Category: News

Three professors at Atlanta’s Emory University in the United States have filed a lawsuit over their arrests during a 2024 campus protest over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Their lawsuit on Thursday argued that the university broke its own free-speech policies when it called in police and state troopers to aggressively disband the protest, making 28 arrests.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“The judicial system would find that Emory failed to protect its students, to protect its staff, to protect the educational mission of the university,” said philosophy professor Noelle McAfee, one of the plaintiffs.

“So this isn’t just about people’s individual rights. It’s our educational mission to train people in free and critical inquiry, to be able to learn how to engage with others, to be fearless.”

Laura Diamond, a spokesperson for Emory, responded that the university believes “this lawsuit is without merit”.

“Emory acts appropriately and responsibly to keep our community safe from threats of harm,” Diamond said in a statement. “We regret this issue is being litigated, but we have confidence in the legal process.”

The suit is just one example of how the nationwide wave of protests from 2023 and 2024 continues to reverberate on elite campuses.

There have been multiple instances where students and faculty have filed lawsuits against universities, arguing they were discriminated against because of the protests.

But the Emory suit is unusual. McAfee and her fellow plaintiffs — English and Indigenous studies professor Emilio Del Valle-Escalante and economics professor Caroline Fohlin — all remain tenured faculty members. None were convicted of any charges.

The civil lawsuit in DeKalb County State Court demands that the private university repay money the three spent defending themselves against misdemeanour charges that were later dismissed, along with punitive damages.

McAfee said she’s suing her employer “to try to get them to be accountable and to change”.

All three say they were observers on April 25, 2024, when some students and others set up tents on the university’s main quad to protest the war. They say Emory broke its own policies by calling in Atlanta police and Georgia state troopers without seeking alternatives.

McAfee was charged with disorderly conduct after she said she yelled “Stop!” at an officer roughly arresting a protester. Del Valle-Escalante said he was trying to help an older woman when he was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fohlin said that, when she protested against officers pinning a protester to the ground, she herself was thrown face-first to the ground and arrested, suffering a concussion and a spine injury. Fohlin was charged with misdemeanour battery of an officer.

Emory claimed that those arrested that day were outsiders who trespassed on school property. But 20 of the 28 people arrested were affiliated with the university.

The professors said that, after their arrests, they were targeted by threats and harassment, part of a pushback by conservatives who said universities were failing to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism and allowing lawlessness.

Nationwide, however, advocates say there is a “Palestine exception” in which universities are willing to curb pro-Palestine speech and protest. Palestine Legal, a legal aid group supporting such speech, said Tuesday that it received 300 percent more legal requests in 2025 than its annual average before 2023, mostly from college students and faculty.

McAfee served as president of the Emory University Senate after her arrest. The body makes policy recommendations and has helped draft the university’s open expression policy.

She said she asked then-President Gregory Fenves in fall 2024 why Emory police weren’t dropping the charges against her and others. McAfee said Fenves told her that he wanted “to see justice”.

The open expression policy was revised after 2024 to clearly prohibit tents, camping, the occupation of university buildings and demonstrations between midnight and 7am.

Whatever the policy, McAfee said students are afraid to protest at Emory, saying the university has turned its back on what Atlanta civil rights icon John Lewis called “good trouble”.

“Students know right now that any trouble is not going to be good trouble at Emory, that they could get arrested,” she said. “So students are afraid.”

The United States Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against an active-duty soldier for placing a bet on the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, using classified military information for personal profit.

On Thursday, prosecutors accused Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, of cashing in on the operation against Maduro, to the tune of more than $400,000.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

They say he used the prediction market platform Polymarket 13 times to bet on topics including whether US forces would “invade” Venezuela and when Maduro would be removed from office. Officials framed his actions as a dire breach of public trust.

“Gannon Ken Van Dyke allegedly betrayed his fellow soldiers by utilizing classified information for his own financial gain,” said James C Barnacle Jr, an assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Van Dyke has been charged with three counts of violating the Commodity Exchange Act, one count of wire fraud and one count of carrying out an unlawful monetary transaction.

Each commodities fraud and unlawful transaction charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The wire fraud charge could result in up to 20 years.

The availability of prediction markets — online betting platforms where users can gamble on real-world events — has expanded under the second presidency of Republican leader Donald Trump.

