sexually assaulted her multiple times. Brown denied the allegations. The lawsuit was settled out of court in 2021.

In 2020, Brown pleaded no contest to burglary and battery charges connected to an altercation with a moving company. He was ordered to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, attend an anger management program and undergo psychological and psychiatric evaluation.

Brown was suspended for eight games in 2020 for multiple violations of the NFL’s personal conduct policy.

Also, in October 2023, the former star wide receiver was arrested for failing to pay child support.

There are a few things that people facing airport security will want to ditch when planning their outfit

Millions of people will pass through airports across the UK this summer for long-awaited breaks in sunnier places. But, people heading abroad can make one part of the travel process simpler by choosing to leave some items at home.

TikTok user and frequent flyer Melanie (@comehangout_melanie) said that there are four items that might “cause you to get held up by security.” When getting to the plane can often seem to take hours, people will want to avoid making these wardrobe mistakes that could extend the process even further.

The first, and most obvious one, is not to wear anything metallic, if possible. It’s a standard part of airport security around the world for travellers to pass through a metal detector. If it detects any sort of metal object, staff will pull you aside and complete extra safety checks.

These sensitive devices are designed to be triggered by hazardous items, but can just as easily flag something innocent you’ve forgotten to remove, like jewellery, hairpins or loose coins in your pocket. Melanie added that it can be “a pain”, so if it can be avoided, it’ll speed up the whole process.

Melanie also advises against wearing specific shoes if they are hard to take on and off. She explained: “Most airport security, not all, will make you take your shoes off. There is nowhere to sit to take them off or to put them back on. If people are in a rush, you are gonna have a very annoyed line of people behind you if you’re taking a long time to get your shoes off.”

In some UK airports, you may be asked to remove your shoes at security, particularly if the metal detector is triggered. This is a standard security procedure to ensure the safety of passengers and staff.

Certain clothes might be comfy for a long flight, but Melanie claimed there are some you should leave at home – or at least keep in your suitcase. They might cause issues with security checks or attract unwanted attention.

She said: “Don’t wear clothing with a lot of pockets or details on it—that includes cargo pants. There are a lot of zippers on those, which could be an issue, but if you actually store things in all of those pockets, it can be difficult to remember to take them all out. If you are in line and having to dig through all of your different pockets to clear them all out, that’s a no-no!”

Baggy clothes —such as “pants, shirts and even flowy dresses”—were also highlighted as something to avoid. Melaine claimed that these outfit options were “far more likely to lead to a pat down” than more fitted clothing, suggesting that baggy items might be used for “hiding things underneath them.”

What to expect at airport security in the UK

Several steps need to happen before airport staff can let you head off on holiday. According to the GOV.UK website, the safety checks include having your boarding pass ready for inspection—your passport is not required at security.

If you are taking liquids in your hand luggage, containers must hold no more than 100ml. Passengers should put appropriate-sized liquids into a clear resealable plastic bag which holds no more than 1 litre and measures about 20cm x 20cm.

Take the plastic bag out of your hand luggage while queuing, ready to put it in the security tray. Remember that liquids may include items such as make-up, toiletries and hand sanitisers.

Empty your pockets, take off your coat, watch, and belt, and remove other metal items when you near the front of the queue so you’re ready to put them in the trays. You may be asked to remove your shoes, other clothing items, or jewellery before going through the security archway or scanner. Electrical items such as mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and hair straighteners should be removed from hand luggage to go through X-ray machines separately.

Australia says the plan to deliver nuclear submarines remains unchanged, despite opposition to the pact from a top Trump official.

Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles said he is “very confident” that the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom will continue to move forward despite news that the Pentagon is reviewing the 2021 deal between the three nations.

News of the review was first reported on Thursday as US defence officials said re-assessing the pact was necessary to ensure that the military deal, agreed to with much fanfare under former US President Joe Biden, was in line with US President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda.

The pact includes a deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars to provide Australia with closely-guarded nuclear propulsion technology. Only five other countries besides the US can build nuclear submarines: the UK, China, Russia, France and India.

“The meetings that we’ve had with the United States have been very positive in respect of AUKUS,” Defence Minister Marles told the ABC network.

A review of the deal is “something that it’s perfectly natural for an incoming administration to do … It’s exactly what we did”, Marles said.

