Today

At midnight on 6th April 2025, Indian forces launched attacks on multiple locations in Pakistan, including Shakargarh, Sialkot, Muridke, Bahawalpur, Kotli, and the Muzaffarabad area of Punjab and the Pakistani part of Kashmir, using standoff precision-guided munitions. The attacks occurred in the Muslims’ religious places, hydropower infrastructure, and commercial air routes, violating international law and human norms alike, and so far 26 civilian deaths have been reported. India has also challenged Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and violated the international border in the darkness of night. India and Pakistan are the archrival two nuclear weapons states of the South Asia region. However, India’s attack indicates the aggressive posture of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s regime to target the unarmed civilian and innocent children. This is not merely a border skirmish; it is a calculated escalation with far-reaching strategic consequences for the entire South Asian region. Various media reports highlighted that in retaliation and for the defense of the state, Pakistani armed forces also hit all of the Indian fighter jets and drones from their own territory with PL-15.

The tension between India and Pakistan escalated when, on April 22, 2025, terror shattered the peace of Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, a scenic hill station in Indian-administered Kashmir (IOJK) known as “Mini Switzerland.” Armed gunmen opened fire on civilians, resulting in 26 casualties. Instead of allowing a transparent investigation to determine the perpetrators, India hastily blamed Pakistan, offering no concrete evidence to back its claim. It was India’s security failure; before putting the finger on Pakistan, India needs to have a neutral investigation of the incident and should provide evidence of linkages of the Pakistani state to these attacks. However, India’s recent attack on Pakistan’s territory and targeting civilian population indicates that the Pahalgam attack was an orchestrated provocation. India, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, launched this attack not in defense but for political theater—under the cover of night, on civilian infrastructure, without evidence or provocation. This isn’t an act of strength—it’s a display of desperation. And if this escalates, it won’t just make headlines; it will be etched in history as the moment ego led us to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.

Pakistan has concluded the meeting of the National Security Committee under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and it has been decided that in consonance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard. India’s missile strikes inside Pakistan were reckless, unprovoked, and a clear violation of international law. India’s recent attacks have put the peace and stability of the entire South Asian region in serious jeopardy. At the moment the strikes occurred, 57 international commercial flights, including those operated by major Gulf and European airlines, were either within or approaching Pakistani airspace. This reckless action posed a direct danger to civilian air traffic, placing thousands of innocent lives at risk. It goes beyond a hostile move against Pakistan; it represents a clear threat to global peace and security. By heightening tensions in a nuclear-armed region, India has shown a disturbing disregard for international laws, aviation safety, and the value of human life.

By targeting civilian airspace and deliberately provoking conflict, India has revealed itself as a reckless and irresponsible actor on the global stage. Its actions undermine regional stability and pose a serious threat to international peace. The international community must look beyond India’s carefully crafted narratives and recognize the true source of aggression. This is a defining moment for global powers to uphold justice, demand accountability, and prevent further escalation. Without decisive diplomatic intervention, India’s adventurism could plunge South Asia and potentially the wider world into a dangerous and prolonged conflict. Several nations have already voiced serious concerns; Azerbaijan condemned the military strikes on Pakistan and urged restraint and dialogue; Turkey, through Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, expressed strong solidarity with Pakistan against India’s unprovoked aggression; and China described India’s military action as “regrettable,” calling for de-escalation and expressing concern over the unfolding situation.

To prevent the escalation between the two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, the international community must play a role to bring them to the negotiation table. Both states need an immediate ceasefire to avoid civilian deaths and triggering nuclear risks; they must also halt the cross-border military activities and refrain from provocative statements. There is also an immediate need to establish a neutral and impartial investigation mechanism under the supervision of the United Nations to determine the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack. There must be restoration of military-to-military and diplomatic communication channels for conflict management. Moreover, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the UN Secretary-General must actively intervene by appointing a special envoy to mediate between the two sides. Key international actors such as China, Turkey, the United States, the EU, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) should support de-escalation through diplomatic engagement and pressure for dialogue. Track two diplomacy is vital in the time of crisis and addresses the root cause of the internationally recognized disputed territory of Kashmir in accordance with the UNSC resolutions and wishes of Kashmiri people by granting them the right of self-determination.

Last but not least, both states need to realize that war is not the only solution, but it is a diplomatic failure to de-escalate the tension in the South Asian region. In a nuclearized region of South Asia, its consequences would be catastrophic not only for India and Pakistan but also for regional and global security. The world cannot afford another conflict zone. The international community must rise to the occasion, play an impartial mediating role, and help both nations choose peace over provocation and dialogue over destruction.

United Nations agencies are facing an unprecedented financial crisis, with the United States abruptly pulling aid, European contributions shrinking, and global budgets shifting to defence. Deep cuts, mass layoffs and sweeping reforms are under way, jeopardising food, shelter and other aid for millions around the world. How can the UN adapt to survive?

The world’s two biggest economies have stepped back from the brink.

After imposing retaliatory tariff hikes at rates never seen before, the United States and China have agreed to a truce.

US taxes on Chinese goods will now fall from 145 percent to 30 percent, and China will cut theirs on US items from 125 percent to 10 percent.

Some of the levies have been scrapped altogether while others have been put on hold.

After weeks of considerable strain, many people are looking to see how global supply chains will be affected.

Is it the end of the global trade war, triggered last month by US President Donald Trump?

And what does it mean for those countries who had been anticipating big investments due to the steep duties on China?