Administration officials and close advisers to Trump, including his son Donald Trump Jr, maintain ties to the prediction market industry.

Trump Jr, for example, was named a “strategic adviser” to the prediction market Kalshi in January 2025, shortly before his father was sworn in.

In May 2025, less than five months into Trump’s second term, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission dropped its legal fight against Kalshi, paving the way for bets to be placed on political events like elections.

Since then, prediction markets have proliferated in the US, with some bets raising questions about the prospect of insider trading.

Critics fear government officials and other politicians could use the platforms to bet on actions they themselves control.

The sizeable bets made ahead of the US attack on Venezuela on January 3, 2026, were among the instances that raised red flags, with media outlets reporting on the “mystery trader” who scored big.

Thursday’s unsealed indictment (PDF) makes the Justice Department’s case for why Van Dyke was the trader in question.

According to the criminal complaint, the soldier — who was based at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina — created a Polymarket account around December 26, 2025, using a virtual private network (VPN) to place his location abroad.

Within days, he was making bets related to Venezuela that prosecutors say leveraged the classified intelligence he was privy to.

Around December 27, he bought $96 worth of bets on the prospect that US forces would be in Venezuela by January 31. A few days later, on December 30, he placed roughly $1,323 in bets on Maduro being out of office before the end of January.

His gambling continued as the military operation ticked closer. On January 1, he gambled $6,100 on a range of different scenarios, including Maduro being ousted, the US invading Venezuela, and Trump invoking war powers against Venezuela.

The following day, he placed even more bets, worth $6,150, $6,000, $7,050 and $7,215 a piece.

Then, in the early hours of January 3, the US launched its military operation against Venezuela, culminating in the abduction and imprisonment of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

Dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans died in the attack, which was confirmed to the public at 4:21am US Eastern Time (08:21 GMT).

The indictment explains that Van Dyke “was involved in the planning and execution of Operation Absolute Resolve”, as the military attack was called.

“He possessed material nonpublic information about that operation at the time of each and every trade he placed in Maduro and Venezuela-related markets,” the indictment alleges.

Shortly after his $400,000 windfall, prosecutors say Van Dyke transferred much of his proceeds to a foreign cryptocurrency vault. By January 6, he contacted Polymarket to delete his account.

Thursday’s indictment comes one day after Kalshi revealed it had fined and suspended three users who were allegedly candidates in the 2026 midterm elections. All three had placed bets on the outcomes of their own races.

Meta will lay off 8,000 workers while Microsoft is offering buyouts to 8,750 people, a first for the Windows maker.

Meta is laying off about 8,000 workers, or about 10 percent of its workforce, the company has said as it continues to ramp up spending on artificial intelligence infrastructure and highly paid AI-expert hires.

On Thursday, the company said it was making the cuts for the sake of efficiency and to allow new investments in parts of its business, as first reported by Bloomberg, which also said the company will leave about 6,000 jobs unfilled.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Also on Thursday, Microsoft said it was offering voluntary buyouts to thousands of its US employees.

The software giant plans to make the offers in early May to about 8,750 people, or 7 percent of its US workforce, according to two people familiar with the plan who were not authorised to speak about it publicly.

While an alternative to the sudden layoffs removing tech workers from peers like Meta and Oracle, the savings are likely tied to a similar industry upheaval that is requiring huge spending on the costs of artificial intelligence.

Meta has already warned investors that its 2026 expenses will grow significantly — to the range of $162bn to $169bn — driven by infrastructure costs and employee compensation, particularly for the AI experts it has been hiring at eye-popping pay levels.

This week, Meta also said it was breaking ground on an AI-optimised data centre in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a $1bn investment and its 28th data centre in the US.

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives welcomed Meta’s cuts in a note to investors on Thursday.

He said he sees it as part of a strategy of using AI tools to “automate tasks that once required large teams, allowing the company to streamline operations and reduce costs while maintaining productivity, driving an increased need for a leaner operating structure”.

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington state, has spent billions of dollars on operating an ever-expanding global network of data centres that power cloud computing services, AI systems and its own suite of productivity tools, including the AI assistant Copilot.

CNBC reported earlier on Thursday on a memo from Microsoft’s chief people officer, Amy Coleman, announcing the voluntary retirement plan.