“There is a plan here. We are sticking to it, and we’re going to deliver it,” he said.

Under the terms of the AUKUS deal, Australia and the UK will work with the US to design nuclear-class submarines ready for delivery to Australia in the 2040s, according to the US Naval Institute.

The three countries are already close military allies and share intelligence, but AUKUS focuses on key strategic areas, such as countering the rise of China and its expansion into the Pacific.

Due to the long lead time in building the submarines under the AUKUS deal, Australia also agreed to buy up to three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines during the 2030s. The US and UK also plan to start the rotational deployment of their submarines out of Australia in 2027.

But some Trump administration officials, such as Pentagon policy adviser Elbridge Colby, say the submarine deal puts foreign governments ahead of US national security.

“My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?” Colby said last year.

Other officials, including US Representative Joe Courtney from Connecticut – a US state which has an industry focused on building submarines for the US Navy – say the deal is in the “best interest of all three AUKUS nations, as well as the Indo-Pacific region as a whole”.

“To abandon AUKUS – which is already well under way – would cause lasting harm to our nation’s standing with close allies and certainly be met with great rejoicing in Beijing,” Courtney said.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to discuss the deal when he meets Trump next week during a meeting of the G7 leaders in Canada.

Earlier this year, Australia made a $500m payment towards AUKUS and plans to spend $2bn this year to speed up the production process in the US of the Virginia-class submarines.

The UK, like Australia, has downplayed concerns that the Trump administration could renege on the pact.

A UK official told the Reuters news agency that the deal is “one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades” that will also produce “jobs and economic growth in communities across all three nations”.

“It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year,” the official said.

June 7 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data.

On Friday, the Court’s six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population.

In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions.

In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: “We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.”

The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander’s decision.

The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans.

They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,” the groups said in a statement. “This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public’s most sensitive data as this case moves forward.”

Social Security Works posted on X: “No one in history — no commissioner, no president, no one — has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that “the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law.”

Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the “Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court’s intervention. In essence, the ‘urgency’ underlying the government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.”

She concluded her dissent by writing: “The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.”

Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs “from cradle to grave.”

“While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have ‘God-level’ access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more,” Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers.

DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency.

“These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government’s records to much-needed scrutiny,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion.

The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents’ names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare.

SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The plaintiffs wrote: “The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it.”

Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that”The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.”

On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take.

Musk called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28.

The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers’ payroll tax payments to people who are already retired.

The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.

The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them.

On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court’s ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA).

In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law.

In both cases, the Supreme Court’s three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority’s decision.

DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump’s campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic “bloat”.

Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump’s re-election, DOGE was designed to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies”.

At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity.

But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE.

The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts.

In addition, DOGE’s sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems.

Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump’s re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire’s tenure as a “special government employee” in the White House.

That falling-out has left DOGE’s future uncertain.

Accessing Social Security data

One of DOGE’s controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse.

Early in Trump’s second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation.

Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old.

They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration’s confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report.

Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” and calling for its elimination.

In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information.

Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person’s identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy.

Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had “never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA’s entire record systems”. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a “more tailored” approach.

“Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,” she wrote in her ruling. “Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”

The judge’s ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information.

The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE’s access.

The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander’s temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision.

But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts.

“Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,” Brown Jackson wrote.

She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any “irreparable harm” would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data.

But by granting the Trump administration’s emergency petition, she said the court was “jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process”.

Is DOGE subject to transparency laws?

The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws.

The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group.

It argued that DOGE’s sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE’s structures had kept it insulated from outside probes.

“While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE’s authority leaves that an open question,” CREW said in a statement.

The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings.

While a US district judge had sided with CREW’s request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court’s decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed.

“Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade,” the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled.

It also said that the courts needed to exercise “deference and restraint” regarding “internal” executive communications.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the DOGE team that had been led by Elon Musk to examine Social Security records that include personal information on most Americans.

Acting by a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and lifted a court order that had barred a team of DOGE employees from freely examining Social Security records.

“We conclude that, under the present circumstances,” the Social Security Administration, or SSA, “may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,” the court said in an unsigned order.

In a second order, the justices blocked the disclosure of DOGE operations as agency records that could be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The court’s three liberals — Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented in both cases.

