Category: News

After the beginning of Trump’s second term, the connections between capitalism, white supremacy and imperial domination became increasingly clear. These have been highlighted through ICE raids as modern-day slave patrols, global criminal operations such as the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, and United States assistance to Israel’s genocide in Gaza as a bipartisan US and transnational corporate experiment.

The growing understanding that people in the Global South, along with Black, Indigenous and other People of Colour (BIPOC) within the imperial core, face a common enemy has galvanised an anti-colonial, revolutionary movement committed to radical transformation.

And then the release of the Epstein files flooded public discourse.

Jeffrey Epstein was a financier convicted of sex crimes involving minors. After renewed federal charges in 2019, he died in jail (officially ruled a suicide). The case triggered public outrage about ruling class impunity, media focus on unsavoury associations between the political and corporate class and a plethora of conspiratorial narratives about cover-ups.

The Epstein case became far more than a criminal proceeding; it reflects a symbolic exposure of ruling class impunity and concentrated power and a spectacle of corruption within an empire in deep crisis and decline.

The Epstein case exposed ruling class criminality while simultaneously displacing structural accountability.

Importantly, “spectacle” does not mean “fake”; it means the organisation of politics through symbolic drama that displaces structural political analysis. With spectacle, social contradictions (inequality, social crises and instability) are dramatised rather than structurally challenged.

The enduring media and public fixation on the Epstein files, particularly as their release proceeds with little accountability and continued narratives that discredit and isolate survivors, serves less as accountability and more as a political diversion from systemic injustices: Racism, capitalism, the growth of the police state and ongoing international impunity.

More troubling still, it marks another step in the erosion of democracy and the consolidation of expansionist, war-driven fascism.

Fascist spectacle

In work by Walter Benjamin, Hannah Arendt, Guy Debord, Umberto Eco and others, fascist spectacle involves anti-intellectual and emotionally driven mass mobilisation around simple moral binaries (pure people v the corrupt ruling class), where action is revered while thought is reviled; the replacement of institutional process with symbolic imagery and drama; and mythic narratives of national decay and rebirth. Political theorist Roger Griffin calls this rebirth “palingenic ultranationalism”, that is, destruction as a precondition for rebirth.

The function of spectacle is to subvert principled analysis and resistance to oppression with emotion – outrage, disgust, despair and helplessness.

Conspiracy theories are the narrative engine of spectacle. They transform systemic crisis and social instability into simple, emotionally gripping stories of social taboo-breaking, centred on hidden and untouchable enemies, laying the groundwork through which authoritarian solutions are marketed as necessary and even redemptive.

When structural violence becomes visible, but accountability remains absent, public anger often seeks explanation through personalised and conspiratorial narratives rather than systemic analysis.

Amid growing distrust and corruption in mainstream media and the rise of citizen-driven and alternative social media ecosystems, conspiracy theories surrounding the Epstein case have blossomed: Claims of secret global cabals engaged in immoral sexual criminality, ritualistic fantasies involving human sacrifice, cannibalism and ancient symbolic structures and explicitly racist and anti-Semitic tropes about hidden rulers, among others.

Theories like these, whether wholly true, partially true or false, are not new; fascist movements have historically mobilised around the idea that the nation is being secretly corrupted by a degenerate ruling class, with a radical cleansing necessary to return to a righteous path.

These narratives do not expose a corrupt system; they obscure and mystify it. By sensationalising corruption into myth and providing explicit, though untouchable, targets for public outrage, they displace rigorous anti-colonial and material analyses of structural exploitation, greed and state violence with collective authoritarian longing for a strongman and the suppression of dissent to restore order.

The criminality of Epstein and the powerful figures who orbited him and participated in his abuses have come to symbolise a degenerate ruling class with identifiable names and faces, targets who could be exposed and jailed, thereby clearing the narrative space for a heroic white knight to ride in with promises of salvation.

As Hannah Arendt warned, conspiracy thinking thrives when trust in institutions collapses. The Epstein scandal intensified the sense of a ruling class operating above the law and of a justice system which protects its own, conditions ideal for authoritarian movements to exploit by insisting the system is irredeemably rigged and that only a strong leader can tear it down.

As such, the spectacle of the Epstein scandal can absorb and manipulate public outrage, redirecting it away from necessary structural accountability in the form of decolonisation and redistribution of wealth, ultimately reinforcing the very systems it appears to challenge.

In doing so, it promotes the aesthetics of politics – the spectacle – rather than grounded critiques of capitalism and imperial power. Further, it serves to distract from failures ultimately promoting oppression and war. According to Federico Caprotti, various forms of fascist spectacle produce a “collage” which both expresses and obscures the syncretic ideology of the regime.

The grand spectacle: War

When politics becomes theatre rather than collective progress dependent on accountability, transformation or reform, crisis becomes emotional drama, drama demands release (internal resolution) or escalation and escalation inevitably finds its expression in externalised war, in which the nation performs a grand spectacle of unity and sacrifice on the largest possible stage.

War acts as a stabilising force when internal contradictions cannot be resolved through collective mobilisation. With its uniforms and marches, war channels discontent by uniting a fragmented, outraged population against an externalised enemy, transforming righteous anger at the violence, oppression and greed of a ruling class into manufactured unity, heroism and meaning through violence against “the other”.

These dynamics, outlined by Benjamin decades ago, feel alarmingly familiar in the present moment, including in the spectacle surrounding the Epstein scandal.