Presenter: Elizabeth Puranam

Guests:

William Lee, chief economist, Milken Institute

Huiyao Wang, founder, Center for China and Globalization

Jayant Menon, former lead economist, Asian Development Bank

PA Media

‘I know where I stand’

Lineker hitting headlines

She was just seven years old when they were displaced by the Boko Haram insurgency in Borno State, northeastern Nigeria. Elizabeth Bitrus and her family fled to Taraba State, where they lived in an internally displaced persons (IDP) Camp. That was the first time Elizabeth had to adjust to a home that was not her home. 

Three years later, she and her aunt boarded a bus bound for Edo State, South South Nigeria, where her aunt resides. 

No one told Elizabeth Bitrus exactly where she was headed, but she knew it meant a fresh start, a chance to return to school, and she could hardly contain her excitement. She had dropped out after displacement upended her life. Elizabeth was only ten. Her aunt had told her stories of what it was like living there and how children attend a free school, with provisions for food, books, and even toiletries. 

They eventually arrived at Uhogua, a rural community in Edo State. Their destination was the Home for the Needy Camp, a sprawling compound dotted with blocks of buildings roofed with rusted zinc sheets. When they arrived, her aunt dropped her off at the camp and said she was leaving. Her house was a few minutes away, but students lived in a boarding school arrangement.

Founded in 1992 by Solomon Folorunsho, a Nigerian pastor, the camp provides free accommodation, feeding, and education for displaced people. It currently houses over 4000 people. 

“I thought I would be living with my aunt while attending the school,” Elizabeth recalls with a chuckle. “I started crying profusely. I immediately started to miss my mum and told my aunt to take me back home.”

The memory is still fresh in her mind. She can laugh about it now in hindsight, but at the time, it was terrifying. She didn’t know anyone. How would she fit in?

“I didn’t find it very hard to fit in, thankfully. There was a group of girls who were eager to make friends with me, the new girl. When I kept crying, saying I wanted to leave, they advised me to be patient and stay to study,” Elizabeth said. 

Slowly, she grew accustomed to the routine of the camp. 

“Soon enough, I started to enjoy being in the camp, so much that I didn’t even care about going back home anymore,” she recounted. 

‘Home for the needy’

Over three decades ago, Solomon started caring for children in Edo who were abandoned by their parents and those out of school. 

“I rented an apartment and put them in a private school. These children became wonderful. I saw how they were competing [with other students], which encouraged me. That is how I started,” he said.  

The capacity grew from a one-bedroom apartment to a three-bedroom apartment, then a seven-bedroom apartment. But with more children came greater responsibilities and shrinking resources. Solomon could not manage alone anymore. He began seeking donations from individuals and organisations, and when the children’s school fees became exorbitant, he started a school, employed teachers and got volunteers to run it. 

When the Boko Haram insurgency began, “friends from the north were calling me. This was around 2012. I thought about what we could do for the children, and gradually some families started coming here,” Solomon tells HumAngle. Elizabeth was one of them. 

They live in large tents, each housing up to 50 students. They sleep on mats and attend prayers every morning, before heading to classes in modern brick-walled classrooms. Oddly, however, only the teenage girls were required to cook. They did so in groups, taking turns according to a schedule. Then they shared the food with everyone, both the girls and the boys. 

After dinner, they’d form study groups. Some would do their assignments, others would study for tests. If one didn’t have a torch to read with, they’d go under the tall solar-powered streetlights in the camp’s compound. 

The longing for home

Elizabeth often thought about her mom and three siblings in the early days. 

She never once spoke to her mother for seven years at the camp. She discovered that she had cousins in the camp, and one day, as they chatted with their mom over the phone, Elizabeth heard her mother’s voice. She spoke with her briefly, and a sudden longing for home started to sweep over her. 

“I missed them so much. I knew I needed to go back and see my family,” she recounts.

It had taken a long time to properly reestablish contact with her mom after that brief call on her aunt’s phone in 2021. Her mom didn’t have a phone, so they didn’t speak again until three years later, in 2024. 

Living conditions in the camp were deteriorating: there was hunger, the toilets were full, and some were breaking down. More and more, Elizabeth craved her mother’s embrace. Over the call, she told her mother she wanted to return home, and her mother sent money for transport.

She was excited and nervous the day she was finally leaving Edo for Abuja, North-central Nigeria. It had been nearly a decade since she’d left her family in Taraba, and so much had changed. She is now 18 years old. Her family moved. She wondered how much taller her siblings had grown, whether her mother had aged at all.

“When I saw her waiting for me at the car park after we arrived, I ran into her arms and started sobbing, and sobbing. I couldn’t control it,” Elizabeth recounts with a smile. 

When HumAngle met her at Kuchingoro IDP Camp, an informal settlement in Abuja, where she lives with her mum, Elizabeth was sitting under the shade of a tree. She had just returned from work as a domestic help in a house close to the camp. Across the street, the grand terrace buildings of the estate where Elizabeth sweeps and mops floors stand in sharp contrast to her lowly tent, made out of rusted zinc roof sheets and rags. 

Since she came here, she has not enrolled in school because her mother cannot afford it, and her father is absent. The last time Elizabeth saw him was when they were in Taraba in 2015. He had visited briefly, then left for Lagos. No one has heard from him since.

Elizabeth’s mom, Abigail Bitrus, told HumAngle that her husband had always worked in Lagos and only visited occasionally, even when they lived in Borno. But he has not been in contact with the family since his last visit a decade ago.