“Today, the court grants ‘emergency’ relief that allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans,” Jackson wrote. “The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now — before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE’s access is lawful.”

The legal fight turned on the unusual status of the newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency. This was a not true department, but the name given to the team of aggressive outside advisors led by Musk.

Were the DOGE team members presidential advisors or outsiders who should not be given access to personal data?

While Social Security employees are entrusted with the records containing personal information, it was disputed whether the 11 DOGE team members could be trusted with same material.

Musk had said the goal was to find evidence of fraud or misuse of government funds.

He and DOGE were sued by labor unions who said the outside analysts were sifting through records with personal information that was protected by the privacy laws. Unless checked, the DOGE team could create highly personal computer profiles of every person, they said.

A federal judge in Maryland agreed and issued an order restricting the work of DOGE.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, an Obama appointee, barred DOGE staffers from having access to the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. But her order did not restrict the Social Security staff or DOGE employees from using data that did not identify people or sensitive personal information.

In late April, the divided 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to set aside the judge’s order by a 9-6 vote.

Judge Robert King said the “government has sought to accord the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) immediate and unfettered access to all records of the Social Security Administration (‘SSA’) — records that include the highly sensitive personal information of essentially everyone in our country.”

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court and said a judge should not “second guess” how the administration manages the government.

He said the district judge had “enjoined particular agency employees — the 11 members of the Social Security Administration (SSA) DOGE team — from accessing data that other agency employees can unquestionably access, and that the SSA DOGE team will use for purposes that are unquestionably lawful. … The Executive Branch, not district courts, sets government employees’ job responsibilities.”

Sauer said the DOGE team was seeking to modernize SSA systems and identify improper payments, for instance by reviewing swaths of records and flagging unusual payment patterns or other signs of fraud.

The DOGE employees “are subject to the same strict confidentiality standards as other SSA employees,” he said. Moreover, the plaintiffs “make no allegation that the SSA DOGE team’s access will increase the risk of public disclosure.”

He said checking the personal data is crucial.

“For instance, a birth date of 1900 can be telltale evidence that an individual is probably deceased and should not still receive Social Security payments, while 15 names using the same Social Security number may also point to a problem,” he said.

WASHINGTON — A former Homeland Security official during President Trump’s first administration who authored an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president is calling on independent government watchdogs to investigate after Trump ordered the department to look into his government service.

Miles Taylor, once chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, warned in an interview with the Associated Press of the far-reaching implications of Trump’s April 9 memorandum, “Addressing Risks Associated with an Egregious Leaker and Disseminator of Falsehoods,” when it comes to suppressing criticism of the president. That memo accused Taylor of concocting stories to sell his book and directed the secretary of Homeland Security and other government agencies to look into Taylor and strip him of any security clearances.

Taylor sent a letter via email to inspectors general at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security on Tuesday.

Coming on the same April day that Trump also ordered an investigation into Chris Krebs, a former top cybersecurity official, the dual memoranda illustrated how Trump has sought to use the powers of the presidency against his adversaries. Speaking to the AP, Taylor said the order targeting him sets a “scary precedent” and that’s why he decided to call on the inspectors general to investigate.

“I didn’t commit any crime, and that’s what’s extraordinary about this. I can’t think of any case where someone knows they’re being investigated but has absolutely no idea what crime they allegedly committed. And it’s because I didn’t,” Taylor said. He called it a “really, really, really scary precedent to have set is that the president of the United States can now sign an order investigating any private citizen he wants, any critic, any foe, anyone.”

Trump has targeted adversaries since he took office

Since taking office again in January, Trump has stripped security clearances from a number of his opponents. But Trump’s order for an investigation into Taylor, as well as Krebs, marked an escalation of his campaign of retribution in his second term.

Trump fired Krebs, who directed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in November 2020 after Krebs disputed the Republican president’s unsubstantiated claims of voting fraud and vouched for the integrity of the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Taylor left the first Trump administration in 2019. In the anonymous New York Times op-ed published in 2018, he described himself as part of a secret “resistance” to counter Trump’s “misguided impulses.” The op-ed’s publication touched off a leak investigation in Trump’s first White House.

Taylor later published a book by the same name as the op-ed and then another book under his own name called “Blowback,” which warned about Trump’s return to office.