“Our hope is that this program gives those eligible the choice to take that next step on their own terms, with generous company support,” Coleman wrote, according to CNBC.

Meta stock fell 2.3 percent on Thursday, while Microsoft stock ended the day down 3.97 percent.

Geopolitical conflicts, including the United States and Israel’s war on Iran and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, have fuelled surging demand for US defence companies as the Pentagon races to replenish weapon and aircraft stockpiles.

First-quarter results posted this week from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corporation and Boeing saw limited growth as supply chain and production delays weighed on the industry.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Lockheed Martin, which reported its first-quarter earnings on Thursday, fell short of analysts’ expectations, reporting lower first-quarter profit. Net earnings in the first quarter of 2026 came in at $1.5bn, marking a decline from $1.7bn in the first quarter of 2025.

The Bethesda, Maryland-based defence giant said its aeronautics segment was hit by delays in F-16 fighter jet development, which tied flight test issues as supply chain strains weigh on the company’s C-130 transport aircraft.

“The combined cost of the rework and schedule extension ran through our programme estimate,” an executive said on Lockheed’s earnings call.

Sales tumbled as volumes on classified programmes slowed down by $325m from the previous quarter. However, losses were offset by growing sales of F-35 fighter jets.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has proposed purchasing 85 new F-35 jets in 2027.

“We aren’t surprised, given management’s desire to be aligned with the customer’s agenda,” said Seth Seifman, an analyst at JP Morgan.

Lockheed’s stock is tumbling in midday trading, down 5.1 percent since the market opened Thursday, and is down more than 12 percent over the last five days.

Boeing’s losses slow down

Boeing, on the other hand, reported on Wednesday a first-quarter loss of $7m, a reduction from the $31m loss a year earlier. The Arlington, Virginia-based aeronautics giant is trying to recover from several years of turmoil.

Defence and space earnings ticked up 50 percent to $233m in the first quarter. In late March, Boeing was awarded $2.3bn from the US Department of Defense to add onto an existing $4.9bn contract from December.

Space travel drove some of Boeing’s success in the first quarter amid NASA’s successful Artemis II mission around the moon. The effort was part of a joint venture with Northrop Grumman.

The company also saw its highest first-quarter deliveries since 2019 in its commercial aircraft unit. Revenue for the unit rose by 13 percent to $9.2bn for the quarter.

However, those gains were offset by $1.5bn cash burn as it increased production capacity and ramped up certification programmed for 737 MAX variants and the 777X aircraft.

Boeing’s stock is up in midday trading by 0.4 percent, continuing an upward trend over the last five days at 4.1 percent.

Northrop Grumman demand expands

Northrop Grumman, which reported its earnings on Tuesday, showed higher first-quarter revenue, which ticked up 4.4 percent to $9.88bn compared to the same period last year. The Falls Church, Virginia-based defence contractor attributed it to surging demand for its long-range stealth bomber, the B-21 aircraft.

In January, a US spending bill included $1.9bn for funding the B-21 raider, and in February, the company garnered an agreement with the US Air Force that would expand production capacity of the aircraft by 25 percent.

Northrop posted a 10 percent increase in organic sales to $1.9bn in its defence systems segment, helped by a ramp-up in the Sentinel programme, its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

Northrop’s stock remained relatively flat in midday trading on Thursday, up by 0.1 percent, following a nearly 12 percent decline over the last five days.

Meanwhile, the RTX Corporation, the parent company of Raytheon, in its first-quarter earnings report released on Tuesday, raised both its full-year profit and revenue forecasts after the Arlington, Virginia-based defence giant’s results saw a bump driven by demand for its missile systems.

Revenue surged 9 percent in the first quarter $22.08bn compared to the same quarter this time last year. Sales in RTX’s Raytheon unit reported a 10 percent increase because of higher demand for both air and missile defence systems.

In April, RTX secured a contract to supply Patriot GEM-T interceptor missiles worth $3.7bn to Ukraine.

RTX stock is down 0.7 percent in midday trading and has tumbled 8.1 percent over the last five days.

Pope Leo has previously criticised Donald Trump’s immigration policies, calling for better treatment of refugees.

