Today

A UN panel has urged the UK to renegotiate a deal returning the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, saying it “fails to guarantee” the rights of the Chagossian people.

The deal, signed last month, returned sovereignty of the Indian Ocean archipelago to Mauritius, but the UK retained the right to run a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands.

By preventing the Chagossian people from returning to Diego Garcia, “the agreement appears to be at variance with the Chagossians’ right to return,” the UN experts wrote.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said the UK-Mauritius deal had been “welcomed by international organisations including the UN secretary general”.

The panel of four experts were appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, but are not UN staff and are independent from the UN.

They said by the UK keeping the military base of Diego Garcia, the Chagossian people were hindered from being able to “exercise their cultural rights in accessing their ancestral lands from which they were expelled”.

The panel called for the current deal to be suspended and for a new agreement to be negotiated.

Under the agreement, the UK would pay an average of £101m a year for 99 years to continue operating the military base on Diego Garcia, in concert with the US.

The Chagos Islands are located in the Indian Ocean about 5,799 miles (9,332km) south-east of the UK, and about 1,250 miles north-east of Mauritius.

The UK purchased the islands for £3m in 1968, but Mauritius has argued it was illegally forced to give away the islands in order to gain independence from Britain.

Diego Garcia was then cleared to make way for a military base, with large groups of Chagossians forcibly moved to Mauritius and the Seychelles, or taking up an invitation to settle in England, mainly in Crawley, West Sussex.

Since then, Chagossians have not been allowed to return to Diego Garcia.

Before the UK-Mauritius deal was signed last month, two Chagossian women living in the UK – who were born on Diego Garcia – launched a last-minute legal bid to stop it, saying the agreement did not guarantee the right of return to their island of birth.

The deal includes a £40m trust fund to support Chagossians, a component that the UN panel also questioned would “comply with the right of the Chagossian people to effective remedy… and prompt reparation”.

“The agreement also lacks provisions to facilitate the Chagossian people’s access to cultural sites on Diego Garcia and protect and conserve their unique cultural heritage,” the panel added.

The Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians and have worked to ensure the agreement reflects this.”

Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel said the Conservatives “have been warning from the start that this deal is bad for British taxpayers and bad for the Chagossian people”.

“It is why I have introduced a bill in Parliament that would block the [agreement] and force the government to speak to the people at the heart of their surrender plans,” she said.

Both the House of Commons and House of Lords have until 3 July to pass a resolution to oppose the deal being ratified.

Australia is approaching a moment of strategic reckoning in Asia. For years, it has maintained a posture of alliance loyalty to the United States while professing regional engagement. This balancing act is losing credibility.

As Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology and senior fellow at Taihe Institute in Beijing, observes, Australia is increasingly viewed by Southeast Asian nations not as a regional partner but as an actor pursuing extra-regional agendas. The habits of strategic ambiguity are no longer fit for purpose.

The region faces converging challenges: intensifying great power competition, accelerating climate disruption, and growing political fragmentation. Yet the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue revealed little recognition of this reality.

There was no serious discussion of climate as a security issue, and China chose not to attend. These silences at Shangri-La matter. As Admiral Chris Barrie has warned, climate change presents the most immediate threat to Australia’s security and stability. He has called for a new national climate intelligence capability and urgent reorientation of defense strategy.

Keating’s enduring observation remains relevant. Australia will not find its security from Asia, but in it. That vision has been sidelined by a bipartisan consensus around AUKUS, preserved more from inertia than necessity.

With a strong majority in the House and recent Greens defections in the Senate, the Albanese government no longer requires this alignment to govern. It now has the opportunity to reassess and reset.

This is Australia’s ASEAN moment. The choice is between continuing to defer to distant agendas or stepping forward as a credible, sovereign leader in the region. The time for inaction has passed.

Losing the Region—Powell’s Warning

Powell’s recent analysis delivers a pointed diagnosis of Australia’s standing in Southeast Asia. Regional governments increasingly view Canberra not as a constructive partner, but as a proxy advancing external interests.

As Australia strengthens its alignment through frameworks such as AUKUS and deepens its strategic dependence on the United States, it drifts further from the multipolar outlook now shaping the region.

This divergence was clearly visible during the Shangri-La talks in Singapore. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim reaffirmed ASEAN’s position of strategic non-alignment, stating, “We won’t choose sides.”

His remarks reflect a growing resolve among Southeast Asian nations to assert agency in the face of great power rivalry. The absence of China from the Dialogue was just as significant. Its decision not to attend signalled a breakdown in regional dialogue and rising mistrust of Western-led security platforms, even as the region confronts converging risks that demand cooperation.

This fragmentation leaves Australia exposed. While countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam are deliberately hedging, engaging the United States, China, and one another without locking into rigid blocs, Australia has placed itself firmly within a binary security framework. That decision undermines its relevance in a region that no longer sees power through Cold War lenses.

Powell’s warning is clear. Australia is at risk of losing the region not through neglect, but through strategic misalignment. Rebuilding trust will require more than reassurance. It will require a visible shift in posture, purpose, and the substance of Australia’s regional engagement.

The Keating Contrast—Abandoned Independence

At a time when Australia’s regional credibility is under strain, it is worth recalling the last prime minister to articulate a confident, independent vision for Asia: Paul Keating.

He recognized that Australia’s future would be shaped not by its proximity to traditional allies, but by its integration with the region. Keating argued that Australia must find its security in Asia, not from it, framing strategic independence as a prerequisite for regional respect.

Unfortunately, that vision has been sidelined. In its place, Australia has adopted a defense posture that prioritizes transoceanic alliance obligations over sovereign strategic design.

Despite ministerial rhetoric about listening to Southeast Asia, the Albanese government has largely maintained the security architecture of its predecessors. The bipartisan unity around AUKUS is being preserved not out of necessity, but out of habit.

The political landscape has shifted. With a firm parliamentary majority and shifting Senate dynamics, the Albanese government now governs from a position of confidence.

This presents an opportunity to chart a course independent of inherited defense orthodoxy, allowing for a recalibration of the nation’s strategic settings, and to realign its security posture to restore regional credibility.

Hugh White has argued that Australia must develop a self-reliant defense capacity. Keating reminds us that sovereignty is the foundation of regional trust. Both point toward the same conclusion. Australia must make choices grounded in its own interests, not inherited reactions, but sovereign priorities.

The Forbidden Threat—Climate Collapse as the Real Security Challenge

While Australia’s defense debate remains fixated on hypothetical conflicts and future weapons platforms, the most immediate and destabilizing threat in the region is already unfolding: climate disruption. Sea-level rise, collapsing food systems, water insecurity, and intensifying weather extremes are straining state capacity, regional cooperation, and economic stability. These risks are not abstract; they are accelerating.

Yet the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue failed to formally address climate security. No multilateral framework was proposed to tackle ecological disruption, and no regional initiative was announced to manage displacement or enhance food system resilience. That China chose not to attend the Dialogue only reinforced the lack of coordinated leadership in the face of shared risks.

This neglect of climate as a strategic issue reveals a deeper problem. Security planning remains anchored to twentieth-century concepts of threat, despite clear evidence that ecological systems now shape the landscape of conflict and cooperation. The regional security architecture is ill-equipped to meet these challenges.

Australia cannot lead in the region while ignoring the risks that matter most to its neighbors. Climate change is not peripheral; it is the context within which all other issues now unfold. Ecological security must be viewed not as an add-on to national strategy, but as its foundation.

Admiral Chris Barrie’s Climate Imperative

Admiral Chris Barrie has emerged as one of Australia’s leading voices on the intersection of climate change and national security. As a former Chief of the Defence Force, his warning is clear: the most immediate threats to Australia will not come from hostile navies but from disrupted ecosystems, broken supply chains, and mass displacement across the region.

Barrie has consistently argued for a broader conception of security. He calls for the establishment of a national climate threat intelligence capability and a strategic reassessment of defense investment allocation.

His emphasis is not on rejecting military preparedness but on adapting it to the realities of a climate-disrupted world. This entails reallocating resources toward civil resilience, logistics, infrastructure hardening, and anticipatory intelligence.