In this context, external conflict functions not only as policy but as emotional consolidation, redirecting internal disillusionment towards collective national purpose.

Fascist forces deploy such spectacles to distract and mobilise, and are doing so presently; accelerating the dismantling of what remains of US democracy and the post-war international order, to be replaced by a system ruled by force and naked self-interest.

Spectacle politics does not require loyalty to specific leaders but to the emotional narrative they embody, rendering individual figures ultimately expendable.

In this logic, even Trump could be discarded, sacrificed to clear the way for a “purer” white male strongman (Vance? Pence? Carlson?) who promises to cleanse the ruling class and by extension its foreign so-called “handlers” (enemies like Russia, China and Iran or even allies like Israel and Europe, the latter already being threatened by Trump), of its unsavoury elements, particularly if Trump’s baggage with Epstein proves politically irredeemable.

By contrast, liberation and reconciliation and an end to capitalist oppression, with its accompanying genocidal violence and planetary destruction, require a steadfast structural framework aligned with broader leftist, antiracist and anti-colonial principles. Such a framework prioritises systemic transformation over spectacle. Within this view, the Epstein scandal is not treated as the disease itself, but as a symptom of capitalism’s inherent corruption.

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

After months of a crippling oil blockade on Cuba imposed by the United States, the fuel-starved country may now see some relief after the US government said it would begin authorising companies to resell Venezuelan oil, even as tensions between the two reach a head.

On Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury said it would allow the resale of Venezuelan oil for “commercial and humanitarian use” in Cuba as the small island nation faces one of its worst fuel crises in decades.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Venezuela is the largest provider of oil to Cuba. However, since US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January and imprisoned him to face drugs and weapons charges in a New York court, the Donald Trump administration has taken control of Caracas’s oil and halted exports to Havana.

Washington has long had frosty relations with Cuba, but Trump’s administration is specifically seeking regime change there by the end of 2026, US media has reported.

The US’s policy shift this week, however, comes after Caribbean leaders sounded the alarm about the dire situation in Cuba, an island nation of 10.9 million people.

At a regional meeting of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries on Wednesday, attended by US Secretary of State and Cuban-American Marco Rubio, Jamaica’s Prime Minister Andrew Holness called on Washington to ease the pressure.

“Today, many Cubans are facing serious economic hardship, energy shortages, and growing humanitarian challenges,” Holness said. Cuba is not a CARICOM member but shares close ties.

“We are sensitive to their struggles. But we must also recognise that a prolonged crisis in Cuba will not remain there. It can impact migration, security and economic stability across the Caribbean, including Jamaica,” he added.

What’s the situation in Cuba now?

Cuba’s state-dominated economy was already struggling under a US embargo which has been in place since 1962, dating back to Havana’s alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Since then, sanctions on Cuba have eased and tightened under various US administrations.

The long-running sanctions have severely weakened Cuba, causing the country to become highly dependent on imports, and high inflation routinely leads to food and energy shortages. Mass emigration of Cuba’s skilled labour force, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has added to the country’s difficulties.

With Trump’s latest oil embargo, the US has added a severe energy crisis to the mix. Widespread power blackouts of up to 20 hours at a time are now being reported across Cuba, impacting hospitals, businesses and households alike.

Surgeries have been suspended, schools have cancelled classes, and waste trucks are parked as rubbish piles up in the streets.

Four United Nations special rapporteurs warned in early February that the situation is contributing to a severe public health problem in the country and said it could lead to a “severe humanitarian” crisis.

Cuba has lost 90 percent of its fuel supply, and despite shutting beach resorts and restricting aviation fuel sales, the country could experience a total blackout as early as late February, according to Ignacio Seni, a risk analyst writing for the US-based intelligence firm Crisis 24.

Why has the US  blocked oil deliveries to Cuba?

Cuba produces crude oil but does not have the capacity to refine enough to meet domestic demand.

Venezuela was providing as much as 50 percent of Cuba’s oil before the US government took control of its oil industry at the start of this year, about 35,000 barrels per day.

Under a special barter agreement in place since 2000, Cuba provides support for education, healthcare, and security services in return for discounted Venezuelan fuel. Indeed, about 30 members of Maduro’s security detail who were killed in the operation to abduct him in January were from Cuba.

Then, days after Maduro was abducted, Trump turned his aim at Cuba itself, warning Havana to “make a deal before it is too late”. He did not, however, give details about what type of deal he wanted.

On January 29, Trump issued an executive order imposing new trade tariffs on any countries selling oil to Cuba because of what he called the “policies, practices and actions” of the Cuban government, which, he said, pose an “extraordinary threat” to the US.

Trump also claimed, without evidence, that Havana funds “terrorism”.

Besides Venezuela, Cuba was also sourcing oil from Mexico, Russia and Algeria, but all oil imports into the country ceased. Trump’s order, therefore, effectively amounted to a blockade.

The US has also reportedly seized fuel tankers in open waters transferring oil to Cuba, according to a New York Times investigation into ship movements in the Caribbean Sea published last week.

The US began building up its naval presence in the area in September last year as it prepared to attack Maduro, and its troops continue to patrol the waters.

In mid-February, one tanker loaded with Colombian oil was intercepted by the US Coast Guard as it came within 70 miles of Cuba, the Times reported. The vehicle, called the Ocean Mariner, was previously used to covertly transport oil between Venezuela and Iran.