Pope Leo has criticised the world’s treatment of migrants and refugees, claiming that they are often viewed as “worse than house pets or animals.”

Leo, who has previously attacked US President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, called for better treatment of migrants as he flew back to Rome on Thursday following a four-nation Africa tour.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“They are human beings and we have to treat human beings in a humanitarian way and not treat them worse … than house pets or animals,” the pope said in a press conference.

Leo, who is the first head of the Roman Catholic Church from the US, did not reference any specific country when calling out the ill-treatment of immigrants.

The pope has previously questioned whether the Trump administration’s hardline policies are in line with the Catholic Church’s strict pro-life teachings, in remarks that drew sharp criticism from conservative US Catholics.

Speaking on Thursday, Leo said that countries have a right to control their borders, but urged richer nations to help develop the countries that migrants are leaving, so they do not feel the need to leave.

What are richer countries doing to change the situation for poorer countries?” he asked. “And why can’t we seek … to change the situations in [those] countries?”

Critic of the Iran war

Pope Leo also condemned the killing of protestors in Iran earlier this year, after president Trump attacked the Catholic leader for not speaking out on the subject whilst criticising the US-Israeli attacks on Iran.

“I condemn all actions that are unjust. I condemn the taking of people’s lives,” the pope said in response to a question in a press conference about reports that Iran killed thousands of anti-government protesters in January.

Leo was attacked by Trump on social media as “terrible” on April 12, after the pope emerged as an outspoken critic of the Iran war.

In a post two days later, Trump asked “will someone please tell Pope Leo” about the deaths of Iranian protesters.

Speaking ahead of his tour of Africa, Leo said he did not wish to “debate” Trump and that he did not fear the Trump administration.

“I will continue to speak out loudly against war, looking to promote ⁠peace, promoting dialogue and multilateral relationships among the states ⁠to look for just ⁠solutions to problems,” he said.

Authoritarian leaders

Leo returns to Rome after wrapping up his Africa trip in Equatorial Guinea.

The pope defended his decision to visit countries known for having authoritarian leaders, with both Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon governed by long-term leaders.

He said the Vatican maintains diplomatic relationships with the governments in thsoe countries.

“We don’t always make great proclamations … but there’s an awful lot of work that goes on behind the scenes to promote justice,” said the pope.

An internal watchdog for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) will review whether the federal government complied with a law mandating the release of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein files.

The Office of Inspector General, which operates independently of the department, explained on Thursday that its probe would focus on Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed in November.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“Our primary objective is to evaluate the DOJ’s processes for identifying, redacting, and releasing records in its possession as required by the act,” the office said in a statement.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act mandated the release of all unclassified records related to Epstein in the Justice Department’s possession.

It also required those files to be easily downloadable and searchable, and it limited redactions to what is necessary to protect victims and classified information. The act stipulated that the Department of Justice had 30 days to comply.

“No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary,” the law says.

But critics have questioned whether the administration of President Donald Trump fully followed the law.

Under Trump, the Justice Department has released several batches of information, the most significant being a catalogue of 3.5 million pages published on January 30.

But that came well after the act’s 30-day window, and critics have questioned why certain information was included — or excluded.

Lawmakers, for instance, have accused the Trump administration of using heavy redactions to protect the identities of powerful individuals named in the files.

Survivors of Epstein’s abuse also expressed anger at how the files were handled, saying that personal information about them had been disclosed.

Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting federal charges, has been accused of running a years-long transnational sex-trafficking scheme whose victims could number in the hundreds.

A wealthy financier, Epstein moved among some of the most powerful circles of society, maintaining relationships with politicians, academics, business leaders and artists.

Among his connections were two US presidents — Trump and Bill Clinton — as well as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, a former prince in the United Kingdom whose royal title was stripped last year in the wake of the Epstein scandal.

The high-profile nature of Epstein’s social circle has sparked inquiries about who was involved in his sex abuse scheme and who might have shielded him from accountability.

Epstein was convicted in 2008 on state-level charges, including procuring a child for prostitution, but critics have roundly denounced the case as a sweetheart deal: He served only 13 months of an 18-month sentence.

Since taking office for a second term in 2025, Trump has come under scrutiny for his personal relationship with the sex offender.

His administration has also faced pushback over its mixed messaging about the Epstein files.