At the Shangri-La talks, United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Indo-Pacific allies to increase defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP.

Barrie would not dispute the need for greater investment. But he would challenge the logic behind it. More submarines or missile systems will not secure Australia against water insecurity, regional migration crises, or the collapse of vital infrastructure.

A modern defense strategy must be grounded in environmental foresight and regional interdependence. It must prepare for cascading, interconnected disruptions, not simply conventional threats. In this view, spending more is not enough. Australia must spend wisely and in ways that build adaptive, sovereign capacity to meet the challenges already unfolding.

A New Compact with Asia—Reimagining Leadership

In a previous article, I argued that the Coalition’s failure to engage meaningfully with regional climate diplomacy reflected a strategic blind spot that undermined Australia’s credibility. That failure created space for Labor to lead.

With a clear majority in the House and recent defections from the Greens in the Senate, the Albanese government is no longer dependent on inherited defense orthodoxy to govern. It has the mandate and the responsibility to chart a different course.

The unity ticket with the Coalition on AUKUS may have served a political purpose, but it is no longer essential. The region does not need alignment. It needs leadership—anchored in capability and trust. Australia must demonstrate that it understands the security needs of Southeast Asia and the Pacific and is willing to lead in response.

Meeting U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s call to lift spending to 3.5 percent of GDP is achievable. But that spending must serve Australia’s own strategic priorities. It should support Hugh White’s vision for a self-reliant force, and it must advance Admiral Chris Barrie’s call to prepare for the systemic consequences of climate change. Sovereignty now depends not only on defense capability but also on ecological readiness, civil resilience, and regional cooperation.

Ken Henry’s warning against short-termism remains relevant. His leadership of the 2012 Australia in the Asian Century White Paper reflected an understanding that long-term security must integrate economic, environmental, and strategic foresight. That insight is more urgent now than ever.

Australia could lead the development of a Climate Resilience Compact with ASEAN, focused on adaptation finance, early warning systems, and joint infrastructure investment. These initiatives would reinforce regional stability, build long-term credibility, and restore Australia’s standing as a partner rather than a proxy.

This approach would also align with French President Emmanuel Macron’s call in Singapore for a third way in regional affairs. His vision of a cooperative Eurasia, shaped by middle powers and not defined by major power rivalry, speaks directly to the moment of geopolitical recalibration Australia must now embrace. The tools are at hand. What is needed now is resolve.

Strategic Spending for a Different Century

Defense spending must increase—not to prepare for someone else’s war, but to build the strategic, ecological, and societal resilience necessary for the century we are already in. Australia needs more capability, but of a different kind.

That means investing in economic sovereignty, with secure supply chains and domestic capacity in critical industries. It means strengthening cyber and digital infrastructure to defend not only borders but also networks and information systems.

It also means preparing for climate-driven displacement and regional instability by building humanitarian logistics and planning for migration and crisis response. Civil defense and national infrastructure resilience must become core security priorities, capable of protecting communities from floods, fires, and system shocks.

Soft power matters too. Australia must rebuild regional trust through strategic communications, education, and long-term relationships, not just treaties and defense platforms.

And it must plan with the future in mind, embedding intergenerational thinking into every major investment, in line with what Henry has called for across national policy.

These are the foundations of a secure, sovereign Australia. More spending is needed, but it must serve the world we are entering, not the one we are leaving behind.

Conclusion—A Sovereign Future Begins in the Region

Australia stands at a point of strategic inflection. The architecture of the old order is fraying. The assumptions that underpinned decades of defense and foreign policy are no longer sufficient.

As Warwick Powell has warned, alignment without purpose risks diminishing Australia’s standing in the region it most depends on. The habits of subordination must give way to a posture of agency.

The region is evolving. Middle powers are asserting independence, ASEAN is upholding non-alignment, and the Indo-Pacific is emerging as a theater not just of competition but of ecological disruption and social upheaval.

The defining threats of this era—ecological disruption, infrastructure risk, and forced migration—are systemic, not hypothetical.

The Albanese government possesses electoral authority, parliamentary confidence, and regional goodwill. It no longer needs to defend inherited positions; it can lead. This leadership must start by redefining national security for the twenty-first century.

Barrie warns of ecological risk, while Henry emphasizes that serious nations plan for the long term. Hugh White reminds us that dependence is not strategy—self-reliance is. Paul Keating’s insight was not rhetorical; it was strategic: security is found in Asia, not from it.

Together, these voices advocate for a different kind of strength. One built on stewardship rather than subservience, cooperation rather than coercion, and the capacity to endure rather than merely to respond.

This is Australia’s ASEAN moment. To remain relevant in the Asian century, Australia must lead as a trusted regional partner, not as a tethered auxiliary. Drift is no longer an option; purpose must now prevail. Sovereignty begins not in reaction to threats, but in the purposeful shaping of what endures.

Bangkok, Thailand – A brief text message informed Chonlada Siangkong that she had lost her job at a solar cell factory in Rayong, eastern Thailand.

The factory operated by Standard Energy Co, a subsidiary of Singaporean solar cell giant GSTAR, shut its doors last month in anticipation of United States President Donald Trump’s tariffs on solar panel exports from Southeast Asia.

From Monday, US Customs and Border Protection will begin imposing tariffs ranging from 375 percent to more than 3,500 percent on imports from Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Malaysia.

The punishing duties, introduced in response to alleged unfair trade practices by Chinese-owned factories in the region, have raised questions about the continuing viability of Southeast Asia’s solar export trade, the source of about 80 percent of solar products sold in the US.

Like thousands of other workers in Thailand and across the region, Chonlada, a 33-year-old mother of one, is suddenly facing a more precarious future amid the trade crackdown.

“We were all shocked. The next day, they told us not to come to work and would not pay for compensation,” Chonlada told Al Jazeera.

US officials say Chinese producers have used Southeast Asian countries to skirt tariffs on China and “dump” cheap solar panels in the US market, harming their businesses.

US trade officials have named Jinko Solar, Trina Solar, Taihua New Energy Hounen, Sunshine Electrical Energy, Runergy and Boviet – all of which have major operations in Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia or Vietnam – as the worst offenders.

Thai solar exports to the US were worth more than $3.7bn in 2023, just behind Vietnam at $3.9bn, according to the latest US trade data.

Standard Energy Co’s $300m facility in Rayong had been in operation for less than a year, producing its first solar cell to great fanfare in August.

“I’m baffled by what’s just happened,” Kanyawee, a production line manager at Standard Energy who asked to be referred to by his first name only, told Al Jazeera.

“New machines have just landed and we barely used them, they’re very costly too – a few million baht for each machine. They’ve also ordered tonnes of raw materials waiting to be produced.”

Ben McCarron, managing director of the risk consultancy Asia Research & Engagement, said Southeast Asian manufacturers are facing a serious hit from the US turn towards protectionism.

“There are suggestions that manufacturing might exit Southeast Asia entirely if tariffs are introduced either in a blanket way, or that specifically address Chinese-owned manufacturing capacity in the region,” McCarron told Al Jazeera.

“The implications are significant for these countries; Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia accounted for about 80 percent of the US’s solar imports in 2024,” McCarron said, adding that “some manufacturers have already begun shutting down and moving out of the region”.

Unfair advantage

US officials and businesses have accused China of giving its solar firms an unfair market advantage with subsidies.

China was the largest funder of clean energy in Southeast Asia between 2013 and 2023, pouring $2.7bn into projects in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, according to Zero Carbon Analytics.

The American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, a coalition of seven industry players, was among the loudest voices to lobby for a sharp rise in levies on Chinese imports.

Without a reprieve from the notoriously unpredictable Trump, companies affected by the tariffs have little recourse apart from the ability to file an appeal once a year, or after five years, once a “sunset review” clause takes effect.

Some observers believe the sector may never recover.

“It’s not just the low-skilled labour that was affected by the trade war; many workers in the solar cell supply chain are technicians, skilled labourers,” Tara Buakamsri, an adviser to environmental organisation Greenpeace, told Al Jazeera.

“Even if you make a lot of savings, solar cell exporters would still need to cut down on these skilled workers.”