“Some of his relatives say he’s alive and well, others say they haven’t heard from him in years. But he and I didn’t fight or anything, and I just wish he’d at least call us,” Abigail explained, tears welling up in her eyes. 

Abigail is 38 years old. She moved to Abuja near her parents, who live in Nasarawa, a neighbouring state. She has lived in the camp for four years, but now faces the threat of eviction. After settling on privately owned property, she and many others were uprooted from their tents, forced to move to a smaller space on another piece of private land. 

Of hope and struggles

Elizabeth wishes to go back to the camp in Benin City. Although it is not her ideal place to live, she gets to study at least. Education is crucial to her, and she has lofty dreams, but is not allowed to return to the camp. 

“I’m now in SS2. I want to graduate and go to university to study medicine. I want to graduate as the best student and get a scholarship to study abroad, like one of my seniors, who is now in the United States,” Elizabeth said. 

Solomon told HumAngle that over 300 students have proceeded to university after graduating from the camp. They studied courses ranging from engineering to medicine and nursing. One student emerged as the best graduating student in his class at Edo State University and later secured a scholarship to the University of Illinois, Chicago.

He said the decision to stop students like Elizabeth from returning to the camp after leaving depends on each family’s situation and financial need.

“​​If you have a home and can afford transport to Abuja or Maiduguri, then you can stay at home, because we want to help those in need… if your father or mother has a house, at least let us give that chance to someone else,” Solomon explains.

Solomon tells HumAngle that donations and aid were consistent in the early days. However, that is no longer the case. Solomon has been appealing to individuals, organisations, and the government to bring more support, but the response has been slow. Globally, humanitarian aid has shrunk. 

The cost of paying teachers became unsustainable, forcing the employed staff to leave. The camp now relies on volunteers and former students to keep the school running. Even feeding the children has become a struggle.

“Food is at a critical level right now,” he says. “We’re struggling to feed the children just once a day. Some of those in university aren’t allowed to write exams because they haven’t paid the fees. We really need support at this time.”

Solomon says he usually pays to harvest from farms in neighbouring villages when food runs out. But it is not nearly enough to meet nutritional needs or satisfy the children. 

Displacement doesn’t just uproot homes—it disrupts education. Over 4.6 million children have been affected by the conflict in northeast Nigeria, according to UNICEF, and 56 per cent of displaced children in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe are still out of school. Initiatives like Home for the Needy attempt to fill that gap, but without sustained support, many children like Elizabeth risk being left behind.

They are left waiting, left in search of home, education, and the hope for a better future.

Elizabeth still dreams of becoming a doctor. She believes her story doesn’t end in her mother’s arms in Abuja, nor does it find resolution in the dusty tents of Edo. She is a brilliant dreamer and believes in the possibility of more. 

Pakistan reiterates its commitment to the ceasefire but warns it will respond forcefully to any future Indian attacks.

India has ordered a Pakistani diplomat to leave the country within 24 hours as tensions simmer in the wake of heavy military exchanges between the nuclear-armed neighbours before a ceasefire was agreed last week.

The unnamed official, stationed at Pakistan’s embassy in New Delhi, was accused by India’s Ministry of External Affairs on Tuesday of “indulging in activities not in keeping with his official status”.

The move comes after a brief but intense military confrontation last week that threatened to erupt into the fifth full-scale war between the two countries. While the truce brought a temporary halt to cross-border missile and drone strikes, sporadic skirmishes continue along the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border  in disputed Kashmir, a region claimed by both nations.

On Tuesday, Pakistan reiterated its commitment to the ceasefire but warned it would respond forcefully to any future attacks.

The statement came after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned in his first national address since the truce that India would strike “terrorist hideouts” across the border if provoked again.

The ultranationalist Hindu leader added that India “only paused” its military action against Pakistan.

Modi’s remarks were swiftly condemned by Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which called them “provocative and inflammatory”.

“At a time when international efforts are being made for regional peace and stability, this statement represents a dangerous escalation,” it said.

“Pakistan remains committed to the recent ceasefire understanding and taking necessary steps towards de-escalation and regional stability,” the statement continued, adding that any future aggression would receive a response.

The conflict ignited after a deadly April 22 shooting attack in the Pahalgam area of India-administered Kashmir, where 25 Indian tourists and one Nepalese visitor were killed. India accused Pakistan’s government of links to the attacks – an accusation Islamabad strongly denied.

India launched strikes on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

According to Islamabad, 40 civilians and 11 Pakistani military personnel were killed in last week’s violence. India said at least 16 civilians and five Indian soldiers were killed.

The fighting marked the most severe exchange between the two countries in nearly 30 years and ended only after sustained diplomatic pressure. On Monday, India said it held a rare phone call with Pakistan’s military leaders, agreeing to uphold the ceasefire and explore ways to de-escalate the conflict.

Fragile ceasefire

Despite the ceasefire, sporadic violence continued on Tuesday with Indian forces reporting a gun battle in southern Kashmir’s Shopian district. The army said three suspected fighters were killed in a “search and destroy” operation launched on intelligence input.

On Tuesday, Modi visited Adampur airbase near the border and reiterated India’s stance in a speech to air force personnel. “We will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism,” he said.

“We will enter their dens and hit them without giving them an opportunity to survive.”

Meanwhile, both sides have taken a series of retaliatory diplomatic and economic measures.

India has suspended most visa services for Pakistani nationals, halted bilateral trade and announced its intention to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, a World Bank-brokered water-sharing agreement in place since 1960 that is critical for farming.