In February 2025, for instance, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News that an Epstein client list was “sitting on [her] desk right now”, only to deny such a list existed later that year.

Trump himself denounced the Epstein scandal as a “hoax” designed to dent his reputation, and he called Republicans clamouring for the files’ release “stupid people”.

However, as public pressure mounted in November, Trump ultimately backed the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act and signed it into law.

Still, surveys suggest widespread disapproval of Trump’s handling of the files.

A February poll from the research company YouGov found that 53 percent of respondents believed that Trump was trying to cover up Epstein’s crimes, and 50 percent expressed the belief that Trump was personally involved in Epstein’s crimes.

There could also be legal ramifications if the administration is found to have failed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie, one of the bill’s sponsors, recently warned the recently appointed interim attorney general, Todd Blanche, that he needed to fulfil the act’s mandate within a month.

“Congratulations AG Blanche,” Massie said in a social media post. “Now you have 30 days to release the rest of the files before becoming criminally liable for failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.”

Beirut, Lebanon – At a store in Beirut, a shopowner breaks into laughter.

“No, I don’t want to comment on the negotiations,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to Thursday evening’s direct talks between Israel and Lebanon in Washington, DC. “If I say the wrong thing, someone might come hit me.”

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

His response represents the polarisation and controversy surrounding the negotiations inside a country deeply divided over the best way to end Israel’s war on it.

For some, the negotiations are the Lebanese state’s only choice. Others, however, reject the talks outright and believe only Hezbollah’s path of armed resistance will lead to a positive outcome for Lebanon.

A deal favourable to Israel?

On March 2, Israel intensified its war on Lebanon once again. That came after Hezbollah responded to incessant Israeli attacks for the first time in more than 15 months. Hezbollah said its response was also a retaliation for the Israeli-US killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei two days earlier.

Israel has killed 2,294 people in Lebanon since March 2, including journalists and medics. It has also displaced more than 1.2 million people while expanding its invasion of Lebanon and establishing what it calls a “yellow line” around 10km (6 miles) from the border. Residents are not allowed to return to their homes if they are within that Israeli-claimed buffer zone, and Israel has demolished homes and villages in it.

Al Jazeera visited three towns – al-Mansouri, Majdal Zoun, and Qlaileh – on a tour organised by Hezbollah, the Lebanese political and military group that controls the area. The towns were rife with destruction, with buildings reduced to dust and rubble.

Thursday’s talks are set to take place while Israel is still on Lebanese land and conducting demolitions and attacks on targets there. On Wednesday, Israel killed five people in Lebanon, including front-line reporter Amal Khalil. And on Thursday, the Lebanese Health Ministry reported that an Israeli attack had killed three people.

The talks are the first direct negotiations between the two sides in decades and follow an initial meeting on April 14 in Washington, DC. They will bring together Lebanon and Israel’s ambassadors to the United States, as well as the US ambassadors to Lebanon – Michael Issa – and Israel – Mike Huckabee – with the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. All were present in the initial meeting, apart from Huckabee.

The Lebanese side will ask for an extension to the current ceasefire, which Israel has repeatedly violated, as a precondition for continuing the talks. Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has said his country will also seek a full Israeli withdrawal and the return of Lebanese captives held by Israel.

For its part, Hezbollah has rejected the talks. And a day before the previous talks earlier in April, hundreds of protesters descended on downtown Beirut to show their opposition to the talks, too.

Some of these opposing talks believe that Iran, Hezbollah’s longtime benefactor, has more leverage to negotiate on its behalf. But others oppose the talks simply because they believe the Lebanese state has little leverage and because Israel rarely delivers or upholds its end of bargains.

“Probably the only deal that’s possible right now at the moment is anything that’s very favourable to Israel, as we have seen in the past many years, and especially since Lebanon is going there unprepared, with no leverage and no deterrence,” Fouad Debs, a lawyer, told Al Jazeera. “The only deterrence that they have at the moment is the resistance [Hezbollah], and the government and president are fighting it internally.”

Debs said that Lebanon could look at other pathways, such as going to the International Criminal Court and teaming up with the growing number of countries that are trying to hold Israel accountable.

A history ‘full of blood’

Shortly after Hezbollah’s attacks on March 2, the Lebanese government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal.