Others take a more bullish view, arguing that, once the dust has settled, Chinese solar firms will drive the supply of products needed to meet regional emissions targets.

While Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia and Vietnam welcomed Chinese solar companies in part due to the large sums of up-front investment on offer, they are all also seeking to meet more of their energy needs with cleaner sources.

Before Trump entered office with his tariff agenda, Thailand had announced plans to become carbon neutral by 2050 and produce net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2065.

“A slowdown [or halt] in solar exports as a result of US tariffs may supercharge efforts in Southeast Asian markets by Chinese solar companies, which see the region as a critical and well-aligned destination for green technologies,” McCarron said.

“Leftover supply from slowing exports could be absorbed by domestic markets in Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, particularly if governments use the situation as a cost-effective opportunity to rapidly accelerate policy initiatives that stimulate domestic solar.”

For Southeast Asia’s solar companies, survival is also likely to depend on governments cutting red tape and loosening the control of oil and gas monopolies over the energy mix.

At the same time, the US’s exclusion of Southeast Asian solar imports could hamper the shift towards greener energy in the world’s top economy.

“Thailand’s solar cell production is heavily export-driven and the US has historically been a major export destination,” Pavida Pananond, a professor of international business at Thammasat Business School in Bangkok, told Al Jazeera.

But solar tariffs will “also hurt American consumers and the green transition in the US as prices become higher”.

Israeli forces have killed more than 70 Palestinians across the Gaza Strip since dawn, medical sources have told Al Jazeera, including hungry aid seekers, as Israel continues to relentlessly bombard the besieged enclave where the United Nations says a famine threatens the entire population.

Israeli troops on Tuesday again opened fire on crowds seeking meagre food parcels for their families near the Netzarim Corridor, killing at least 20 people, including a 12-year-old child, according to the Gaza Government Media Office.

The child has been identified as Mohammed Khalil al-Athamneh. More than 200 others were wounded.

The distribution points are operated by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US and Israeli-backed drive in Israeli-controlled zones.

The aid sites have been branded “human slaughterhouses” as more than 150 people have been killed since GHF started operating on May 27. Nearly 1,500 have so far been wounded, according to the Government Media Office.

In a statement on Tuesday, the media office accused the GHF of playing a complicit role in what it described as “lethal ambushes” disguised as humanitarian relief.

“GHF has become a deadly tool in the hands of the Israeli military, luring starving civilians into death traps under the pretence of aid,” the statement said, denouncing the body’s continued operation despite documented attacks on unarmed crowds at its sites.

‘Theatre for repeated bloodshed’

Al Jazeera’s Tareq Abu Azzoum, reporting from Deir el-Balah, said the GHF aid distribution centres have become “a theatre for repeated bloodshed and deliberate attacks on civilians”.

Witnesses confirmed that the Israeli military attacked them from “multiple directions”, Abu Azzoum said, adding that Israeli drones, tanks, and snipers have been deployed to the isolated aid sites.

“What’s taking place … is the systematic eradication of the humanitarian response system,” he said.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has again sounded an alarm over the deteriorating humanitarian situation, saying on Tuesday the crisis has reached “unprecedented levels of despair”.

More than 2,700 children under the age of five were diagnosed with acute malnutrition in late May, the agency said, calling for the urgent restoration of humanitarian assistance.

Israel has maintained a crippling aid blockade since March 2, allowing only a limited trickle of assistance through the GHF. At the same time, it has barred established humanitarian organisations from operating in the territory – excluding those who have decades of experience in providing aid from hundreds of distribution points to the entire population of Gaza.

Elsewhere in Gaza, an air strike in al-Mawasi – an Israeli-proclaimed “safe zone” that has come under repeated attack, east of Khan Younis – killed three people sheltering in displacement tents. Three more Palestinians were killed after an Israeli drone strike targeted a group of people in the Ma’an area, east of Khan Younis.

The attacks come as one of the southern city’s last remaining functioning hospitals has ceased operations due to “increasing hostilities” in its vicinity, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said.

In a post on X, Tedros warned that with the closure of al-Amal Hospital, Nasser Hospital is now the only remaining hospital with an intensive care unit in Khan Younis.

Hospitals are overwhelmed and on the brink of collapse, the Health Ministry has repeatedly warned.

In Gaza’s north, medical sources reported that four paramedics were killed by Israeli gunfire while carrying out their humanitarian duties in the Tuffah neighbourhood of Gaza City. Another three were killed in an air strike on Jabalia.

Nablus residents ‘under lockdown’

Israeli forces have also stepped up incursions into towns and villages across the occupied West Bank in recent days as part of a months-long assault on the territory.

On Tuesday, during an hours-long raid in Nablus, Israeli troops fired tear gas and live bullets towards residents that killed two brothers, identified as Nidal and Khaled Mahdi Ahmad Umairah, aged 40 and 35, respectively.

Israeli troops had opened live fire on the Umairah brothers in the Old City of Nablus during the ongoing military raid, preventing ambulance crews from reaching them, the Wafa news agency reported.

More than 85 people were injured in the assault, while many others have been detained.

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh said residents of Nablus’s Old City are “under lockdown”.

“They cannot leave their homes; they cannot have access to any services,” she said. “Even paramedics are telling us they are having a very difficult time reaching those who need their assistance.”

Palestine are denied by late Oman penalty in a 1-1 draw that ends their dreams of a first FIFA World Cup appearance.

Palestine’s historic Asian Football Confederation (AFC) qualifying campaign for the 2026 FIFA World Cup was ended by a late Oman penalty in a 1-1 draw in their final group game.

Needing a win to reach the fourth round of the AFC qualifiers, Palestine led deep into five minutes of injury time through Oday Kharoub’s goal early in the second half.

The scoreline would have been enough to propel Palestine past Oman into the fourth and final qualifying spot in Group B of the third round of the AFC qualifiers – a stage they had also reached for the first time.

However, a tug of the shirt on a runner chasing a free kick from the deep was spotted by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), and Palestine’s dream of a first appearance at a football World Cup ended with Essam Al-Subhi’s spot kick in the 97th minute of the match.

Kharoub’s headed goal came after a fine first half for Palestine, in which Michel Termanini struck the bar with a header.

Wessam Ali had a second for Palestine ruled out for a marginal offside, only moments after Oman’s Harib Al-Saadi saw red for a second yellow following a foul on Hamed Hamdan in the 73rd minute.

The decisive moment came, though, when Muhsen Al-Ghassani ran clear in the box in an attempt to reach a looped ball in the area. Ahmed Taha’s grab at the runner was deemed illegal and the eliminating kick was awarded against Palestine.

Palestine’s AFC Asian Cup nearly the spark for World Cup dream

The run to the third round of the AFC World Cup qualifiers for the first time followed Palestine’s remarkable feat of reaching the knockout stages of the last AFC Asian Cup for the first time.

A first appearance at football’s global showpiece was only one more round away until the late drama at the King Abdullah II Stadium in Amman, Jordan, where Palestine were forced to stage their home matches due to Israel’s war on Gaza.

The full-time whistle, and with it, anticipated scenes of wild celebration was cruelly only seconds away for Palestine.

Instead, the tension that was palpably building ahead of the referee calling an end to the match turned to scenes of despair as tears rolled down the cheeks of the Palestine players, many of whom collapsed to the floor in disbelief.

Oman now join Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Iraq and Indonesia, who lost 6-0 to Japan earlier in the day, in the fourth round of qualifiers, from which two teams will join the already six qualified nations from the third round of qualifiers.

One final chance will be available for the third-placed team from the fourth round of qualifiers, as that nation will progress to the FIFA Intercontinental Playoffs in a last-chance saloon to line up at next year’s finals.

Australia became the final team to confirm their automatic qualification from the third round of qualifiers when they saw off Saudi Arabia’s challenge for second spot in Group C with a 2-1 win in Jeddah.

Alongside Australia – Japan, Iran, South Korea, Uzbekistan and Jordan, finished as the top two finishers in their group to book their places at the 2026 tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The latter two qualified for a World Cup for the first time.

OUR much-loved astrologer Meg sadly died in 2023 but her column will be kept alive by her friend and protégée Maggie Innes.