In response, Pakistan banned visas for Indians, closed its airspace to Indian aircraft and imposed a reciprocal trade embargo.

Are Islamophobic crimes less likely to be classed as terrorism offences? The murder of 22-year-old Aboubakar Cisse at a French mosque should be investigated by anti-terror police, according to the lawyer representing the victim’s family. He spoke to Al Jazeera’s Hind Touissate.

Israel’s ‘template for genocide’ is being used in Sudan, according to international law expert Luigi Daniele, who says the paramilitary RSF is using carefully chosen terminology to whitewash killing civilians.

PA Media

‘Evidence review’

‘Moral probity’

Authors: Darynaufal Mulyaman and Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani*

In June 2025, South Korea will prepare to hold elections, and there is a figure who is in the political spotlight, namely Lee Jae-myung. He is the leading candidate of the Democratic Party in South Korea and represents a new direction of pragmatic progressivism based on the socio-economic reality of society and not an idealistic and rhetorical one. His views on inter-Korean relations, foreign policy, and his approach to the United States and China reflect an effort to balance national identity with geopolitical realities. If you look back at history, in the history of politics in South Korea, there are two big names that show or define progressivism, namely Kim Dae-jung and Moon Jae-in.

Both figures have left a legacy through diplomacy and careful engagement with North Korea. However, Lee Jae-myung comes with a different approach; he still brings the spirit of peace, but the style he carries is a more populist, more grounded style, and his commitment to inter-Korean peace has not diminished. With the presence of Lee Jae-myung as a candidate, it signals a return to building engagement with North Korea. Lee Jae-myung offers more policies, such as conditional sanctions relief, which is linked to verifiable denuclearization, where sanctions will be eased if North Korea shows real and verified steps in the denuclearization process. What Lee Jae-myung is doing is completely different from Kim Dae-jung’s “Sunshine Policy,” which is more based on trust and reconciliation without harsh conditions.

At the same time, however, his economic initiatives, such as reviving joint tourism projects, show continuity with the Moon Jae-in era with thawed relations and cultural diplomacy. Economic projects such as joint tourism, cultural exchange, and cross-border cooperation still remain part of Lee Jae-myung’s vision. He believes that economic stability and social interaction can be a stepping stone to broader peace. However, what sets Lee Jae-myung apart is his distinctive voice in the broader geopolitical discourse and the most prominent aspect of Lee Jae-myung’s foreign policy, namely his vision to make South Korea a strategically autonomous country.

He argued that South Korea should not choose between Washington and Beijing. In a world that is now polarized between the United States and China, Lee Jae-myung offers a pragmatic, non-aligned approach, not as a passive neutral, but as an active position to balance South Korea’s national interests amid the pressures of the world’s two major powers. This is a bold vision because instead of choosing one of the camps to approach, Lee Jae-myung is pushing for policies that can better allow South Korea to maintain close relations with the United States, especially in the defense-security fields, such as through military alliances and defense system development. And at the same time, it continues to establish relations and economic cooperation with China, which is South Korea’s main trading partner. So this is a bold vision because it recognizes the strategic needs of the U.S. alliance and the gravity of China’s economy.

This approach is very different from conservative governments that are more inclined towards the United States as a whole or even from previous liberal strategies that were sometimes too soft on China. In Lee Jae-myung’s vision, diplomacy is a tool to maintain sovereignty in decisions and not a tool to fully conform to the will of foreign powers. In the midst of new tensions and a global realignment, Lee Jae-myung’s candidacy provides him with a sobering reminder that diplomacy works best not when chasing headlines, but when building trust done slowly. With this approach, Lee can also strengthen South Korea’s position at the regional level, especially through East Asia initiatives that encourage collaboration between countries on energy, technology, and climate change issues. In terms of rich communication, when compared to Moon Jae-in, who tends to be calm and diplomatic, Lee Jae-myung has a more aggressive and approachable communication style than Moon Jae-in. Then, compared to Kim Dae-jung, Lee Jae-myung is more grounded in working-class reality than Kim Dae-jung. Although their communication styles are different, their ambition to bring peace and dignity to the Korean Peninsula is clearly in line with theirs.

Although the style and approach brought are new, the ambition is seen in line with Lee Jae-myung, who does not necessarily reject the legacy of his predecessors to create peace on the Korean peninsula. From Kim Dae-jung, he has inherited the spirit of peace and the recognition that the problems facing Korea cannot be solved by violence. And through Moon Jae-in, Lee Jae-myung continues his efforts to include elements of cultural engagement and economic diplomacy as a tool to build greater trust.

Lee Jae-myung has realized that the South Korean people today are no longer satisfied with symbolism in politics. The South Korean people want real results, both in domestic affairs and foreign relations, especially between the Koreas. Therefore, Lee Jae-myung learns from their weaknesses. The idealism that exists in Kim Dae-jung is often used by North Korea without good faith to repay trust. And Moon Jae-in’s approach, which tends to be too diplomatic, is often criticized for being too slow and not pressuring the opponent enough. So, seeing from this, Lee Jae-myung is more of an approach that can be evaluated and measured, such as verified denuclearization, cross-border economic projects with success indicators, and diplomacy that is open but full of calculations. Therefore, his vision is not idealism, but a steady and deliberate movement towards peace.