Hezbollah’s weapons have long been a point of contention in Lebanon. In 1990, when the Lebanese civil war ended after 15 years, all militias handed over their arms. But Hezbollah members kept theirs as a means of opposing Israeli occupation in south Lebanon.

When Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in 2000, the debate about Hezbollah’s weapons renewed. That would prove to be the pinnacle of the group’s domestic popularity, as internal disputes over its arms followed. Today, Hezbollah enjoys little support in Lebanon outside of the Shia Muslim community.

After the 2024 ceasefire brought Israel’s last intensification to an end, the Lebanese state vowed to disarm Hezbollah. It assigned the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) with the task. And while the LAF made some progress, Hezbollah’s critics, including Israelis and Americans, argued that it hadn’t moved fast enough.

Now, following Israeli attacks that have left thousands dead and more than a million displaced, some Lebanese are calling for a different strategy.

“Lebanese history with Israel is full of blood,” Jad Shahrour, a communications manager at the Samir Kassir Foundation, told Al Jazeera, adding that any negotiations must take that history into account.

Little leverage

Shahrour said he believes that negotiations do not necessarily mean full normalisation. Instead, he said, he sees negotiations as a first step in the state reasserting its authority over Lebanon.

“What options do we have besides this?” he asked rhetorically. “Do we have any power? No. But did Hezbollah’s way get the desired result? Also, no.”

Shahrour recognised that Lebanon has little leverage.

“One can say they reject this. but our options are limited and it is better to try diplomacy than not try at all,” he said. “If we say no. then bombing returns to Beirut, the Israelis will enter even further, and neither Hezbollah nor the state can protect the people.”

Most people in Lebanon do not trust the Israelis to be good-faith actors, and do not see the US as a neutral party in negotiations. The difference then comes down to whether or not this is the best of all bad options – or if armed resistance, asking Iran to negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf, or an international approach would be smarter moves.

Even with little to no leverage, however, some experts believe Lebanon has more cards it can play.

“Lebanon should establish its own terms of reference in the negotiations, not allow them to undermine the state’s standing and alienate it from a regional bloc that opposes Israel,” Mohanad Hage Ali, the deputy director for research at the Carnegie Middle East Center, wrote in a recent piece. “A balancing act of this kind may invite criticism in the short term, but it is more likely to yield durable results over time.”

Italian government officials have hit back at suggestions that their national football team could still be sent to the World Cup 2026, even if already-qualified Iran does not compete at the finals.

Since the United States-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28, Iran’s participation in this summer’s edition of FIFA’s global showpiece has been in doubt because all of the country’s group-stage matches are scheduled to be played in the US.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The tournament is co-hosted with the US by Canada and Mexico, leading to suggestions that Iran’s games could be played at alternative venues.

The speculation about Iran’s participation has been rife, with officials from both Iran and the US weighing in on the topic, including US President Donald Trump.

In a statement on Wednesday, however, Iran’s government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said all necessary arrangements for the team’s effective participation in the tournament have been ensured by the Ministry of Sports and Youth.

An envoy for Trump, though, has been quoted as suggesting that Italy, who have failed to qualify for the World Cup for a third straight edition, should replace Iran at this year’s World Cup.

Paolo Zampolli, an Italian-American who is ⁠a US envoy for global relations, told the Financial Times that he made the suggestion to both Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino.

“I’m an Italian native, and it would be a dream to see the Azzurri at a US-hosted tournament. With four titles, they have the pedigree to justify inclusion,” said Zampolli, who has no official connection with the World Cup ⁠or Italian football.

The plan seems to be an effort by Zampolli to repair ties after Trump and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni fell out amid the US leader’s attacks against Pope Leo XIV over the Iran war.

The suggestion, though, did not come from Trump or anyone within his administration.

Italian Sports Minister Andrea Abodi has rebuked the idea, saying “it ‌is not appropriate… You qualify on the pitch,” while Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti described the concept as “shameful”.

The suggestion has also provoked embarrassment from Azzurri fans, with Italian media reminding readers that the idea has a very familiar feel.

Italy’s main sports news websites gave the story only a passing reference, but politicians and officials were quick to reject the idea.

“First of all, I don’t think it’s possible,” Italian Olympic Committee President Luciano Buonfiglio said. “Second, I’d feel offended. In order to go to the World Cup, you have to earn it”.