Read on to see what’s written in the stars for you today. 

♈ ARIES

March 21 to April 20

You can welcome the full moon for the deep questions it asks about the direction you are taking.

If you know you are setting your own needs aside and following someone else’s map, this can be the wake-up call you need.

In love, valuing feelings ahead of finances, can restore partnership balance.

2

♉ TAURUS

April 21 to May 21

A meaningful full moon happens in your transformation zone – so you can be ready to reassess your life, and end the day with big choices to make.

What’s right for you can also be right for others, keep that fact at the forefront of your mind.

Mercury and Venus put planet heads together to find a way to reunite hearts

Get all the latest Taurus horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♊ GEMINI

May 22 to June 21

Your cash chart is confident and clear – but the full moon may challenge you to choose who should share any good fortune.

The most positive people may be the ones who say the least – suspend judgment until you see the truth yourself.

You are a keen love detective, following up on a mystery message can prove it.

Get all the latest Gemini horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♋ CANCER

June 22 to July 22

Unexpected, maybe “unsuitable” health plans can be the effects of the full moon on your chart – but anything is possible, so do give every offer equal consideration.

This can include a passion proposal that links to your oldest friend, or perhaps your newest relative.

The luck factor handwrites a story or speech.

Get all the latest Cancer horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♌ LEO

July 23 to August 23

The best creative ideas can come out of the blue – and can happen today.

You may not understand everything that springs to mind, but get it all down in writing.

You can start a store of personal genius that will come into its own when the time is right.

Looking for love? The One can be a multiple-times winner.

Get all the latest Leo horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♍ VIRGO

August 24 to September 22

Facts and figures from your past can have significance in your future – you can find out how tonight.

Get files and documents in order, and follow up anything unusual you find.

A building you first see by moonlight can be a home for your heart – either a perfect new address, or the site of a fateful meeting.

Get all the latest Virgo horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♎ LIBRA

September 23 to October 23

Trusting yourself to “know” when something or someone is right for you is not always easy – but Venus and Saturn support you in different areas, to build confidence in this.

You always see every side of a situation – but at work, it’s OK to focus on your own needs first.

A few well-chosen words can break a stalemate.

Get all the latest Libra horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♏ SCORPIO

October 24 to November 22

Mixed feelings over a friend’s recent change are healthy – but if you feel yourself becoming too bogged down in these, your chart offers the support you need.

Jupiter adds great judgment, while Venus boosts team-building skills.

Mars reminds you what you can achieve, when you set your mind to it.

Get all the latest Scorpio horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♐ SAGITTARIUS

November 23 to December 21

A full moon offers you permission to go deeper, both into your own true self, and other people’s vision for your life.

You can ask difficult questions, and deal well with any answers.

In the love sphere, there’s a special something about you that draws interesting names closer.

Some can be friends – one a fantasy lover.

Get all the latest Sagittarius horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♑ CAPRICORN

December 22 to January 20

Your true place in a team is your focus – as you are ready to admit to recent unsettled feelings.

This can be a signal you need more – freedom, or maybe commitment.

Getting balance back may take time, but you have the determination to make this work.

Two families who often travel together could win together too.

Get all the latest Capricorn horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

2

♒ AQUARIUS

January 21 to February 18

With the full moon in your celebrity and social media zone, you could make a mark when you don’t expect to – perhaps with a surprise, even secret, recording.

But you discover speaking from the heart is easier, and more healing, than you expect.

An “S” set of books or documents can have secret value.

Get all the latest Aquarius horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

♓ PISCES

February 19 to March 20

Put half-hearted dreams on pause, as you have a chart of ambition on fast forward, and it calls for your attention.

You can see how and where you may have been wasting your time – and how to channel your skills in a more productive direction.

But do leave room in your day for fun and flirtation with a sultry Scorpio.

Get all the latest Pisces horoscope news including your weekly and monthly predictions

Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme – Sun Club.

Pacemaker

Pacemaker

Pacemaker

Jim Allister rejects criticism of Ballymena comments

Getty

PA

What have other NI politicians said?

Pacemaker

Pacemaker

Pacemaker

Jim Allister rejects criticism of Ballymena comments

Getty

PA

What have other NI politicians said?

BlackRock’s IBIT ETF has crossed the $70 billion in assets under management threshold following a 31-day inflow streak.

“$IBIT just blew through $70b and is now the fastest ETF to ever hit that mark in only 341 days,” wrote Bloomberg’s ETF analyst Eric Balchunas on X. He also highlighted that it did this 5 times faster than the previous fastest ETF to hit $70 billion, GLD which took 1,691 days.

BlackRock’s appetite for Bitcoin reflects a broader institutional interest in digital assets. Crypto-related US stocks are on a roll this week, as firms including Circle, Core Scientific Inc., and MARA Holdings Inc. all saw major gains on Monday.

Institutional money is flooding the crypto space, creating a butterfly effect as liquidity cycles from major assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum into smaller alternatives, which can provide more substantial gains with less liquidity.

So, what is the best crypto to buy to capitalize on this institutional crypto frenzy?

Bitcoin Hyper

Bitcoin Hyper is a Bitcoin layer 2 that transforms Bitcoin from a store of value to the world’s secure transactional layer.

It’s built the Solana Virtual Machine, which means it integrates the network’s blistering speeds and smart contract functionality. This unlocks a world of new possibilities. Meme coins, DeFi, real-world assets (RWAs), and gaming – it’ll soon all be possible on Bitcoin thanks to Bitcoin Hyper.

Transactions on Bitcoin Hyper will settle on the Bitcoin layer 2 blockchain, yet it is also interoperable with Solana apps and tokens. It’s the best of both worlds, and it’s brand new to market.

The project launched a presale less than one week ago and has already raised a staggering $1 million.

This doesn’t just confirm product-market fit; it reflects investors’ deep conviction. And that signifies that $HYPER is primed for huge gains. Visit Bitcoin Hyper

Dogecoin

Solaxy

That’s where Solaxy comes in. It’s building the first-ever Solana layer 2 blockchain. It’ll use off-chain computation and transaction bundling technology to make the network even more scalable. Its goal is to achieve 10,000 transactions per second.

If it achieves its goal, it’ll enable more adoption and could even unlock new use cases.

Right now, the project is undergoing a presale. It has raised $46 million so far, making it the largest Solana presale ever.

With such early success and a robust use case, it certainly appears that $SOLX could prove the best crypto to buy now. However, the presale will end in six days, so potential investors should act quickly. Visit Solaxy.

Ondo

Best Wallet Token

Best Wallet Token is the new cryptocurrency that powers Best Wallet, a promising new crypto wallet.

The project is all about making on-chain transacting simple, and also ensuring its users get the most out of their on-chain activity. It supports over 90 blockchains, meaning users can access virtually any cryptocurrency on any network from a single app.

It also boasts a fleet of integrated features, including a cross-chain DEX, a crypto debit card, fiat on-ramping, derivatives trading, a presale aggregator, and more. Users can access all these features without needing to manage multiple apps. This doesn’t just save time; it also protects against phishing scams, a significant problem in the crypto industry.

The $BEST token provides benefits like trading fee discounts, higher staking yields, governance rights, and access to promotions on partner projects. It’s currently undergoing a presale and has raised over $13 million to date.

With innate utility, a market-leading use case, and its current early-stage status, it appears everything is in place for $BEST to explode. Visit Best Wallet.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.

A former student opened fire at a high school in Graz, killing at least nine people in the deadliest shooting in Austria’s modern history. The gunman, who acted alone, died by suicide, officials said. Victims include teens, a teacher, and school staff.

On June 4, the United States Department of Education notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) accrediting agency that its member institution Columbia University deserves to have its accreditation pulled. It accused the university of ostensibly being “in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws” for supposedly failing “to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment”.

This claim is, of course, wrong. It is a blatant mischaracterisation of the events that have taken place on campus over the last 19 months.

Yet, it is also true that during that time Columbia violated the terms of its accreditation: by violently abrogating the academic freedom and viewpoint diversity of antigenocide protesters via institutional sanction and the deployment of police on campus. In this sense, Columbia does deserve to lose its accreditation.