Amid the ongoing turmoil and tensions on the Korean peninsula, the trade war between the two great powers, and the rising nationalism in many countries, the presence of figures such as Lee Jae-myung provides a more grounded alternative. Lee Jae-myung is not an idealistic hero but a technocrat who understands the importance of strategy and public communication; this style has made him beloved by many young voters and the working class. Lee Jae-myung’s vision does not dream of instant peace or dramatic reunification, but Lee offers a peace built gradually through small steps and careful calculations and based on trust that is built and tested consistently.

It is a pragmatic progressivism that sees the reality of what is happening in society and remains faithful to the principle that progress is only possible if the small people become the center of determining the direction of policy. In this context, Lee placed the people at the center to determine the direction of policy and did not place the elites or elite-centric ones who often ignored the needs and voices of ordinary citizens. Because, according to Lee, to achieve peace and especially security, it is not only about weapon systems such as missiles or soldiers but also about jobs in border areas and ensuring price stability for the South Korean people so that with development that leads to the economy, stability will be created.

This is what finally made Lee Jae-myung think about more often voicing policies of wealth redistribution, reducing inequality in society, and protection for vulnerable groups as part of achieving diplomacy and national security strategies. Therefore, pragmatic Progressivism is not trapped by moral rhetoric but is faithful to the principle that progress can be achieved or is possible if the people become the center to determine the direction of policy. And with the pragmatic progressivism carried by Lee Jae-myung, he can bring together the spirit of healthy change with a political vision that is not only ideal but also capable of being implemented in the complex realities that occur in today’s world.

*Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani is a researcher assistant of CEO Research. Research interests are around security issues and foreign relations.

A group of white South Africans granted refugee status have arrived in the US. The Trump administration says white South Africans suffer oppression. The welcome for white South Africans contrasts with an aggressive deportation policy for other ethnic groups.

Many people across the United States are rushing to replace their driver’s licenses and state IDs with federally compliant licences, known as Real ID cards, now required to board domestic flights.

As of May 7, all US citizens more than 18 years of age must show proof of identification that meets the 2005 Real ID Act’s rules, which set higher federal security standards. But this change in federal travel requirements is creating some confusion about what it means for noncitizens.

Passed two decades ago by Congress in response to the bipartisan 9/11 Commission’s recommendations following the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC, the aim of the programme was to raise security standards for domestic travel and federal and nuclear facility access.

But immigration experts say the law’s enactment during the second Trump administration has left noncitizens – including some of the 13.5 million people legally in the US on green cards, work and student visas and humanitarian parole – uncertain about what the rule change could mean for their travel.

US President Donald Trump has promised and prioritised mass deportations of criminals and undocumented people in the US. But in practice, his policies have swept up US citizens and people with a legal immigration status. He has also tried to end legal pathways that allowed people to temporarily live and work in the US. Many of these actions are being challenged in court.

Here are some answers to commonly asked questions about Real ID and its effect on citizen versus noncitizen travel.

What is special about Real ID?

The Department of Homeland Security says the aim of the Real ID requirements was to bring consistency to the minimum documentation requirements needed for state-issued IDs – driver’s license, learner’s permits and nondriver IDs.

Now, all states issuing Real ID-compliant cards require people applying for those cards to present certain documentation. The exact requirements vary by state, but in most cases, the minimum documents needed include:

• Proof of identity in the form of a US birth certificate, US passport, or a green card.
• Social Security Number in the form of a Social Security card, W-2 form, or a pay stub.
• Two proofs of address of principal residence, which may be a utility bill, bank statement or mortgage statement.
• Lawful status proof, including a valid employment authorisation document, Social Security Number or a valid unexpired visa.

A Real ID card bears a black or gold star or a US flag in its upper right corner. State-issued ID cards that don’t have these markers will not be accepted as proof of identity to board domestic flights or enter federal facilities.

Here are some examples of what Real IDs look like:

Examples of Real ID-compliant driver’s licenses posted on the Department of Homeland Security’s website.

If I don’t have a Real ID, does it mean I cannot travel domestically any more?

No, you can still travel domestically provided you have another form of identification that is Real ID-compliant.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) lists many other forms of acceptable IDs, including options for people who are not US citizens. Among them:

• State-issued enhanced driver’s licenses or enhanced IDs, which provide proof of identity when crossing the US borders in a vehicle.
• US passports or US passport cards.
• Foreign government-issued passports.
• Department of Homeland Security trusted traveller cards under programmes such as Global Entry, which let US citizens, green card holders and some foreign nationals go through expedited lanes at airports.
• US Department of Defense IDs, including IDs issued to dependents of people in the military.
• Lawful permanent resident cards, also known as green cards.
• Border crossing cards, a document used by Mexican citizens to enter the US.
• Acceptable photo IDs issued by federally recognised tribal nations, including enhanced tribal cards.
• HSPD-12 PIV cards, which are used by federal contractors to access facilities and systems.
• Canadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada cards.
• Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC).
• US Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Cards.
• US Merchant Mariner Credentials, which show evidence of a mariner’s qualifications; and
• Veteran Health Identification Cards (VHIC).

There’s one big caveat: TSA says the list of acceptable IDs is subject to change without notice and advises travellers to check the list before travelling.

How could Real ID affect noncitizens as they travel in the US?

Although numerous forms of IDs are accepted for noncitizens, the Real ID policy could have a chilling effect on travelers whose documentation differentiates them from citizens, immigration experts told us.

As one example, immigration attorney Prerna Lal said that, in any interaction with federal authorities, carrying a foreign passport could lead to scrutiny of that person’s identity if they lack legal immigration status.