After signing the memorandum April 9, Trump said Taylor was likely “guilty of treason.”

The letter by Taylor’s lawyer to the inspectors general calls Trump’s actions “unprecedented in American history.”

“The Memorandum does not identify any specific wrongdoing. Rather, it flagrantly targets Mr. Taylor for one reason alone: He dared to speak out to criticize the President,” the letter reads.

Taylor’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the request to the inspectors general was an attempt to “get the administration to do the right thing.” Lowell said that depending on the outcome of their complaint, they’ll explore other options including a possible lawsuit. Lowell, a veteran Washington lawyer, announced earlier this year that he was opening his own legal practice and would represent targets of Trump’s retribution.

Violation of First Amendment rights alleged

In the letter, Lowell calls on the inspectors general to do their jobs of “addressing and preventing abuses of power.”

The letter says Trump’s April 9 memo appears to violate Taylor’s First Amendment rights by going after Taylor for his criticism of the president, calling it a “textbook definition of political retribution and vindictive prosecution.” And, according to the letter, Trump’s memo also appears to violate Taylor’s Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The letter highlights Taylor’s “honorable and exemplary” work service including receiving the Distinguished Service Medal upon leaving the department, and it details the toll that the April 9 memorandum has taken on Taylor’s personal life. His family has been threatened and harassed, and former colleagues lost their government jobs because of their connection with him, according to the letter.

Taylor told the AP that since the order, there’s been an “implosion in our lives.” He said he started a fund to pay for legal fees, has had to step away from work and his wife has gone back to work to help pay the family’s bills. Their home’s location was published on the internet in a doxxing.

Taylor said that by filing these complaints with the inspectors general, he’s anticipating that the pressure on him and his family will increase. He said they spent the last few weeks debating what to do after the April 9 memorandum and decided to fight back.

“The alternative is staying silent, cowering and capitulating and sending the message that, yes, there’s no consequences for this president and this administration in abusing their powers in ways that my legal team believes and a lot of legal scholars tell me is unconstitutional and illegal,” Taylor said.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

Airport security rules can be confusing for many travellers with liquid restrictions in place at many flight hubs – but there is one common food item that is banned

Airport shops are hitting passengers in the pocket by charging up to a staggering 48 per cent more for snacks and drinks compared to high street prices. In a move away from complimentary in-flight refreshments, British Airways is one of the airlines now asking customers to splash out on food during short-haul journeys with their paid-for menu options.

But be advised, packing certain common food items might land you in hot water at security checks, potentially leading to a search or even confiscation of your beloved nibbles. Whilst some UK airports have started updating their security measures, the liquid restrictions linger stubbornly across numerous global terminals.

READ MORE: Doctor tells Brit dad to ‘carry on’ as he loses two stone in two months with one change

The official guidance on the UK Government’s website currently states: “If you do take liquids in your hand luggage containers must hold no more than 100ml.

“Containers must be in a single, transparent, resealable plastic bag, which holds no more than a litre and measures approximately 20cm x 20cm and contents must fit comfortably inside the bag so it can be sealed.”

Beware, traveller: while it’s widely known that water and beverages are part of the liquid restrictions, many are unaware that certain foods, including hummus, also qualify under this category due to their consistency, reports the Express.

It’s not just the popular chickpea spread either; other favourites like guacamole and salsa are similarly subjected to these stringent security stipulations.

A travel guru from Ski Vertigo has issued a warning to holidaymakers: “Certain food items, especially those that are liquid or gel-like, such as peanut butter, jam, or yoghurt, are subject to the liquids rule.

“Solid foods generally pass through security without issues, but any food that can be spread, squirted, or poured may be confiscated if it exceeds the allowed liquid limits. Food items can also trigger additional screening if they appear suspicious on the X-ray.”

Despite some UK airports adopting cutting-edge CT scanners that could see the end of the current liquid restrictions, many still lag behind in this tech upgrade.

Even if you’re flying out from a UK airport equipped with these new scanners, remember that numerous international airports continue to enforce the traditional liquid regulations.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Passengers should continue to check security requirements with their departure airport before travelling.”

So, for now, it’s wise for travellers to stick to the established liquid guidelines until further notice, as there’s no confirmed date for when the rules will be universally relaxed.