Before Maduro’s capture, US forces also struck multiple Venezuelan boats in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean that the US claimed – without evidence – were trafficking drugs.

How have Cuba and others reacted to the US blockade?

Cuban authorities under President Miguel Diaz-Canel have accused the US of imposing collective punishment on the country.

On Wednesday, it also accused the US of links to armed men who entered the country’s waters on a Florida-tagged speedboat. Four Americans of Cuban origin were killed in the altercation, and two were injured.

In the past, Havana has said it is open to “reciprocal dialogue” with Washington, but Diaz-Canel has also said Cubans will “defend the Homeland to the last drop of blood”.

Meanwhile, on February 12, a UN expert panel condemned the US’s directive as illegal and said the claim that Havana funds terrorism “lacks credibility and appears designed to justify the use of extraordinary and coercive powers”.

“It is an extreme form of unilateral economic coercion with extraterritorial effects, through which the United States seeks to exert coercion on the sovereign state of Cuba and compel other sovereign third States to alter their lawful commercial relations,” the panel said.

Other countries are trying to help. Mexico has sent two deployments of humanitarian aid to Havana between mid-February and this week, while Russia has floated the possibility of sending fuel to Cuba.

On Wednesday, Canada pledged food aid with 8 million Canadian dollars ($6.7m).

What relief has the US announced now, and will it change anything?

Washington said on Wednesday it would issue companies with special licences to resell Venezuelan oil to Cuba “in solidarity” with the Cuban people.

That came after Washington announced $6m in humanitarian aid to Cuba to be distributed by the Catholic Church in early February.

However, “persons or entities associated with the Cuban military, intelligence services, or other government institutions” will be barred from obtaining oil sales licences, the US Treasury Department said this week.

Transactions should only support “exports for commercial and humanitarian use”, the statement added.

It is unclear if the new order will allow Havana to continue buying Venezuelan oil at a heavily subsidised rate as it was previously doing. If it does not, the situation may not ease significantly for Cuba, experts say.

“Without significant oil imports or a relenting of US pressure, Cuba’s economy is unlikely to recover, and the degradation of conditions is likely to accelerate,” Seni, the Crisis 24 risk analyst, wrote.

In January 2003, President George W Bush stood before the United States Congress to warn of a “grave danger” from a “dictator”, a former US client in the Middle East, armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Twenty-three years later, in the same chamber, President Donald Trump used his State of the Union address to paint a strikingly similar narrative: A rogue regime, a looming nuclear threat, and a ticking clock.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

In a dark twist of historical irony, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who was armed to the teeth by the US in Iraq’s 1980-1988 war with the fledgling Islamic Republic of Iran, became Washington’s public enemy number one, surpassing Osama bin Laden. Now, that label has been seemingly applied to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a key leader during that ruinous war against Iraq that left a million dead.

But while the “war script” sounds familiar, the geopolitical stage has shifted dramatically.

As Washington pivots from the neoconservatives’ “preemptive” doctrine of the Bush era to what experts are calling the “preventive maintenance” of the Trump era – following the June 2025 strikes on Iran in tandem with Israel’s attack in the 12-day war – questions are mounting about the intelligence, the endgame, and the alarming lack of checks and balances.

The semiotics of fear: From clouds to tunnels

In 2003, the visual language of war was vertical: The fear of a “mushroom cloud” rising over US cities, or a biological weapon seeping into populated areas. Today, the fear has gone in the other direction: Purportedly deep underground.

“The administration is updating the visual dictionary of fear,” says Osama Abu Irshaid, a Washington-based political analyst. “They are exaggerating the nuclear threat exactly as the Bush administration did with the ‘smoking gun’ metaphor. But there is a key difference: In 2003, US intelligence was manipulated to align with the lie. In 2026, the intelligence assessments actually contradict Trump’s claims.”

While Trump asserted in his State of the Union address that Iran is “rebuilding” its nuclear programme to strike the US mainland, his own officials offer conflicting narratives. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt insisted Tuesday, parroting her boss, that the 2025 “Operation Midnight Hammer” had “obliterated” Iran’s facilities. Yet, days earlier, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Tehran was “a week away” from the bomb.

This “information chaos”, analysts argue, serves a specific purpose: Keeping the threat vague enough to justify perpetual military pressure.

“Bush benefitted from the post-9/11 anger to link Iraq to an existential threat,” Abu Irshaid told Al Jazeera. “Trump doesn’t have that. Iran hasn’t attacked the US homeland. So, he has to fabricate a direct threat, claiming their ballistic missiles can reach America – a claim unsupported by technical realities.”

The regime change quagmire

Perhaps the most glaring contrast with 2003 is the internal coherence of the administration.

The Bush team – Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz – moved in ideological lockstep. Cheney famously predicted US troops would be “greeted as liberators”.

They were anything but. The made-for-television scene of a statue of Saddam Hussein being torn down in central Baghdad quickly gave way to sustained, organised fighting against the US occupation, heavy US troop losses, as well as sectarian bloodletting that forced Iraq onto the cusp of all-out civil war.

Bush declaring major combat operations over under a huge “Mission Accomplished” banner in May 2003 came back to haunt his administration and the US for years to come.

The Trump team of 2026 appears far more fractured, torn between “America First” isolationism and aggressive interventionism.