“Even with valid foreign passports, undocumented individuals and mixed-status families may avoid travelling due to concerns about interactions with TSA or law enforcement, despite passports remaining acceptable documentation,” Lal said. “This fear of enforcement, rather than access to IDs, is the primary chilling effect on the immigrant community.”

What happens if people don’t have an acceptable ID at the airport?

A TSA officer may ask a person to complete an identity verification process. If the identity is confirmed, that person will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint.

Can an immigrant with temporary status obtain a Real ID?

Yes, the Real ID regulations define an individual in a “temporary lawful status” as a person who has a pending application for asylum; has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status; has approved deferred action; or has a pending application for lawful permanent resident or conditional permanent resident status.

The Real ID Act lets states issue temporary, Real ID driver licenses and ID cards to people with temporary status. People with a temporary immigration status are usually granted temporary valid employment authorisation and Social Security numbers, which they can use to apply for Real IDs. Their temporary Real ID will remain valid until their lawful status expires. Florida is one exception: The Sunshine State requires almost all immigrants with lawful status to renew their IDs annually. Green card holders in Florida don’t have to renew a REAL ID every year; their Real ID is valid until their green card expires. Most green cards are valid for 10 years, but people can apply for a renewal.

Also, people with valid student or work visas can present their unexpired passports, visas and I-94 forms – documents that show a person’s authorised period of stay in the US – for proof of identity and legal status and get a Real ID.

States that provide non-Real ID compliant ID cards to people without legal immigration status can still do so, according to DHS, but the cards must clearly state that they are not acceptable for Real ID purposes and must have a unique design or colour to differentiate them from compliant cards. These non-Real ID-compliant ID cards cannot be used as a form of identification for domestic travel.

Could a Real ID prevent an arrest by immigration authorities? Does it confirm that a person is legally in the US?

Lal told PolitiFact that a Real ID alone does not prevent a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s arrest or confirm a lawful immigration status. Although Real ID-compliant identification requires proof of lawful presence for issuance, it is not proof of current immigration status.

“ICE conducts its own verification, and possessing a Real ID does not grant immunity from enforcement actions,” Prerna said.

Prerna said that people should present to ICE valid, government-issued documentation that shows their current immigration status, such as a green card, employment authorisation card or visa.

Tennis great Novak Djokovic and his former on-court rival Andy Murray split days before the French Open after six-month coaching partnership.

Andy Murray will no longer be coaching former rival Novak Djokovic, ending their six-month partnership, the pair announced.

Djokovic stunned the tennis world in November when he said he had hired the retired Murray, who had no track record as a coach, to lead his off-court team.

But the two 37-year-old tennis greats have already parted company, with the former British player thanking Serbian star Djokovic for an “unbelievable opportunity”.

Their split comes after Djokovic, the winner of a record 24 men’s Grand Slam singles titles, endured a difficult start to the season, including losing his first match at his last two tournaments.

“Thanks to Novak for the unbelievable opportunity to work together and thanks to his team for all their hard work over the past six months,” Murray said in a statement released on Tuesday.

“I wish Novak all the best for the rest of the season,” added the Scot, who defeated Djokovic in the 2012 US Open and 2013 Wimbledon finals to win two of his three Grand Slam titles.

Their partnership started well, with Djokovic defeating Carlos Alcaraz at the Australian Open, only to retire through injury during his semifinal against Alexander Zverev.

But success has since proved elusive, with Djokovic saying on Tuesday: “Thank you, coach Andy, for all the hard work, fun and support over last six months on and off the court, really enjoyed deepening our friendship together.”

Murray, who retired after the 2024 Paris Olympics, is a three-time singles Grand Slam winner and former world number one.

The pair go their separate ways less than two weeks out from the 2025 French Open, which begins on May 25 at Roland Garros, Paris.

Getty Images

What has been taken?

What should you do?

How did the hack happen?

New York Knicks take a 3-1 series lead after winning Game 4 against the reigning NBA champions Boston Celtics, who lost Jayson Tatum to injury.

Jalen Brunson scored 26 of his 39 points in the second half, and the New York Knicks became the first home team to win in the series by defeating the Boston Celtics 121-113 to take a 3-1 series lead in their Eastern Conference second-round matchup.

Karl-Anthony Towns added 23 points and 11 rebounds, and Mikal Bridges also scored 23 for the Knicks, who recovered from a 14-point third-quarter deficit on Monday night. OG Anunoby made some key plays late while contributing 20 points.

“They hit us early, and obviously we got into a hole,” Knicks coach Tom Thibodeau said. “I love the way we fought back, and we showed a lot of toughness and more discipline in the second half and timely plays. Everybody worked together on both ends of the floor.”

Boston star Jayson Tatum sustained a possible serious right ankle injury late in the contest. Tatum had 42 points, eight rebounds, four assists and four steals. He knocked down seven 3-pointers for the second-seeded Celtics, who squandered 20-point leads while dropping the first two games in the series.

Tatum was helped off the floor with his right foot kept in the air and was later seen being pushed to the locker room while sitting in a rolling chair.

“I got back there, talked to the medical staff, and they told me it’s a lower-body injury for Jayson Tatum and we’ll get an MRI in the morning,” Celtics coach Joe Mazzulla said.

Derrick White made six 3-pointers and scored 23 points, and Jaylen Brown added 20 points and seven rebounds for Boston. Payton Pritchard added 12 points off the bench.

The Knicks can clinch the best-of-seven series with a win in Game 5 at Boston on Wednesday night.

“It’s not like we planned to be in this situation,” White said. “But we are where we are. We have to find a way to win Game 5.”