MSCHE’s accreditation policy, which is standard across the industry, states that an “accredited institution” must possess and demonstrate both “a commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of expression” and “a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives”.

It is stunningly evident that since October 7, 2023, Columbia University has egregiously and repeatedly failed to satisfy the MSCHE’s fundamental requirements due to its response to antigenocide protests on campus concerning Gaza and Palestine. The violent removal, suspension, and arrest of peaceful student protesters and faculty critics should be understood to constitute a violation of the institution’s obligation to protect freedom of expression and academic freedom.

On November 10, 2023, Columbia suspended Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) after they organised a peaceful protest for Palestinian rights. The administration justified the suspension by claiming the groups used “threatening rhetoric and intimidation”.

However, media reports, witnesses and university insiders revealed that the suspension was based on an incident involving an unaffiliated individual whose actions were condemned by the organisers and that no formal disciplinary process or appeals process was allowed by the university.

It was later uncovered that Columbia administrators had unilaterally altered language in its official policies on student groups just before suspending the SJP and JVP.

In January, Katherine Franke, a tenured law professor, retired and said she was “effectively terminated” by Columbia after facing public and congressional criticism for a media interview criticising students who formerly served in the Israeli army.

Similarly, the university has recently acknowledged doling out “multi-year suspensions, temporary degree revocation and expulsions” to dozens of students who participated in 2024 antigenocide protests. One of those expelled, Jewish PhD student Grant Miner, president of the Student Workers of Columbia, noted that all of the students censured by the university “had been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing”.

Perhaps worst of all, Columbia has, on repeated occasions, invited the New York Police Department (NYPD) onto campus to intervene against student expression. On April 30, 2024, according to the university’s own report, the NYPD arrested 44 students and individuals with apparent associations with the university.

Likewise, in early May this year, about 70 students were arrested after participating in an “occupation” of the university’s library. The NYPD explicitly acknowledged that the presence of its officers on campus was “at the direct request of Columbia University”.

There is little question each of these incidents constitutes blatant stifling of academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. The disproportionate targeting of Arab, Muslim, Palestinian and Jewish students and allies can be viewed as discriminatory, undermining the institution’s commitment to equitable treatment and inclusive learning environments, in clear violation of MSCHE’s guiding principles on equity, diversity and inclusion.

These decisions to suppress protests were made unilaterally by senior administration at Columbia – without input from faculty, students or shared governance bodies – clearly signalling a lack of adherence to MSCHE’s accreditation policy standard on governance, leadership and administration. By failing to show “a commitment to shared governance” with “administrative decision-making that reflects fairness and transparency”, Columbia has failed to meet the standards of accreditation outlined by the MSCHE.

But Columbia University is not alone in failing to abide by guiding principles of its accreditation. At Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania, Jewish Associate Professor Maura Finkelstein was summarily fired for engaging in social media critiques of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Similarly, at Northwestern University, Assistant Professor Steven Thrasher was subjected to multiple investigations in relation to his support of the student antigenocide encampment on campus and was ultimately denied tenure in a decision he characterised as an effort designed to not just silence him but also to bully him so that “students, journalists, faculty, staff and activists across campus and throughout the country [may be intimidated] into silencing themselves”.

Students too have faced repression across the United States. Indeed, it has been estimated that by July 2024, at least 3,100 students had been arrested for participation in campus antigenocide protests. On November 6, 2023, Brandeis University became the first private university in the US to ban its student chapter of the SJP, for “conduct that supports Hamas”. In April 2024, Cornell University suspended several students involved in pro-Palestinian encampment protests, citing violations of campus policies.

Then in May, police brutalised students with pepper spray at George Washington University while arresting 33 people in the violent clearing-out of its student encampment. At Vanderbilt University, students were arrested and expelled for occupying an administration building.

In the most recent news, it has become clear that the University of Michigan has spent at least $800,000 hiring dozens of private investigators to surveil antigenocide student protesters on and off campus in Ann Arbor.

These examples are merely a small sample of what has occurred across the US, Canada and Europe since long before October 7, 2023. This is a broader existential crisis in higher education in which the free expression of students is being suppressed at the cost of the values these universities purport to espouse.

Despite appearances, this crisis has very little to do with the heavy-handed Trump administration. It is, rather, the self-inflicted consequence of the decisions of university administrators whose allegiances are now first and foremost to donors and corporate stakeholders rather than to their educational missions.

If universities are to exist in any plausible and practical sense as institutions devoted to genuine knowledge production and pedagogical development, it is essential that they robustly fulfil accreditation requirements for academic and intellectual freedom, diversity, and fair and transparent administration and governance.

There can be no Palestine exception to that.

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

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola says the images of children being killed during Israel’s war on Gaza are “painful” and have left him “deeply troubled”.

The Spanish manager of the English Premier League club urged the world to speak up instead of choosing to stay silent “in the face of injustice” as he addressed an audience after receiving an honorary degree at the University of Manchester on Monday.

“It’s so painful what we see in Gaza. It hurts all my body,” Guardiola said.

“Maybe we think that when we see four-year-old boys and girls being killed by bombs or being killed at a hospital, which is not a hospital any more, it’s not our business. Yeah, fine, it’s not our business. But be careful – the next four- or five-year-old kids will be ours.”

Mentioning his three children – Maria, Marius and Valentina – Guardiola said that every morning “since the nightmare started” in Gaza, whenever he sees his two daughters and son he is reminded of the children in Gaza, which leaves him feeling “so scared”.

About half of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents are children.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has killed at least 17,400 children, including 15,600 who have been identified, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza. Many more remain buried under the rubble and are presumed dead.

Many of the surviving children have endured the trauma of multiple wars, and all of them have spent their lives under an oppressive Israeli blockade.

Over the past 20 months, Israeli attacks have left their homes in ruins, destroyed their schools, and overwhelmed their healthcare facilities.

‘Deeply troubled’ by wars

During his emotional speech, which has been widely shared on social media, Guardiola said the world remains silent in the face of injustice.

“We feel safer [staying silent] than speaking up,” he added.

“Maybe this image feels far away from where we are living now, and you might ask what we can do,” he added.

He then went on to narrate the story of a bird trying to put out a fire in a forest by repeatedly carrying water in its beak.

“In a world that often tells us we are too small to make a difference, that story reminds me the power of one is not about the scale – it’s about choice, about showing up, about refusing to be silent or still when it matters the most.”

The former Barcelona coach and player said the images out of Palestine, Sudan and Ukraine left him “deeply troubled”.

Guardiola, who has formerly voiced his support for the independence of his native Catalonia, lashed out at world leaders for their inability to stop the wars.

“We see the horrors of thousands and thousands of innocent children, mothers and fathers.

“Entire families suffering, starving and being killed and yet we are surrounded by leaderships in many fields, not just politicians, who don’t consider the inequality and injustice.”

An independent United Nations commission report released on Tuesday accused Israel of committing the crime against humanity of “extermination” by attacking Palestinian civilians sheltering in schools and religious sites in Gaza.

“While the destruction of cultural property, including educational facilities, was not in itself a genocidal act, evidence of such conduct may nevertheless infer genocidal intent to destroy a protected group,” the report said.

While the report focused on the impact on Gaza, the commission also reported significant consequences for the Palestinian education system in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem as a result of ramped-up Israeli military activity, harassment of students and settler attacks.

“Children in Gaza have lost their childhood. With no education available, they are forced to worry about survival amid attacks, uncertainty, starvation and subhuman living conditions,” the report added.

“What is particularly disturbing is the widespread nature of the targeting of educational facilities, which has extended well beyond Gaza, impacting all Palestinian children.”

“It’s so painful, what we see in Gaza … And let me be clear, this is not about ideology.”

Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola discusses his views on Israel’s war on Gaza, as well as how the images of children living through the war have affected him as a parent. pic.twitter.com/zwrlexAcxa

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 10, 2025

AFP via Getty Images

Timeline of UK-Israel tensions

On December 15, 2024, a powerful storm swept through the Black Sea. Two Russian oil tankers were wrecked in the Kerch Strait, spilling vast quantities of fuel oil into the surrounding waters. Within days, the thick black substance reached the shores of Russia’s Krasnodar region, annexed Crimea, and the Sea of Azov.