Within the context of an enduring relationship dating back to May 1975, the establishment of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as a regional bloc with an aspiration of transforming the elongated region along the Atlantic coast and stretching across the Sahel-Savanna bordering the Maghreb. ECOWAS sets out its broad operations incorporating politics, economy, security, social, and culture. The long-term goal is ensuring regional economic sovereignty and political unity among its twelve countries of West Africa.

Today, ECOWAS’s 50 years of its existence represent its marked achievement. It has lagged with issues of fostering strategic solidarity and commitments to its expected goals of sustainable economic transformation. As the regional bloc marked its 50th anniversary in May 2025, ECOWAS had a few achievements to show to the public but faced remarkable and daunting challenges, and these have raised questions about its future.  

On the stage of its aggrandizement, on May 26, ECOWAS officially launched activities commemorating its 50th anniversary in Praia, the capital city of Cabo Verde. The ceremony brought together high-level dignitaries, including the Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Cabo Verde, Miryan Vieira; the Acting Resident Representative of the ECOWAS Commission in Cabo Verde and Executive Director of ECREEE, Francis Sempore; the Director of the Multinational Maritime Coordination Centre for Zone G; members of the diplomatic corps; representatives of various municipalities; and ECOWAS officials in Cabo Verde.

Francis Sempore emphasized the importance of the golden jubilee, noting that “this 50th anniversary is a remarkable milestone — a time not only for celebration but also for reflection. As we mark five decades of regional cooperation and solidarity, we must redouble efforts to strengthen integration and foster collaboration for a brighter, united future in West Africa.”

Miryan Vieira commended ECOWAS for its continued presence and impact in Cabo Verde. Referring to the promotion of sustainable energy, she underlined the immense growth potential of the ECOWAS region and further called for a “people-centered approach” to regional integration that prioritizes human development and inclusivity.

The final launch was preceded by a press conference at the ECOWAS Representation in Praia. It is most important to remember here that ECOWAS’s golden jubilee commemorations aimed to deepen citizens’ connection to the regional vision, promote shared values, and inspire the next generation of West Africans to contribute to a more integrated and prosperous community.

Despite its excellent aspirations and objectives, regional security has been one of the main obstacles in the region. ECOWAS has seemingly been losing its decades-old credibility primarily due to its approach in ensuring regional peace and stability. The overarching combined narratives starkly pointed to this as its major weakness. The ultimate failure to comprehend the neocolonial goals of foreign powers has created deep cracks in ECOWAS.

According to our monitoring, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, on 29 January 2025, declared withdrawal from the bloc. The three French-speaking West African countries, currently governed by military juntas, have formed the Alliance of Sahel States, citing sovereignty concerns and dissatisfaction with ECOWAS’s responses to political and security developments. As the Sahel region continues to grapple with instability and conflict, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger sought other alternatives, and foreign powers are competing to explore and control the abundant mineral resources of these countries in West Africa.

The regional bloc still looks for mechanisms to resolve the security crisis. It has persistently come under fierce criticism; it slackens on its primary responsibilities. Some experts have called for staff changes, attributing them to deep inefficiency. In fact, its reputation has been at stake, and most probably, it needs new dynamic faces at the Secretariat in Abuja, Nigeria.

On May 16th, the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) and the ECOWAS Mediation and Security Council (MSC) held their second joint consultative meeting at the AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, which served as a strategic platform to strengthen cooperation on governance, peace, and security within the frameworks of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), the African Governance Architecture (AGA), and the AU’s Master Roadmap to Silence the Guns by 2030.

Opening the session, Ambassador Harold Bundu Saffa, Chair of the AU PSC for May 2025, welcomed the symbolic significance of holding the meeting and called for a deeper AU–ECOWAS cooperation built on mutual trust and joint responses to emerging challenges such as climate-related security risks, digital conflicts, and youth-led peace initiatives.

In his remarks, Ambassador Musa Sani Nuhu, Chair of the ECOWAS MSC, stressed the urgent need to intensify regional cooperation amid rising insecurity across the continent. He cited threats such as unconstitutional changes of government, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and humanitarian crises. “Africa stands at a defining moment in its history,” he stated. “It is vital that we engage in open and constructive dialogue to identify synergies and build a strong, united response to the challenges we all face.”