Third-quarter explosion lifts Wolves over Warriors

In the other playoff game on Monday, Anthony Edwards poured 11 of his 30 points into a 17-0 third-quarter flurry as the Minnesota Timberwolves moved within one win of a second consecutive berth in the Western Conference finals with a 117-110 road win over the Golden State Warriors in Game 4 in San Francisco.

Julius Randle led the way with 31 points and Jaden McDaniels contributed 10 points and 13 rebounds for the sixth-seeded Timberwolves, who have rallied from a series-opening loss to win three straight from the Stephen Curry-less Warriors.

Minnesota could clinch the best-of-seven series in Game 5 on Wednesday in Minneapolis.

Jonathan Kuminga had a team-high 23 points for seventh-seeded Golden State, which lost Curry to a hamstring injury during its Game 1 win.

The Warriors previously announced that their standout point guard would be re-evaluated before Game 5, with the possibility of Curry returning at that point.

Golden State held a 60-58 halftime lead, and the game was tied 68-all in the fourth minute of the third period before Edwards turned a floater into a three-point play to ignite the decisive run.

Edwards also buried a pair of 3-pointers and a short jumper among his 11 points, while Mike Conley and Donte DiVincenzo drilled shots from deep as part of a burst that lasted more than four minutes.

Edwards finished 6-for-11 on 3-point attempts and Randle 4-for-8, helping the Timberwolves outscore the Warriors 48-24 from beyond the arc. Minnesota shot 16-for-34 (47.1 percent) from beyond the arc, while the Warriors were 8-for-27 (29.6 percent).

“The big third quarter was huge,” Timberwolves coach Chris Finch said. “I thought we came out at halftime with the type of focus and intensity and purpose on offence and attention to detail on defence is what we needed from the start. But for the most part, I thought we were lucky to be just down a bucket at halftime.

“[Edwards] was one of the guys that was most vocal at half time and realised what was going on out there and we needed to be better. It started with him, really, and setting the tone.”

Jimmy Butler III took just nine shots and totalled 14 points with a team-high-tying three assists for the Warriors. Draymond Green also had 14 points to go with seven rebounds, while Buddy Hield scored 13 and Brandin Podziemski had 11 to complement four steals.

“[The Timberwolves] played a great game and obviously took it to us, and we’ve got to bounce back,” Warriors coach Steve Kerr said. “We’ve got a flight to Minneapolis tomorrow and a chance to extend the series, and that’s the plan.”

United States President Donald Trump has started his Middle East tour, arriving in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, just after 10am, where he was greeted by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS).

During his three-day trip, he will also travel to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with a focus on securing economic agreements with three of the world’s wealthiest nations.

The trip will involve discussions on investment opportunities, and some experts say Trump may urge the Gulf countries to lower oil prices.

When will Trump be visiting each country?

Trump arrived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Tuesday just before 10am local time (07:00 GMT), where he was greeted by MBS. The same day, he is scheduled to attend a Saudi-US investment forum featuring leading companies such as BlackRock, Citigroup, Palantir, Qualcomm, and Alphabet.

On Wednesday, he is scheduled to take part in a Gulf summit in Riyadh, before travelling to Qatar later that day. He will conclude his trip in the UAE on Thursday, May 15.

Trump’s first visit as president was to Saudi Arabia

During his first term, 2017 to 2021, Trump became the first US president to make the Middle East his first international destination, breaking with the longstanding tradition of visiting neighbouring North American countries first.

His trip to Saudi Arabia from May 20 to 22, 2017 – during which he attended the Riyadh Summit – was a calculated move to bolster defence ties and secure substantial arms deals.

During that trip, Trump also visited Israel and Palestine.

While Trump did not go to Qatar or the UAE during his first term, he met Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at the Riyadh Summit.

During the summit, Trump and Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud signed a $110bn arms deal, including missile defence systems, tanks, combat ships and cybersecurity technology, with the intent of buying $350bn worth of arms over 10 years.

A memorable moment from that 2017 trip to Saudi Arabia was during the inauguration of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in Riyadh. In a surreal photo op that quickly went viral, Trump stood alongside King Salman and President el-Sisi with their hands on a glowing orb.

What is the value of US-Gulf investments?

Sami al-Arian, director of the Center for Islam and Global Affairs at Istanbul Zaim University, told Al Jazeera that Trump has been very vocal about his objective in visiting the three Gulf states: investments.

Trump’s administration has reportedly discussed the possibility of expediting investments by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE before his trip to the region.

“He’s trying to get trillions of dollars out of these countries,” al-Arian told Al Jazeera.

“He’s already said that he’s hoping to get $1 trillion from Saudi Arabia in terms of arms sales and commercial deals,” he said.

US-Saudi investments

According to the latest data from the US Department of Commerce, the total stock of US foreign direct investment (FDI) in Saudi Arabia reached $11.3bn in 2023.

Conversely, Saudi Arabia’s FDI stock in the US stood at $9.6bn, mostly in transport, real estate, plastics, automotive, financial services and communications, according to the Commerce Department.

These figures are only FDI, not other investments, like portfolio investments or short-term financial flows.

US-Qatar investments

In 2023, the total stock of US FDI in Qatar was estimated at $2.5bn.

According to the US-Qatar Business Council, US companies that have facilitated FDIs in Qatar focused on the fields of energy, petrochemicals, construction, engineering, and communications technology.

Conversely, Qatari FDI stock in the US reached $3.3bn in 2023, with investments concentrated in financial services, energy and real estate.