Evening reports from Greenpeace warned that the incident could mark one of the worst environmental disasters in decades. Yet, over six months later, key questions remain unanswered: how much fuel oil was on board, how much has spilled, and how much continues to leak? Russia has released no official data, and the opacity surrounding the incident has alarmed environmental observers across the region.

Scientists fear the worst. In the absence of containment, oil residues may soon reach the coastlines of Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. The Nikola Vaptsarov Naval Academy in Varna, Bulgaria, has been monitoring the situation closely. While no immediate threat has been detected in Bulgarian waters, local experts are cautious. The pollution zone, they say, could expand rapidly with changing winds and currents.

The Ukrainian Scientific Centre for Marine Ecology has published several projections showing the slow eastward spread of the slick through the Black Sea. Ukrainian Greenpeace confirms that oil traces have already reached the Odessa region and are approaching Romanian maritime boundaries.

Meanwhile, Russia’s official response — or lack thereof — has drawn sharp criticism. Unlike the Norilsk diesel spill in 2020, when a federal emergency was declared and Norilsk Nickel was fined billions, the Black Sea disaster has triggered no significant federal action. It is worth noting, however, that in the Norilsk case, the company went on to carry out extensive remediation, including full-scale river cleanup and contaminated soil removal.

In contrast, in 2025, volunteers are still collecting fuel oil from Russian beaches by hand. The companies responsible continue to dispute their liability in court. No fines, no cleanup mandate, no transparency. Only silence.

Severe levels of ‘hunger, destitution and desperation’ found in the town of Jabal Awliya, south of Khartoum.

The risk of famine in Sudan has extended close to the capital Khartoum, the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) has warned as the country’s brutal civil war grinds on into its third year.

The agency has discovered “severe” levels of hunger in the town of Jabal Awliya, some 40km (25 miles) south of Khartoum, the WFP’s Sudan representative Laurent Bukera said on Tuesday.

Speaking upon his return from a visit to Khartoum state, Bukera described “widespread destruction” in the town and other areas around Khartoum, and called for urgent international action to prevent famine.

“The needs are immense,” Bukera said from Port Sudan, describing “limited access to water, healthcare and electricity”, as well as a cholera outbreak.

“Several areas in the south of the city are at high risk of famine,” he added. “The international community must act now – by stepping up funding to stop famine in the hardest-hit areas and to invest in Sudan’s recovery.”

The WFP, which says it is assisting four million people across the country, has had to reduce food rations in areas at risk of famine to 70 percent due to a major funding shortfall.

‘Meeting basic needs critical’

The government-aligned Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been locked in a battle for power since April 2023. The army took control of Khartoum in March and declared the city “completely free of rebels” in late May.

Now that WFP has access to the area and is able to make regular aid deliveries, the agency said it was doing everything it could to bring the local population back from the brink of famine.

Bukera said “the level of hunger, destitution and desperation” found in Jabal Awliya was “severe, and basically confirmed the risk of famine”.

The war has killed tens of thousands of people and created the world’s largest hunger and displacement crises. Over four million have fled the country and some 10.5 million are internally displaced, according to United Nations estimates.

Bukera said that with people expected to return to heavily damaged areas like Khartoum, the pressure on already overstretched resources would intensify.

“WFP is deeply concerned, and meeting basic needs – especially food – is critical and urgent,” he said.

Famine has already been declared in five areas across Sudan, including three displacement camps near el-Fasher in the southwest.

It has been all but confirmed in el-Fasher itself, where aid agencies say a lack of access to data has prevented an official famine declaration.

Across the country, nearly 25 million people are suffering dire food insecurity.

On June 8, United States President Donald Trump praised the California National Guard for its response to Los Angeles immigration enforcement protests.

“Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest,” he wrote on Truth Social at 02:41 EDT, Eastern Daylight Time, (06:41 GMT) on Tuesday. He ended the post, “Thank you to the National Guard for a job well done!”

But the National Guard had not yet arrived in Los Angeles, according to news reports and a spokesperson for the California governor.

The protests in downtown Los Angeles began on June 6 in response to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) declared the protests an “unlawful assembly” the same evening and began using tear gas, rubber bullets and other deterrents.

Protests continued throughout the weekend, with reports of vandalism, burning cars and looting. Trump announced on June 7 that he was deploying 2,000 California National Guard members, an action that Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, criticised as an unnecessary escalation.

Less than an hour after Trump’s Truth Social post, Bass said the National Guard was not on scene. “Just to be clear, the National Guard has not been deployed in the City of Los Angeles,” she wrote on X.

Later that morning, Newsom criticised Trump’s post praising the National Guard by pointing out the timeline discrepancy.

“For those keeping track, Donald Trump’s National Guard had not been deployed on the ground when he posted this,” Newsom wrote on X.

Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a Newsom spokesperson, told PolitiFact the National Guard deployed on June 8 between 02:00 PDT, Pacific Daylight Time, and 04:00 PDT, which is 05:00 EDT to 07:00 EDT (09:00 GMT to 11:00 GMT).

The first media reports of California National Guard troops on the ground in Los Angeles were on June 8 at about 06:00 PDT, or about 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT). Here’s what we know about the timeline of California National Guard troop activation and arrival.

June 8 timeline

00:51 EDT (04:51 GMT): United States Northern Command, a Department of Defense sector that assists with National Guard oversight, said on X that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “directed US Northern Command to assume command of 2,000 California National Guard forces to protect federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area”. The post said active-duty US Marines might also be called to respond.

02:41 EDT (06:41 GMT): Trump praised the National Guard for a “great job”, criticised Newsom and Bass, and described the protests as violent unrest.

03:22 EDT (07:22 GMT): Bass posted on X that the National Guard was not yet present.

04:32 EDT (08:32 GMT): CNN reported it had “seen no evidence that Guard units are on the ground”.

Between 05:00 EDT and 07:00 EDT (09:00 GMT-11:00 GMT): The National Guard deployed during this timeframe, according to Crofts-Pelayo.

About 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT): The Washington Post reported that the earliest photos and videos of National Guard members arriving in Los Angeles were captured around this time, which was 06:00 PDT, or 09:00 EDT (13:00 GMT).

11:03 EDT (15:03 GMT): US Northern Command reported that members of the California National Guard had arrived in Los Angeles: “Can confirm that elements of the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team from the California National Guard have begun deploying to the Los Angeles area, with some already on the ground.”

12:07 EDT (16:07 GMT): US Northern Command announced that 300 members of the California National Guard were deployed to three locations in the Los Angeles area.

12:08 EDT (16:08 GMT): The California National Guard members gathered near the Metropolitan Detention Centre in downtown LA, the Los Angeles Times reported.

12:17 EDT (16:17 GMT): The LAPD announced that the National Guard had been deployed to federal facilities.

About 13:30 EDT (17:30 GMT): The New York Times reported that at 10:30 PDT, “nearly 300 members of the California Guard took positions at three different sites around the city”.

KABC-TV, a local news channel, reported that National Guard members had appeared in downtown Los Angeles and posted video of troops driving through the city of Paramount.

12:29 EDT (18:29 GMT): US Northern Command posted photos of California National Guard members in LA, working with the Department of Homeland Security.

17:06 EDT (21:06 GMT): Trump said he directed federal agencies to coordinate their response to the Los Angeles protests.

18:27 EDT (22:27 GMT): Newsom posted that he “formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to [his] command”.

20:03 EDT (00:03 GMT): US Northern Command shared a press release on X announcing that approximately 2,000 members of the California National Guard had been “placed under federal command” to be ready to assist in efforts against LA protests. It reiterated that 300 ​​members of the California Army National Guard were deployed at three locations.

22:23 EDT (02:23 GMT): Newsom said in an MSNBC interview that he would file a lawsuit against Trump for taking over the California National Guard.

PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of Marines in Los Angeles to quell protests that have erupted against the arrests of 44 people on Friday for violating immigration laws.

Trump on Monday also doubled the strength of National Guard forces that his administration has deployed in the country’s second largest city to 4,000 soldiers.