Leading Italian coach Gianni De Biasi told Reuters it was an unlikely proposal, with any theoretical Iranian absence logically to be filled by the team behind them in the qualifiers.

“Furthermore, I believe Italy doesn’t need Trump’s support on an issue like this. I think we can manage on our own,” he said.

David Aganzo, president of Spain’s Association of Footballers and former head of the global players’ union FIFPRO, was a little more cautious, saying: “People who want to go to the World Cup have to earn their place on sporting merit. We all agree on that, and we’re going to make that clear to FIFA.

“But let’s take a look at the issues involved, as there may be different perspectives or situations in this regard that we might ⁠not be aware of.”

Football’s world governing body FIFA responded by pointing to Infantino’s previous comments on Iran’s participation.

“The Iranian team is coming, ⁠for sure,” he told last week’s CNBC Invest in America Forum: “They really want to play, and they should play. Sport should be outside politics.”

Italy missing third successive World Cup

Currently, there is no suggestion that Iran will withdraw or be banned from the tournament, which Italy missed out on after losing in ⁠a playoff for the third World Cup in a row.

Iran qualified for a fourth successive World Cup last year but, after the start of the war, requested that FIFA move the team’s three group matches from the US to Mexico – a suggestion that was rejected.

Iran is seemingly ⁠proceeding as planned. “We are preparing and making arrangements for the World Cup, but we are obedient to the ⁠decisions of the authorities,” Iranian football federation President Mehdi Taj told reporters at a pro-government rally in Tehran on Wednesday.

Four years ago, Zampolli, when he was a United Nations ambassador, wrote to Infantino saying that “the world is demanding” that he disqualify Iran because of the country’s poor human rights record. He suggested then that the team be replaced with Italy.

The request was ignored as Iran took part and went out after the group stage, having lost to England and ‌the US and beaten Wales.

In the seemingly unlikely scenario of Iran being excluded, the decision on who would replace them lies in the hands of FIFA, which, under Article Six of the World Cup regulations, is at liberty to call up any nation it chooses.

The Asian Football Confederation would be expected to lobby hard for the replacement to come from ‌Asia, with the United Arab Emirates, who lost a qualifying playoff to Iraq last November, the obvious choice.

The World Cup gets under way on June 11 with Iran scheduled to kick off their campaign against New Zealand in Los Angeles four days later.

Italian government officials have hit back at suggestions that their national football team could still be sent to the World Cup 2026, even if already-qualified Iran does not compete at the finals.

Since the United States-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28, Iran’s participation in this summer’s edition of FIFA’s global showpiece has been in doubt because all of the country’s group-stage matches are scheduled to be played in the US.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The tournament is co-hosted with the US by Canada and Mexico, leading to suggestions that Iran’s games could be played at alternative venues.

The speculation about Iran’s participation has been rife, with officials from both Iran and the US weighing in on the topic, including US President Donald Trump.

In a statement on Wednesday, however, Iran’s government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said all necessary arrangements for the team’s effective participation in the tournament have been ensured by the Ministry of Sports and Youth.

An envoy for Trump, though, has been quoted as suggesting that Italy, who have failed to qualify for the World Cup for a third straight edition, should replace Iran at this year’s World Cup.

Paolo Zampolli, an Italian-American who is ⁠a US envoy for global relations, told the Financial Times that he made the suggestion to both Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino.

“I’m an Italian native, and it would be a dream to see the Azzurri at a US-hosted tournament. With four titles, they have the pedigree to justify inclusion,” said Zampolli, who has no official connection with the World Cup ⁠or Italian football.

The plan seems to be an effort by Zampolli to repair ties after Trump and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni fell out amid the US leader’s attacks against Pope Leo XIV over the Iran war.

The suggestion, though, did not come from Trump or anyone within his administration.

Italian Sports Minister Andrea Abodi has rebuked the idea, saying “it ‌is not appropriate… You qualify on the pitch,” while Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti described the concept as “shameful”.

The suggestion has also provoked embarrassment from Azzurri fans, with Italian media reminding readers that the idea has a very familiar feel.

Italy’s main sports news websites gave the story only a passing reference, but politicians and officials were quick to reject the idea.