For his part, Ambassador Abdel-Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, emphasized the need for inclusive and responsive governance, as well as stronger regional solidarity. “History will not remember our communiqués, but the peace we built, the lives we protected, and the future we dared to imagine together,” he said. Musah, however, advocated for the full involvement of youth and women in peace processes and urged Member States to make subsidiarity a practical foundation for trust and cooperation.

In his keynote address, Ambassador Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, highlighted the importance of long-term institutional partnerships and regular consultations to secure regional peace and foster economic integration. “The AU PSC and ECOWAS MSC must work hand-in-hand on peace and security issues in West Africa,” he stated, commending ECOWAS’s leadership and achievements over its 50-year history, especially in conflict prevention and peace support operations.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the African Union and ECOWAS reaffirmed their strong commitment to strengthening their partnership in addressing the continent’s peace and security challenges through preventive diplomacy, mediation, and joint peace support operations, guided by the principles of subsidiarity, complementarity, and comparative advantage. Nevertheless, there is hope, most probably in the near future, to overcome these existing development roadblocks and make way for practical strategic development, as the countries in the region have both abundant human and natural resources under the umbrella of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

May 29 (UPI) — Israel unveiled plans Thursday for the most significant expansion of its presence in the occupied West Bank in years after approving 22 new Jewish settlements.

The scheme gives legal recognition to the 22 settlements, which already exist but are unofficial, said Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Katz said the step would “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel,” but the Palestinian Authority and at least one anti-war group in Israel condemned the move.

Palestinian presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh called the Israeli government’s approval of the new settlements in the occupied West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, a “dangerous escalation” that was an affront to international legitimacy and international law, including at least one U.N. Security Council Resolution.

He also called on Washington to intervene to halt “Israeli tampering” with what he said had implications for the entire region.

The Peace Now protest movement said the move would “dramatically reshape the West Bank and entrench the occupation even further.”

Israel’s some 160 settlements on disputed land it has occupied for almost six decades since the 1967 Six-Day War with its Arab neighbors are illegal under international law. But Israel argues it has a legal claim on the grounds that the West Bank is fundamental to its security and for religious and historic reasons dating back to the Balfour Declaration and beyond.

Calling the settlement approvals “a historic decision,” Smotrich dismissed criticism of the move, saying Israel was not seizing foreign lands but reclaiming “the inheritance of our fathers.”

“This is a great day for settlement and an important day for the State of Israel. Through hard work and tenacious leadership, we have succeeded in creating a profound strategic change, returning the State of Israel to a path of construction, Zionism, and vision,” he wrote in a post on X.

“Settlement in the land of our ancestors is the protective wall of the State of Israel — today we have taken a huge step to strengthen it. The next step – sovereignty!” said Smotrich.

Katz and Smotrich’s statements came hours after the governments of Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Spain issued a joint communique reaffirming their commitment to the implementation of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Only a “viable, contiguous Palestinian State, with internationally recognized borders, comprised of Gaza and the West Bank and with East Jerusalem as its capital, can fully satisfy the legitimate national aspirations and the needs of peace and security” of both peoples, read the dispatch issued after the representatives of the four nations met Wednesday.

May 27 (UPI) — A sharp drop in crime in El Salvador has made President Nayib Bukele one of Latin America’s most prominent leaders. As violence increases across the region, his security gains are drawing interest from local leaders looking to form a regional political movement, tapping into public frustration over crime and insecurity.

The so-called “Bukelista movement” began to take shape earlier this year during a meeting in Colombia that included participants from Chile and Guatemala. The group established a regional agenda to promote the model across Latin America. Among those attending was Colombian attorney Andrés Guzmán Caballero, who was appointed in 2023 by Bukele as El Salvador’s presidential commissioner for human rights and freedom of expression.

In Colombia, “Bukelismo” became an officially registered political party in April after receiving recognition from the National Electoral Council. “Bukelistas Colombia” is now active in 24 of the country’s 33 departments and plans to field candidates for the Senate and presidency in the next elections, according to Mauricio Morris, a political marketing expert and leader of the movement in Colombia.

Similar Bukelista movements and parties have formed in Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras and Guatemala. The goal is to be active in 12 countries by the end of the year, Morris said.