His administration has justified the deployments by arguing, in part, that local authorities were failing to ensure the safety of law enforcement officials and federal property.

But the deployment of the Marines – coming on the back of the move to send the National Guard to Los Angeles – has sparked criticism, not just from Trump’s political opponents like California Governor Gavin Newsom but also from the Los Angeles police.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has said the deployment of Marines will make its job harder. Here’s what the dispute is about, and why the LAPD argues that the deployment of military forces could complicate its work:

What are the US Marines?

The Marines are a branch of the US armed forces and are a component of the Navy. The Marine Corps was first established in 1775.

Its soldiers are trained for land and sea operations and have a particular focus on amphibious warfare, which refers to attacks launched from ships onto shore.

US citizens or legal residents who have a high school diploma and are aged 17 to 28 are eligible to enlist for the Marines. They have to undergo an initial strength test to be recruited. Recruits undergo about 13 weeks of initial training to become a part of the Marine Corps. Once a year, each Marine undergoes a battle-readiness test with a focus on physical readiness and stamina.

There are 172,577 active duty Marine personnel in the US as well as 33,036 reserve personnel as of 2023, the latest data released by the US Department of Defense.

What is the Marine deployment?

The US military’s Northern Command released a statement on Monday saying it had activated a Marine infantry battalion in Los Angeles that was on alert over the weekend. About 700 Marines with the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines and 1st Marine Division will “seamlessly integrate” with National Guard troops deployed in the city, it said.

Initially, the LAPD was involved in quelling civil unrest due to the protests, starting on Friday. On Saturday, Trump deployed about 2,000 National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles County, defying objections by Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

After the Marine deployment announcement, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said an “additional” 2,000 National Guard soldiers would also be mobilised in addition to the 2,000 who had been sent to the city over the weekend.

What did the LAPD say about the Marine deployment?

On Monday, Police Chief Jim McDonnell released a statement saying the LAPD had not received a formal notification that the Marines would be coming to LA.

“The possible arrival of federal military forces in Los Angeles absent clear coordination presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city,” he said.

McDonnell added that the LAPD and its partners “have decades of experience managing large-scale public demonstrations, and we remain confident in our ability to do so professionally and effectively”.

The LAPD boss urged open and continuous communication between all law enforcement agencies involved to avoid confusion and escalation.

What does the LAPD mean by this?

History indicates that a lack of communication, coupled with differences in approach based on different agencies’ training, can inflame already tense situations that law enforcement officials confront.

While the US routinely sends its Marines on overseas missions, it is rare for the US president to deploy Marines to quell a domestic crisis.

The last time this happened was in 1992 in Los Angeles during protests against the acquittal of four policemen who had been filmed beating Rodney King, a Black man. Six days of riots broke out, and 2,000 National Guard soldiers and 1,500 Marines were deployed in the city. The riots in 1992 resulted in the deaths of 63 people and widespread looting, assaults and arson, unlike the ongoing protests, which have been largely peaceful.

On one occasion in 1992, LAPD officers and Marines were called to respond to a domestic disturbance at a local home.

When they arrived, a shotgun was fired out the front door. A police officer yelled, “Cover me,” which to the police means to prepare to shoot if necessary but to hold one’s fire. For Marines trained for combat, “cover me” means to use firepower. The Marines shot more than 200 bullets instantly as a response to the officer. Three children were inside the home at the time. While no one was killed, federal soldiers were withdrawn from Los Angeles shortly after this.

While the deployment of US Marines to Los Angeles in 1992 was carried out in coordination with state and local authorities, they are now being sent against the wishes of the state government, Bass and the LAPD.

That compounds the risks that could follow, experts said.

“If the administration escalates to active duty troops, especially without coordination with state leaders, it would amount to a militarization of civilian protest, not a restoration of order,” attorney Robert Patillo said in a written statement to Al Jazeera. “That move could violate the First Amendment rights of peaceful protesters and would likely inflame tensions on the ground, not resolve them.” 

The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and assembly.

Is the Marine deployment necessary?

Reports from LA suggest that the National Guard troops who have been activated are barely being used in the city, raising questions about whether the deployment of Marines or additional National Guard soldiers is really necessary.

Al Jazeera’s Rob Reynolds, reporting from LA, said Monday’s protests organised by unions in the city centre were peaceful.

“[The National Guard] didn’t engage with the protesters. They didn’t do much of anything other than stand there in their military uniforms,” Reynolds said.

On his personal X account, Newsom posted that the initial 2,000 National Guard soldiers were not given food or water. Of them, only 300 were deployed while the rest were sitting in federal buildings without orders, he said. Al Jazeera could not independently verify this.

I was just informed Trump is deploying another 2,000 Guard troops to L.A.

The first 2,000? Given no food or water. Only approx. 300 are deployed — the rest are sitting, unused, in federal buildings without orders.

This isn’t about public safety. It’s about stroking a dangerous…

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025

In another post, Newsom wrote that “the Secretary of Defense is illegally deploying [the Marines] onto American streets.”

U.S. Marines serve a valuable purpose for this country — defending democracy. They are not political pawns.

The Secretary of Defense is illegally deploying them onto American streets so Trump can have a talking point at his parade this weekend.

It’s a blatant abuse of power.…

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 10, 2025

On Monday, Newsom announced that he had filed a lawsuit against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “to end the illegal takeover” of the National Guard. Trump’s federalisation of the National Guard on Saturday marked the first time in 60 years that a US president has activated the guard in defiance of a state governor’s wishes.

“For Trump to deploy regular armed forces, such as the marines, would require him to clear another legal hurdle. He would have to invoke the Insurrection Act, which is very rare and would escalate the situation to a constitutional crisis,” Gregory Magarian, professor of law at Washington University’s School of Law in St Louis, Missouri, told Al Jazeera in an emailed statement.

So far, it is unclear whether Trump invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy the Marines. To activate the National Guard, he did not invoke the Insurrection Act but a similar federal law, Title 10 of the United States Code.

“While the Insurrection Act technically gives the president the authority to deploy active-duty military forces under extreme conditions, we are nowhere near the legal threshold that would justify sending in the marines,” Patillo said.

What is the Trump administration saying?

Hegseth wrote in an X post that Marines had been deployed “due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings”.

“We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers – even if Gavin Newsom will not,” Hegseth wrote.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in an X post on Monday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, who have been leading the immigration arrests, will “continue to enforce the law” despite the protests.

What is the latest update on the LA immigration protests?

Over the weekend, the LAPD arrested 50 protesters: 29 on Saturday and 21 on Sunday.

Local news outlets have reported protests against the arrests have also begun in at least nine other US cities, including New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco.

Marks and Spencer is beginning to take online orders again after it halted purchases through its website in April following a hugely damaging cyber attack.

The High Street chain said shoppers were now able to buy a selection of fashion items, such as clothing and footwear, for home delivery in England, Scotland and Wales.

It said beauty and homeware products would be available in the coming days, with click and collect and delivery services to Northern Ireland resuming “in the coming weeks”.

The return of online shopping marks a key milestone for the retailer, which has been struggling to get services back to normal since the cyber attack, which left some shelves empty and deliveries in limbo.

M&S was hit by a cyber attack over the Easter weekend, which initially affected its click and collect and contactless payments.

A few days later, the company suspended online orders, and recently warned services would continue to be disrupted until July.

On Tuesday, John Lyttle, managing director of fashion, home and beauty at M&S, said a selection of the retailer’s “best selling” fashion ranges would now be available online.

M&S has estimated that the cyber attack will hit this year’s profits by around £300m – the equivalent to a third of its profit – and a sum that would only partly be covered by any insurance payout.

Some personal customer data was stolen by hackers during the attack, which the retailer has said could have included telephone numbers, home addresses and dates of birth.

The company has told customers that the data theft did not include useable payment or card details, or any account passwords.

The BBC learned earlier this week that the hackers sent an abuse-filled email directly to M&S’s boss on 23 April, gloating about what they had done and demanding payment.

The message to chief executive Stuart Machin, which was in broken English, was sent from the hacker group DragonForce using an employee email account.