• The official line: Vice President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth have publicly stated the goal is not regime change. “We are not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear programme,” Vance said Sunday.
• The president’s instinct: Trump contradicted them on social media, posting: “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

“The Neocons who hijacked policy under Bush have been weakened,” notes Abu Irshaid. “But they have been replaced by figures like Stephen Miller, who holds absolute loyalty to Trump and close ties to the Israeli right. Trump is driven by instinct, not strategy. He seeks the ‘victory’ that eluded his predecessors: The total hollowing out of Iran, whether through zero-enrichment surrender or collapse.”

The lonely superpower: Coercion over coalition

In 2003, Bush and United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair worked tirelessly to build a “Coalition of the Willing”. It was a diplomatic veneer, but it existed. Blair remains a much-loathed figure in the Middle East and in some quarters in the West for giving diplomatic cover to the Iraq debacle.

In 2026, the US is operating in stark isolation.

“Trump is not building a coalition; he is alienating allies,” Abu Irshaid explains. He points to a pattern of “extortion” extending from tariffs on the European Union to attempts to “buy” Greenland. “The Europeans see the coercion used against Iran and fear it could be turned against them. Unlike 2003, only Israel is fully on board.”

This isolation was highlighted when the UK reportedly refused to allow the US to use island bases for strikes on Iran, forcing B-2 bombers to fly 18-hour missions directly from the US mainland during the 2025 campaign.

The collapse of checks and balances

Following the damning intelligence failures and lies of the Iraq war, promises were made to strengthen congressional oversight. Two decades later, those guardrails appear to have vanished.

Despite efforts by US Representatives Ro Khanna (a Democrat) and Thomas Massie (a Republican) to invoke a “discharge petition” to block an unauthorised war, the political reality is grim.

“The concept of checks and balances is facing a severe test,” warns Abu Irshaid. “The Republican Party is now effectively the party of Trump. The Supreme Court leans right. Trump is operating with expanded post-9/11 powers that allow for ‘limited strikes’ – strikes that can easily spiral into the open war he claims to avoid.”

With the administration citing “32,000” protesters killed by Tehran – a figure significantly higher than independent estimates, and which Iran dismissed as “big lies” on Wednesday – the moral groundwork for escalation is being laid, bypassing the need for United Nations resolutions or congressional approval.

As US and Iranian negotiators meet in Geneva for make-or-break talks under the shadow of last year’s “Operation Midnight Hammer”, the question remains: Are the two nations with decades of enmity boiling between them on the brink of a new deal, or the prelude to a war that could ignite the entire region in flames?

Paris Agreement’s carbon credits enable cross-border trade to support emissions reduction and climate goals worldwide.

The United Nations has approved the first credits to be issued under a carbon market established by the Paris climate accord, aimed at reducing emissions – a mechanism that has faced scrutiny over greenwashing concerns.

The UN-run market allows companies and countries to offset their excess emissions by financing projects that cut greenhouse gases in other nations.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The UN Climate Change announced on Thursday that the new initiative involves a clean cooking project in Myanmar, which distributes efficient cookstoves that reduce pressure on local forests. Implemented in partnership with a South Korean company, the project will generate credits that will count towards the climate targets of South Korea and Myanmar.

“Over two billion people globally are without access to clean cooking, which kills millions every year. Clean cooking protects health, saves forests, cuts emissions and helps empower women and girls, who are typically hardest hit by household air pollution,” UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said in a statement.

The new mechanism “can support solutions that make a big difference in people’s daily lives, as well as channelling finance to where it delivers real-life benefits on the ground”, Stiell added.

But some critics fear that, if set up poorly, such schemes can undermine the world’s efforts to curb global warming by allowing countries or companies to greenwash – or overstate – their emissions reductions.

The UN climate agency said the credited emissions reductions are 40 percent lower than under a previous scheme, as more conservative calculations are applied under the new Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM).

“Our focus is on building confidence in this market from the outset, and this first issuance shows that the system is working as intended,” Jacqui Ruesga, vice chair of the UN body supervising the PACM, said in a statement.

The stoves in the Myanmar project burn woody biomass more efficiently, meaning they need less fuel and emit far less smoke inside the home. But at current rates, only 78 percent of the population is expected to have access to clean cooking by 2030, the World Health Organization said.

The 2015 Paris Agreement, which commits the world to limiting warming to well below 2C (3.6F) and ideally at 1.5C (2.7F), also envisaged that countries could take part in cross-border trade of carbon reductions.

New rules were agreed at the UN’s COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024 for the carbon market mechanism. At the time, Greenpeace said the agreement left loopholes that would allow fossil fuel companies to continue polluting. But other environmentalists said that, while not perfect, it provided some clarity that was absent from global efforts to regulate carbon credits.

Nurul Amin Shah Alam, 56, was a nearly blind Rohingya refugee from Rakhine state in Myanmar, family members said.

A nearly blind Rohingya refugee from Myanmar has been found dead in Buffalo, New York, days after the United States Border Patrol left him miles away from his home following his release from a county jail, authorities said.

The body of Nurul Amin Shah Alam, 56, was located by police officers in the city in upstate New York on Tuesday evening, a Buffalo Police Department spokesperson said on Wednesday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Shah Alam had been missing since February 19, when US Border Patrol agents dropped him off at a coffee shop following his release from a county jail.

Mayor of Buffalo Sean Ryan, a Democrat, said in a statement on Wednesday that Shah Alam’s death was preventable and the result of “inhumane” decision-making by federal immigration authorities.

“A vulnerable man – nearly blind and unable to speak English – was left alone on a cold winter night ‌with no known attempt to leave him in a safe, secure location,” Ryan said.