US-UAE investments

In 2023, the total stock of US FDI in the UAE reached $16.1bn.

According to the Reuters news agency, in 2023, the main FDI drivers were manufacturing, finance and insurance, construction and wholesale and retail trade sectors.

Meanwhile, UAE FDI stock in the US totalled $35bn in 2023 – in financial services, transport, food and beverages, aerospace, and business services, according to the Commerce Department.

In March, UAE National Security Adviser Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan met Trump and committed $1.4 trillion in investments to the US over 10 years in sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, energy and manufacturing.

Weapons trade between the nations

The US is the biggest exporter of arms globally and a top supplier to Gulf countries.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia each accounted for 6.8 percent of the world’s total arms imports for 2020-24, making them the third and fourth largest importers globally.

The UAE is the 11th largest importer of arms, accounting for 2.6 percent of global imports for the same period.

Saudi Arabia is the main recipient of US arms, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Between 2020 and 2024, Saudi Arabia received 12 percent of the US’s total arms exports.

About 74 percent of Saudi arms imports come from the US.

Trump is poised to offer Saudi Arabia an arms package worth more than $100bn during his trip, according to Reuters.

In the 2020-24 period, the US was the top supplier of arms to Qatar, accounting for 48 percent of its imports.

In March, the US Department of State approved a large weapons package to Qatar worth $2bn, which includes long-range maritime surveillance drones and hundreds of missiles and bombs.

In the same period, the US was also the top supplier of weapons to the UAE, accounting for 42 percent of the country’s arms imports.

Loren Landau, a professor at Oxford University, explains the message the US Trump administration is trying to send to the world by granting some white South Africans refugee status. The first group of 49 people is set to land in Texas on May 12.

That “little bit” of progress was the start of a long journey.

Suppiah, with help from the Professional Cricketers’ Association (PCA), a team of experts and his girlfriend and her family, realised something had to change.

“You do know that you have to eat and you have to get better, otherwise your organs will fail you,” said Suppiah, who was born in Malaysia and came to England to further his cricket and attend Millfield School.

Slow and steady was the key. He would eat eight small meals a day with the aim of returning to a healthy weight, but the journey to recovery was not a straight line.

“In the first instance I was recovering for the wrong reasons,” he said. “I was recovering because I didn’t want to let anyone down or I was doing it because I had no choice.

“My recovery was very up and down. I would sometimes put on weight, then I’d lose weight and vice-versa.

“Then I realised that actually, I’m just kidding myself and what I had to find out was the recovery was for my own good and for my own purpose. That’s when I started to believe in and trust the process.”

For Suppiah, that process included reading online case studies, discovering real-life stories and attending local support groups in the community. “I needed to connect with somebody else who was going through the same,” he said.

Brian Johnson, also known as the Liver King, was a huge star on social media

A TikToker who goes by the moniker Liver King faced intense backlash after he confessed to steroid use, despite having promoted a physique he claimed was achievable through an ‘ancestral’ way of living that included consuming testicles.

He amassed millions of fans by showing off his raw meat-based diet, extreme fitness regime, and adherence to traditional gender roles, while marketing his range of supplements and advocating for nine fundamental life pillars: sleep, eat, move, shield, connect, cold, sun, fight, and bond.

Johnson, who repeatedly denied he had used steroids, was forced to issue a public apology following the leak of an email revealing his $11,000 monthly spend on performance-enhancing drugs. He subsequently owned up on YouTube, saying: “Yes, I’ve done steroids, and yes, I’m on steroids.”

Get Netflix free with Sky

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

from £15

Sky

Get the deal here

Sky is giving away a free Netflix subscription with its new Sky Stream TV bundles, including the £15 Essential TV plan.

This lets members watch live and on-demand TV content without a satellite dish or aerial and includes hit shows like The Last of Us and Black Mirror.

The polarising influencer, whose real name is Brian Johnson, is now at the centre of a brand-new Netflix documentary that launched today (May 13). The film presents interviews with Johnson himself, his family, and those who supported him as he built up his enterprise.

The documentary’s synopsis reads: “He built a supplement empire by devouring raw meat on social media. And he had the muscles to prove it. But really, how did the Liver King get so huge?”

Where is the Liver King now?

Some of his followers may have had their trust in their fitness idol shaken after he disclosed using steroids, yet he still commands a massive audience on social media despite infrequent posts. He currently holds a whopping 6.1m TikTok followers, 2.9 million on Instagram, and has crossed the 1 million mark on YouTube, reports Surrey Live.

The documentary’s emotional climax features Johnson as he undergoes a transformation in outlook from his previously “extreme” regimen. He’s now cut out steroids and radically increased his consumption of fruits and vegetables.

In a memorable sequence, he’s shown expressing gratitude to each strawberry before consuming it.

“I was so convinced all of the carnivore stuff, well, that’s all you needed to really kick ass in life. I’m convinced now I was starving myself,” he reflects. “I guess I want the world to know that I was wrong. I got all of it wrong… There’s a lot more that I don’t know than I do know.

“An extreme approach to anything probably ain’t f****** working out. That’s probably the cautionary tale.”

The social media star has already plotted out his future venture, and is shown on camera revealing his plans for a series of 302 health and fitness retreats in a ranch-like setting.

Responses to the Netflix documentary are split so far. One disgruntled subscriber said: “Netflix, this might be rock bottom for you,” while another vented: “I hate that Netflix gave him a platform. So sick.”

UNTOLD: The Liver King is now streaming on Netflix