DragonForce offers cyber-criminal affiliates various services on their darknet site in exchange for a 20% cut of any ransoms collected.

The email confirmed that M&S was hacked by the ransomware group – something that the retailer has so far refused to acknowledge.

Mr Machin has refused to disclose whether the company has paid a ransom to the hackers or not.

An additional 2,000 National Guard soldiers, along with 700 Marines, have headed to Los Angeles on orders from United States President Donald Trump, escalating a military presence local officials and California Governor Gavin Newsom do not want, and which the city’s police chief says creates logistical challenges for safely handling protests.

An initial deployment of 2,000 National Guard personnel ordered by Trump started arriving on Sunday, as violence erupted during protests driven by an accelerated enforcement of immigration laws that critics say are breaking apart families.

Monday’s demonstrations were less raucous. Thousands peacefully attended a rally at City Hall, hundreds protested outside a federal complex that includes a detention centre where some immigrants are being held following workplace raids across the city.

Los Angeles Police Department chief Jim McDonnell said in a statement he was confident in LAPD’s ability to handle large-scale demonstrations, and that the Marines’ arrival without coordinating with police would present a “significant logistical and operational challenge” for them.

Newsom called the deployments reckless and “disrespectful to our troops” in a post on the social media platform X.

“This isn’t about public safety. It’s about stroking a dangerous President’s ego.”

The protests began on Friday in downtown Los Angeles after federal immigration authorities arrested more than 40 people across the city.

In a directive on Saturday, Trump invoked a legal provision allowing him to deploy federal service members when there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority” of the US government.

The smell of smoke hung in the air on Monday, one day after crowds blocked a major motorway and set self-driving cars on fire, and police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flashbangs.

Additional protests against immigration raids continued into the evening on Monday in several other cities, including San Francisco and Santa Ana in California and Dallas and Austin in Texas.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott said in a post on X that more than a dozen protesters were arrested, while in Santa Ana, a police spokesperson said the National Guard had arrived in the city to secure federal buildings.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit over the use of National Guard troops following the first deployment, telling reporters in his announcement on Monday that Trump had “trampled” the state’s sovereignty.

Trump said Los Angeles would have been “completely obliterated” if he had not deployed the National Guard.

US officials said the Marines were being deployed to protect federal property and personnel, including immigration agents.

Several dozen protesters were arrested over the weekend. Authorities say one person was arrested for throwing a Molotov cocktail at police and another for ramming a motorbike into a line of officers.

The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor’s permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Centre for Justice.

Kyiv, Ukraine – Russian President Vladimir Putin faces criminal charges for the “unlawful deportation and transfer of children”.

That is the definition of the 2023 arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court, the intergovernmental tribunal based in The Hague.

On June 2, as ceasefire talks rumbled on, Ukrainian diplomats handed their Russian counterparts a list of hundreds of children that they said were taken from Russia-occupied Ukrainian regions since 2022.

The return of these children “could become the first test of the sincerity of [Russia’s] intentions” to reach a peace settlement, Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, told media. “The ball is in Russia’s corner.”

But Ukraine claims the number of children taken by Russia is much higher. Kyiv has so far identified 19,546 children who it says were forcibly taken from Russia-occupied Ukrainian regions since 2022.

The list could be far from final, as Ukrainian officials believe that some children lost their parents during the hostilities and cannot get in touch with their relatives in Ukraine.

As of early June, only 1,345 children had returned home to Ukraine.

But why did Russia take them in the first place?

“The aim is genocide of the Ukrainian people through Ukrainian children,” Daria Herasymchuk, a presidential adviser on children’s rights, told Al Jazeera. “Everybody understands that if you take children away from a nation, the nation will not exist.”

Putin, his allies and Kremlin-backed media insist that Ukraine is an “artificial state” with no cultural and ethnic identity.

Russian officials who run orphanages, foster homes and facilitate adoptions are being accused of changing the Ukrainian children’s names to deprive them of access to relatives.

“Russians do absolutely everything to erase the children’s identity,” Herasymchuk said.

The Reckoning Project, a global team of journalists and lawyers documenting, publicising and building cases of alleged war crimes Russia commits in Ukraine, said “indoctrination” is at play.

“The system is in the aspects of indoctrination, the re-education of children, when they are deprived of a certain identity that they had in Ukraine, and another identity, a Russian one, is imposed upon them,” Viktoria Novikova, the Reckoning Project’s senior researcher, told Al Jazeera.

Russia’s ultimate goal is to “turn their enemy, the Ukrainians, into their friend, so that these children think that Ukraine is an enemy so that [Russia] can seize all of Ukraine”, she said.

A group of researchers at Yale University that helps locate the children agrees that the alleged abductions “may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity”.

Moscow conducts a “systematic campaign of forcibly moving children from Ukraine into Russia, fracturing their connection to Ukrainian language and heritage through ‘re-education’, and even disconnecting children from their Ukrainian identities through adoption,” said the Humanitarian Research Laboratory of the Yale School of Public Health.

The group has located some 8,400 children in five dozen facilities in Russia and Belarus, Moscow’s closest ally.

In 2022, Sergey Mironov, head of A Just Russia, a pro-Kremlin party, adopted a 10-month-old girl named Marharyta Prokopenko, according to the Vaznye Istorii online magazine.

The girl was taken from an orphanage in the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson that was occupied at the time. Her name was changed to Marina Mironova, the magazine reported.

The girl’s name is on the June 2 list.

The alleged abductions are far from “chaotic” and follow detailed scenarios, Herasymchuk said.

She said some children are taken from parents who refuse to collaborate with Moscow-installed “administrations” in Russia-occupied areas.

During this “filtration” procedure, she alleged that Russian intelligence and military officers and Ukrainian collaborators interrogate and “torture” the parents, checking their bodies for pro-Ukrainian tattoos or bruises left by recoiling firearms.

Viktoria Obidina, a 29-year-old military nurse taken prisoner after failing a “filtration” that followed the 2022 siege of the southern city of Mariupol, feared such an abduction.

She also thought that her daughter Alisa, who was four at the time, would witness her torture and then end up in a Russian orphanage.

“They could have tortured me near her or could have tortured her to make me do things,” Obidina told Al Jazeera after her release from Russian captivity in September 2022.

Instead, she opted to hand Alisa to a complete stranger, a civilian woman who had already undergone the “filtration” process and boarded a bus that took 10 days of endless stops and checks amid shelling and shooting to reach a Kyiv-controlled area.

Another alleged method is “summer camping”, in which children in Russia-occupied areas are taken to Crimea or Russian cities along the Black Sea coast and are not returned to their parents, Herasymchuk claimed.

Some parents plunge into the abyss of trying to reach Russia to get their kids back.

But very few succeed, as Ukrainians trying to enter Russia are often barred from re-entry.

Attempts to return a child are “always a lottery”, Herasymchuk said.

Children of preschool age often do not remember their addresses and do not know how to reach out to their relatives, while teenagers are more inventive, she said.

Ukrainian boys are especially vulnerable as they are seen as future soldiers who could fight against Ukraine, she said.

“All the boys undergo militarisation, they get summons from Russian conscription offices so that they become Russian soldiers and return to Ukraine,” she said.

A return is often more feasible through a third nation such as Qatar, whose government has helped get dozens of children back home.

On Wednesday, Russia’s children’s rights ombudswoman said she had received the list of 339 Ukrainian children. She denied that Russia had abducted tens of thousands of children.

“We see that there aren’t 20,000-25,000 children; the list contains only 339 [names], and we will work thoroughly on each child,” Maria Lvova-Belova told the Tass news agency.

In 2022, Lvova-Belova adopted a 15-year-old boy from Ukraine’s Mariupol.

Along with Putin, she is wanted by the International Criminal Court for her role in the alleged abductions.

Ukrainian observers hope that the children’s return may be one of the few positive things to come out of the stalled Ukraine-Russia peace talks, which were last held in Turkiye’s Istanbul.

“Once everyone understands that no ceasefire is discussed in Istanbul, the Ukrainian side is trying to squeeze things out maximally out of the humanitarian track,” Vyacheslav Likhachyov told Al Jazeera.