“That decision from US Customs and Border Protection was unprofessional and inhumane,” he added.

Several US representatives called for an investigation into the circumstances of Shah Alam’s death on Wednesday, including Grace Meng, a Democrat representing areas of New York City, who described a “shocking breach of responsibility and basic humanity by federal enforcement”.

Mohamad Faisal, one of Shah Alam’s children, said nobody had told his family or their lawyer where their father had been left by authorities after his release from prison, according to the Reuters news agency.

Faisal said the family were Rohingya refugees from Arakan state, officially known as Rakhine state, in Myanmar, and that his father could not read, write or use electronic devices.

He said his father’s arrest a year ago was due to a misunderstanding after police were called when Shah Alam wandered onto private property, while carrying a curtain rod he had purchased as a walking stick due to his impaired vision.

His father had not understood when police, speaking in English, told him to drop the curtain rod, and he was held in jail for close to one year, before being released following a misdemeanour plea deal, Faisal said.

His father had only wanted to “eat home-cooked food” and “be united with the rest of [his] family”, he added.

In a statement to Investigative Post, a Buffalo-based news outlet, a US Customs and Border Patrol spokesperson said agents dropped Shah Alam off at a coffee shop after agents determined he had entered the country as a refugee and could not be deported.

“Border Patrol agents offered him a courtesy ride, which he chose to accept to a coffee shop, determined to be a warm, safe location near his last known address, rather than be released directly from the Border Patrol station,” the agency said.

“He showed no signs of distress, mobility issues or disabilities requiring special assistance,” the spokesperson said.

Temperatures in Buffalo, a city near the Canadian border, were below freezing last weekend.

The death is being investigated by homicide detectives, the spokesperson from the Buffalo Police Department said, according to Reuters.

Shah Alam’s death comes as an immigration crackdown enforced by the administration of US President Donald Trump is facing increased scrutiny.

At least six immigrants have died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency custody since the beginning of this year.

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are set to appear before the House Oversight Committee as part of its investigation into the network of influence and crime run by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Both depositions are planned to take place in Chappaqua, New York, where the Clintons reside.

Here is what to know.

What is a Congressional deposition, and how does it work?

It’s a sworn, out-of-court testimony given as part of a congressional investigation.

The witnesses – in this case, the Clintons – will testify under oath, behind closed doors, and respond to questions from committee lawyers and investigators.

The session will be recorded and transcribed, and knowingly providing false statements can result in legal consequences.

In the Clintons’ case, they initially resisted testifying, arguing that the inquiry was politically motivated.

They ultimately agreed to appear after the House signalled it was prepared to move towards a bipartisan vote to hold them in contempt, a step that could have led to criminal charges.

“No one is accusing the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said. “We just have a lot of questions.”

When are the depositions taking place, and how did we end up here?

The depositions will take place near the Clintons’ house in Chappaqua, rather than on Capitol Hill.

Hillary is scheduled to testify on Thursday, February 26, followed by Bill Clinton on Friday, February 27.

Both depositions will be held behind closed doors, transcribed and filmed.

Congressional depositions are typically scheduled during normal business hours – often starting between 9-10am local time (14:00-15:00 GMT) – but the committee has not publicly confirmed times. Earlier, they had been ordered to appear at 10am (15:00 GMT) for previous iterations of the subpoena.

The agreement to testify follows months of tense exchanges between the Clintons and Representative James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee.

Former President Bill Clinton’s deposition was first requested for October 2025 and later rescheduled for December. He declined to appear, citing a funeral. A follow-up subpoena set a new date of January 13, 2026, but he did not attend.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deposition was initially scheduled for October 9, 2025, and later moved to December 18. A subsequent subpoena set January 14, 2026, as the new date, and she also did not appear.

The Clintons have argued that the subpoenas were legally invalid and accused Comer of targeting them as part of what they described as a broader campaign of political retribution aligned with former President Donald Trump.

But earlier this month, the Clintons not only agreed to the depositions but argued that they should be held publicly. This, they argued, would both demonstrate to viewers across the United States that they had nothing to hide, and minimise the politicisation of their testimonies by House Republicans.

The depositions come nearly three decades after then-President Bill Clinton sat for a six-hour videotaped deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, where she alleged Clinton made unwanted sexual advances towards her in 1991 when he was governor.

During that sworn testimony in 1998, Clinton was questioned not only about Jones’s allegations but also about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

He denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, a statement that later led to accusations of perjury and ultimately to his impeachment by the House of Representatives.

What is the House Oversight Committee investigating?

In this case, the House Oversight Committee is examining matters related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his network of associates.

Epstein was an American financier and convicted sex offender who used his vast wealth and high-profile social connections to orchestrate a decade-long sex trafficking ring involving dozens of underage girls.

In 2019, federal prosecutors charged Epstein with sex trafficking minors, alleging he had operated a scheme in which underage girls were recruited and abused at his properties. He died in a Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial; authorities ruled his death a suicide.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton in connection with Epstein. However, scrutiny intensified after Bill Clinton was mentioned in a major batch of unsealed Epstein-related court documents released in early 2024.

Public attention was renewed again in late 2025 and early 2026, when additional records were made public under federal transparency measures, prompting new political pressure and helping set the stage for the current congressional inquiry.