The Bukelista movement was officially launched in Chile last weekend, with support from a group of local and regional officials. Guzmán Caballero attended the event, despite resigning from his Salvadoran government post just days earlier. At the launch, he presented Bukele’s security strategy and said the “Bukele model” could be replicated in other countries, citing similar crime problems across the region.

Speaking about El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT — the high-security mega-prison that recently received suspected gang members and other criminal detainees from the Trump administration — Guzmán Caballero said El Salvador’s approach goes beyond incarceration. The model also aims to combat corruption and support wide-reaching social development programs, he said.

During his visit to Chile, Guzmán Caballero also held a private meeting with Evelyn Matthei, the center-right presidential candidate currently leading in national polls.

Bukele’s administration has drawn global attention for both its results and controversies. El Salvador, once one of the most violent countries in the world, now reports one of the lowest homicide rates in Latin America. The shift has occurred under a state of emergency declared in 2022, which has led to the arrest of more than 85,000 people — many without warrants or access to legal counsel. Human rights groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented reports of torture, enforced disappearances and deaths in police custody.

In 2015, as a civil war was raging in South Sudan, the United Nations Security Council imposed the first set of sanctions on the country, including asset freezes and travel bans on various senior officials. Three years later, after a ceasefire agreement was repeatedly violated, the UNSC mustered the votes to impose a full arms embargo. Fragile peace eventually settled in, but the embargo was kept in place and was extended every year.

The review of the embargo is now coming up on May 29 and there is a push from African members of the UNSC – Sierra Leone, Somalia and Algeria – to lift it. On March 18, the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) publicly called for this measure to end.

But lifting the embargo on South Sudan at this moment would be a mistake. Violence has come back to plague the country, killing at least 180 people between March and mid-April, amid deepening divisions between President Salva Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar, who has been placed under house arrest.

Allowing more weapons to enter the country would only escalate the dire situation. This would not be in the interest of neighbouring countries and the African Union as a whole.

Under the AU’s development plan, Agenda 2063, the continent set itself an ambitious goal of “Silencing the Guns” by 2020, later extended to 2030. With this, the AU wants to “end all wars and violent conflicts and promote dialogue-based mechanisms for conflict prevention and resolution”.

Yet, the AUPSC’s call for lifting the embargo on South Sudan does not fall in line with these goals. The justification for this stance is that free access to more weapons can enable the unification of government and opposition forces and reform the security sector.

But this logic ignores the growing fractures in South Sudan amid the renewed tensions between Kiir and Machar. Placing more guns in the hands of warring parties involved in serious human rights violations and crimes under international law would only make the situation worse.

South Sudan’s security and defence forces have attacked the very people they are tasked to protect: Civilians. The South Sudanese army, National Security Service and armed opposition forces have been implicated in war crimes and human rights violations for well more than a decade, including by the AU’s Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan and the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.

Indeed, around the time the AUPSC called for the lifting of the arms embargo, South Sudan’s government reportedly used improvised incendiary weapons in aerial attacks, killing at least 58 people and injuring others, including children.

To be sure, the existence of the arms embargo is not enough – its enforcement is key. That is already faltering after in early March, Uganda sent troops and military equipment to South Sudan without providing notification or receiving special exemption from the UNSC Sanctions Committee. This is a clear violation of the embargo.

South Sudan’s Mi-24 helicopters also seem to be on the move, despite the government’s fleet reportedly being non-functional and grounded since the arms embargo was imposed in 2018. This suggests spare parts have been sourced in violation of the embargo.

On May 4, Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF, reported that two helicopter gunships had bombed its medical facility in Old Fangak the day before and fired at the town, killing seven and injuring 20 others. Deliberate attacks on a medical facility performing its humanitarian function violate international humanitarian law and would constitute a war crime.  This is yet another indication of why the UNSC must renew the arms embargo and strengthen its enforcement.

If properly implemented and enforced, a renewed UNSC arms embargo would not obstruct security sector reform. Instead, it would block the disorderly and destabilising accumulation of arms in South Sudan, which is spurring the current conflict and contributing to violations against civilians.

If the AU is serious about silencing the guns, it should back the strict controls prohibiting arms transfers to South Sudan, and the African states in the UNSC should vote to renew the arms embargo.

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