“First of all, I don’t think it’s possible,” Italian Olympic Committee President Luciano Buonfiglio said. “Second, I’d feel offended. In order to go to the World Cup, you have to earn it”.

Leading Italian coach Gianni De Biasi told Reuters it was an unlikely proposal, with any theoretical Iranian absence logically to be filled by the team behind them in the qualifiers.

“Furthermore, I believe Italy doesn’t need Trump’s support on an issue like this. I think we can manage on our own,” he said.

David Aganzo, president of Spain’s Association of Footballers and former head of the global players’ union FIFPRO, was a little more cautious, saying: “People who want to go to the World Cup have to earn their place on sporting merit. We all agree on that, and we’re going to make that clear to FIFA.

“But let’s take a look at the issues involved, as there may be different perspectives or situations in this regard that we might ⁠not be aware of.”

Football’s world governing body FIFA responded by pointing to Infantino’s previous comments on Iran’s participation.

“The Iranian team is coming, ⁠for sure,” he told last week’s CNBC Invest in America Forum: “They really want to play, and they should play. Sport should be outside politics.”

Italy missing third successive World Cup

Currently, there is no suggestion that Iran will withdraw or be banned from the tournament, which Italy missed out on after losing in ⁠a playoff for the third World Cup in a row.

Iran qualified for a fourth successive World Cup last year but, after the start of the war, requested that FIFA move the team’s three group matches from the US to Mexico – a suggestion that was rejected.

Iran is seemingly ⁠proceeding as planned. “We are preparing and making arrangements for the World Cup, but we are obedient to the ⁠decisions of the authorities,” Iranian football federation President Mehdi Taj told reporters at a pro-government rally in Tehran on Wednesday.

Four years ago, Zampolli, when he was a United Nations ambassador, wrote to Infantino saying that “the world is demanding” that he disqualify Iran because of the country’s poor human rights record. He suggested then that the team be replaced with Italy.

The request was ignored as Iran took part and went out after the group stage, having lost to England and ‌the US and beaten Wales.

In the seemingly unlikely scenario of Iran being excluded, the decision on who would replace them lies in the hands of FIFA, which, under Article Six of the World Cup regulations, is at liberty to call up any nation it chooses.

The Asian Football Confederation would be expected to lobby hard for the replacement to come from ‌Asia, with the United Arab Emirates, who lost a qualifying playoff to Iraq last November, the obvious choice.

The World Cup gets under way on June 11 with Iran scheduled to kick off their campaign against New Zealand in Los Angeles four days later.

Step is latest example of shift away from heavy penalisation that has given way to widespread legalisation efforts.

The United States has announced it will reclassify state-licensed medical marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a step in line with a growing trend away from penalising its possession.

The Department of Justice clarified on Thursday that the change does not legalise recreational or medical marijuana under federal law.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

But it does move certain marijuana products from the Schedule I category to the less restrictive Schedule III on the federal government’s five-tier system for regulating drugs.

Schedule III is for substances with “a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence”.

“This rescheduling action allows for research on the safety and efficacy of this substance, ultimately providing patients with better care and doctors with more reliable information,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.

Advocates of looser restrictions have long argued that placing marijuana in the same category of highly addictive drugs as heroin has led to disproportionate rates of arrest and incarceration.

They also point to the medical benefits that some patients describe from marijuana usage, as well as lower barriers to marijuana-related research.

Blanche has previously said that the US government would fast-track the process for a broader reclassification of marijuana, with hearings set to begin in June.

Once the focus of law enforcement efforts that swept millions of people into the US criminal justice system, marijuana has gradually seen more mainstream acceptance in recent years.

In December, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling on the Justice Department to loosen marijuana restrictions. His Democratic predecessor Joe Biden had taken similar steps to reclassify marijuana, but the process had not been finalised by the time he left office in January 2025.

Marijuana is currently legal in some form in 40 US states, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that one in five people in the US reported using marijuana in the last year.

A 2024 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of US adults said that marijuana should be legal for both recreational and medical purposes, while 32 percent indicated it should only be legal for medical purposes. Just 11 percent said the drug should not be legal at all.

Companies offering cannabis products have also become a lucrative industry, with the market researcher BDSA predicting $47bn in legal sales in 2026.