The House Oversight Committee says it’s conducting a multifaceted investigation primarily centred around the activities of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Specifically, the Committee is investigating the following areas:

• The alleged mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation into Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and longtime associate of Epstein, who is currently in jail facing trial.

• The circumstances and subsequent investigations of Epstein’s death while in federal custody.
• The operation of sex-trafficking rings, with a focus on discovering ways for the federal government to effectively combat them.
• The ways in which Epstein and Maxwell sought to curry favour and exercise influence to protect their illegal activities from scrutiny.
• Potential violations of ethics rules related to current and former elected officials.

Committee leaders say the information gathered could inform potential legislative reforms, including stricter anti–sex trafficking measures, tougher ethical standards for public officials and changes to how non-prosecution or plea agreements are used in sex-crime cases.

What was Bill Clinton’s known connection to Jeffrey Epstein?

Bill Clinton has acknowledged that he knew Epstein in the early 2000s.

Flight logs and court documents show that Clinton flew on Epstein’s private plane multiple times.

A CNN analysis found that he appeared on the flight logs at least 16 times between 2002 and 2003.

The former president has said the trips were tied to work for the Clinton Foundation.

He said he met Epstein through mutual acquaintances and maintained that their interactions were limited to those trips and related meetings.

In a 2019 statement following Epstein’s arrest, Clinton said he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal conduct at the time and had not spoken to him for years before his arrest.

Court documents unsealed in 2024 referenced Clinton but did not allege criminal wrongdoing. Additional records released later included photographs showing Clinton with Epstein and Maxwell, also showing a swimming pool in one of Epstein’s residences.

Is Hillary Clinton alleged to have had any direct connection to Epstein?

There is no public evidence that Hillary Clinton had a direct relationship with Epstein or was involved in his activities.

According to a report by USA Today, her name appears more than 700 times in the Epstein files, with the majority being news articles about her 2016 presidential campaign that were shared with Epstein.

She has insisted that she never met Epstein.

She has also been questioned about her connection with Maxwell, primarily in the context of large events like the Clinton Global Initiative.

Clinton said in an interview with the BBC on February 17 that she met Maxwell “on a few occasions”.

Maxwell was reported to have also attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010.

With the fasting month of Ramadan under way, many Muslims around the world are preparing to fulfil another essential pillar of their faith: Giving zakat.

Zakat is a compulsory form of charity in Islam, aimed at supporting the needy and promoting economic equality.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

While many choose to pay zakat during Ramadan for its spiritual rewards, it can be given at any time within a year.

Since last Ramadan, the price of gold has nearly doubled, from about $2,900 per ounce to more than $5,100 today.

A higher gold price directly affects zakat in two ways: First, it changes the eligibility threshold (nisab), meaning more individuals may now be exempt from paying zakat. Second, it increases the monetary amount owed based on one’s gold holdings, resulting in a greater overall contribution to charity.

In this visual explainer, we answer common questions about zakat to help you understand its purpose, calculations and types.

What are zakat and sadaqah?

Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam, making it a core act of worship. The word zakat means purification or growth and is commanded in the Quran as a means to purify wealth, promote social justice and help those in need.

Zakat is mandatory for Muslims who meet the financial threshold, known as nisab, and is given annually at a fixed percentage of 2.5 (one-40th) of one’s wealth. More on how this is calculated, later.

Sadaqah, on the other hand, is a voluntary charity of any amount that can be given at any time.

Who is required to give zakat?

Zakat is obligatory for adult Muslims whose wealth is above the nisab threshold, the minimum amount needed to be eligible to pay zakat.

This year, the nisab is equivalent to 85g (3 troy ounces) of gold, or roughly $15,000 based on current market prices. Last year, the nisab was about $8,000.

Although 85g is a widely accepted modern standard used by many organisations, the classical weight is 20 mithqals or 7.5 tolas, both traditional units of weight used for measuring precious metals, equivalent to roughly 87.48g.

In addition to the gold standard for determining the nisab amount, there is also a silver standard. The nisab based on silver is equivalent to 595g (19 troy ounces) of the metal. This accommodates different economic conditions and ensures that zakat is accessible and relevant to a wide range of people.

If a Muslim’s wealth remains above this threshold for a full lunar year, they must pay zakat.

How is zakat calculated?

The standard zakat rate is 2.5 percent (one-40th) of one’s eligible wealth.

For example, if one’s wealth liable to zakat is $20,000, the due amount is $500 ($20,000 × 2.5% = $500).

Calculation of zakat if you own gold

If you own physical gold like bars, coins, or jewellery, you should calculate your zakat based on its current market value, not the price you originally paid.

Understanding the value of a gold item requires knowing its weight in troy ounces alongside its purity in karats. One troy ounce is equal to 31.1035g.

At $5,100 per troy ounce, 1g of pure gold is worth about $164.

Karat or carat (abbreviated as “K” or “ct”) measures the purity of a gold item. Pure gold is 24 karats, while lower karats such as 22, 18, and 9 indicate that the gold is mixed with less expensive metals like silver, copper, or zinc.

To determine the purity of gold, jewellers are required to stamp a number onto the item, such as 24K or a numeric value like 999, which indicates it is 99.9 percent pure. For example, 18K gold will typically have a stamp of 750, signifying that it is 75 percent pure.

It’s worth noting that different Islamic schools of thought differentiate between gold used as wearable jewellery and gold stored as an investment when determining whether it is subject to zakat.

To calculate zakat on gold jewellery, you can follow this formula:

1. Pure weight (24k)  = (Total weight of your gold item in grammes x karats)/24
2. Gold price (g) = Current price of gold(in troy ounces)/31.1035
3. Zakat amount = (Pure weight (24k) in grammes x gold price in grammes) x 0.025

For example, if you own an 18-karat necklace that weighs 40g:

1. Pure weight (24k) = (18 x 40)/24 = 30g
2. Gold price (g) = $5,100/31.1035 = $164
3. Zakat amount = (30 x 164)x0.025 = $123

If the necklace is your only savings, you would be below the nisab threshold. If not, you would be required to pay $123 zakat for that item of gold.

You can use the calculator below to calculate zakat owed on gold items:

What are the different types of zakat?

There are two main types of zakat: Zakat al-mal and zakat al-fitr.

Zakat al-mal, meaning “zakat on wealth”, is the most commonly known form of zakat. It is an obligation requiring Muslims whose wealth exceeds the nisab threshold to donate 2.5 percent of their assets annually.

Zakat al-fitr is a mandatory charitable donation of food before the Eid prayer, marking the end of Ramadan. It is given to help those in need to celebrate Eid. The amount is generally equivalent to the cost of one meal for a person.

What assets are zakatable?

Zakat must be paid on assets and savings, kept to resell or profit from, including:

• Saving and cash
• Gold and silver
• Business assets and profits
• Investments
• Agricultural produce and livestock

Zakat is not required on assets in use for daily life, such as:

• The house you live in
• Your car
• Essential property like clothing, furniture and appliances

Who can receive zakat?

Zakat is designed to help alleviate poverty and support the less fortunate. So it must be given to Muslims who meet the criteria of need and lack of wealth. The Quran specifies eight categories of people eligible to receive zakat:

1. The poor – those with little or no income
2. The needy – those who have some resources but not enough for a stable life
3. Zakat administrators – individuals or organisations responsible for collecting and distributing zakat
4. New Muslims – converts or those inclined towards Islam who need financial support
5. People in debt – those burdened by debts they cannot repay
6. Stranded travellers – those who lack financial support while away from home
7. People working in welfare – individuals engaged in religious, educational, or humanitarian efforts
8. Captives and slaves – historically used to free enslaved people; now applied to modern equivalents like bonded labour.

Zakat cannot be given to immediate family members who are considered one’s financial responsibility (like parents, children or spouses). It cannot be given to those who have wealth above the nisab threshold, either.

When should zakat be paid?

Once a Muslim’s wealth surpasses the nisab threshold, they are required to pay zakat, provided they have had possession of this wealth for a full lunar year (known as hawl).

So, if someone’s wealth remains above the nisab threshold for an entire year, they are obligated to pay zakat.

However, if wealth drops below the nisab during the year, there is no need to pay zakat.

For example, if someone’s wealth exceeds the nisab for several months but then drops below it before completing a full year, they are not required to pay zakat. Only when their wealth remains above the nisab for a continuous lunar year does the obligation to pay zakat arise.

If someone misses paying zakat in previous years, they must calculate and pay it retroactively.

Zakat can be given directly to those in need or through trusted charities and organisations that distribute it accordingly. While it is encouraged to help those nearby, it can also be given internationally where there is a greater need.

By requiring wealthy individuals to give a portion of their assets, zakat prevents wealth from accumulating in the hands of a few and encourages a more equitable distribution of resources, promoting economic balance and reducing income inequality.

Robinson is notorious in the UK where he has been accused of promoting hatred against Muslims and organising mass anti-migrant protests.

British far-right activist Tommy Robinson says he visited the United States Department of State as part of a recent trip to Washington, DC, where he was welcomed by government officials and supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.

“In America making alliances & friendships, today I had the privilege of an invite to the @StateDept,” Robinson posted on X on Wednesday, alongside a photo of himself next to a US flag.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Robinson is a household name in the UK, notorious for his anti-Muslim rhetoric and multiple prison terms. He was also a cofounder of the now-defunct far-right English Defence League – a street protest movement.

US State Department official Joe Rittenhouse, who is a senior adviser for the department’s Consular Affairs bureau, said he met with Robinson, calling him a “free speech warrior”.

“Honored to have free speech warrior @TRobinsonNewEra at Department of State today. The World and the West is a better place when we fight for freedom of speech and no one has been on the front lines more than Tommy. Good to see you my friend!” Rittenhouse said in an X post.

Rittenhouse posted photos of what appeared to be Robinson touring the State Department.

The State Department did not answer questions from the Reuters news agency on who else Robinson met, what was discussed and what the objective of his visit was.

A representative for the United Kingdom’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, has become an icon for British nationalists and one of the UK’s most high-profile anti-migration campaigners, organising a large rally last September in London attended by about 150,000 people.

Social media posts show that during his trip to Washington, Robinson also met far-right US influencer Jack Posobiec and filmed a video with Congressman Randy Fine, a Republican from Florida, who has a history of anti-Muslim rhetoric. Robinson said on X that he will next travel to Florida.

Robinson’s visit to the US State Department follows a surge in support from the administration of President Donald Trump for far-right activists in the UK and Europe under the pretext of protecting “free speech”.

In December, the Trump administration accused Europe of engaging in “civilisational erasure” due to demographic and cultural changes from what Washington has described as weak immigration policies.

US Vice President JD Vance took aim at European countries during his first international trip last year, accusing the region’s leaders of stifling free speech – particularly voices from the far right – and being lax on migration to the detriment of their societies.

“No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants,” Vance said in remarks that shocked European leaders.

The UK and European countries have stronger rules on hate speech than the US, and the European Union has taken a proactive stance on regulating social media and internet content – positions that have angered the White House.

Robinson was banned from Twitter in 2018, but his account was restored in 2022 following its acquisition by Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX.

US eases oil embargo on Cuba as Caribbean neighbours warn worsening humanitarian crisis could destabilise region.

The United States has said it will allow the resale of some Venezuelan oil to Cuba in a move that could ease the island’s acute fuel shortages, as neighbouring countries raised the alarm over a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation caused by Washington’s oil blockade.

In a statement on Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury said it would authorise companies seeking licences to resell Venezuelan oil for “commercial and humanitarian use in Cuba”.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

It said the new “favorable licensing policy” would not cover “persons or entities associated with the Cuban military, intelligence services, or other government institutions”.

Venezuela had been the main supplier of crude and fuel ⁠to Cuba for the past 25 years through a bilateral pact mostly based on the barter of products and services. But since the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last month and took control of the country’s oil exports, Caracas’s supply to Cuba has ceased.

Mexico, which had emerged as an alternate supplier, also halted shipments to the Caribbean island after the US threatened tariffs on countries that send oil to Cuba. The US blockade has worsened an energy crisis in Cuba that is hitting power generation and fuel for vehicles, houses and aviation.

The shift in US policy came as Caribbean leaders gathering in Saint Kitts and Nevis expressed alarm at the impacts of the blockade on the island nation of some 10.9 million people. Speaking to Caribbean leaders during a meeting of the regional political group CARICOM on Tuesday, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness affirmed solidarity with Cuba.

“Humanitarian suffering serves no one,” Holness said at the meeting. “A prolonged crisis in Cuba will not remain confined to Cuba.”

The Caribbean summit’s host, Saint Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Terrance Drew, who studied in Cuba to be a doctor, said friends have told him of food scarcity and rubbish strewn in the streets.

“A destabilised Cuba will destabilise all of us,” Drew said.

But addressing the meeting in Saint Kitts and Nevis on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that the humanitarian crisis had been caused by the Cuban government’s policies, not Washington’s blockade.

Rubio, whose parents migrated to the US from Cuba in 1956, warned that the sanctions would be snapped back if the oil winds up going to the government or military.

“Cuba needs to change. It needs to change dramatically because it is the only chance that it has to improve the quality of life for its people,” Rubio told reporters.

It is “a system that’s in collapse, and they need to make dramatic reforms”, he said.

Rubio went on to blame economic mismanagement and the lack of a vibrant private sector for the dire situation in Cuba, which has been under communist rule since Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

“This is the worst economic climate Cuba has faced. And it is the authorities there, and that government, who are responsible for that,” Rubio said.

The US pressure on Venezuela and Cuba ⁠has left several fuel cargoes undelivered since December, according to the Reuters news agency, contributing to the island’s inability to keep the lights on and cars circulating. A Cuba-related vessel that loaded Venezuelan gasoline in early February at a port operated by state-run company PDVSA remained this week anchored in Venezuelan waters waiting for authorisation to set sail.

Mexico and Canada have meanwhile announced they would be sending aid to Cuba, and Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak also said his government was discussing the possibility of providing fuel to the island.

Separately on Wednesday, Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior announced killing four people and wounding six others on board a Florida-registered speedboat that it said entered Cuban waters.

Rubio told reporters it was not a US operation and that no US government personnel were involved.

“Suffice it to say, it is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that,” he said. “ It’s not something that happens every day. It’s something frankly that hasn’t happened with Cuba in a very long time.”

Kim emphasised that Pyongyang intends to cement its position on the global stage through its nuclear capabilities.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has shuttered the door on dialogue with South Korea, claiming his forces could “completely destroy” his southern neighbour, while also signalling that the future of dialogue with the United States required Washington to discard “hostile” policies towards Pyongyang.

If Washington “respects our country’s current status as stipulated in the Constitution … and withdraws its hostile policy … there is no reason why we cannot get along well with the United States”, Kim said on Wednesday, as the country wrapped up a key week of meetings by the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK).

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

According to a report on Thursday by North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Kim also called for developing new weapons systems to bolster his nuclear-armed military.

Kim stipulated intercontinental ballistic missiles that could be launched from underwater and an expanded arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, such as artillery and short-range missiles, capable of targeting South Korea, according to KCNA.

He also said the accelerated development of Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programmes in recent years had “permanently cemented” the country’s status as a nuclear-armed state.

“Our status as a nuclear-armed country plays an important role in deterring enemies’ potential threats and maintaining regional stability,” Kim said, calling the country’s nuclear weapons “a guarantee and safety device” of its security and interests.

According to South Korea’s official Yonhap News Agency, the once every-five-years Worker’s Party congress, which brought together some 5,000 party representatives from across the country, was closed out on Wednesday with a military parade on the streets of the capital Pyongyang.

State media photos of the military parade showed formations of soldiers marching through the brightly-lit Kim Il Sung Square under a podium, where Kim and his daughter stood with senior officials.

Some troops in the parade wore camouflage and special warfare gear, and a formation of jets held a fly-by. It was not immediately clear what, if any, military ⁠hardware was on display.

The presence of Kim’s daughter, Kim Ju Ae, at the parade fuelled further speculation over ⁠whether she is being groomed as his successor.