South Korea’s truth commission concluded the government bears responsibility for facilitating a foreign adoption program rife with fraud and abuse, driven by efforts to reduce welfare costs and enabled by private agencies that often manipulated children’s backgrounds and origins.
The landmark report released Wednesday followed a nearly three-year investigation into complaints from 367 adoptees in Europe, the United States, and Australia, representing the most comprehensive examination yet of South Korea’s foreign adoptions, which peaked under a succession of military governments in the 1970s and ’80s.
The government-appointed Truth and Reconciliation Commission said it confirmed human rights violations in 56 of the complaints and aims to review the remaining cases before its mandate expires in late May.
However, some adoptees and even a commission investigator criticized the cautiously written report, acknowledging that investigative limitations prevented the commission from more strongly establishing the government’s complicity.
That investigator, Sang Hoon Lee, also lamented that the panel on Tuesday deferred assessments of 42 other adoptees’ cases, citing a lack of documentation to sufficiently prove their adoptions were problematic. Lee and the commission chairperson, Sun Young Park, did not specify which types of documents were central to the discussions.
However, Lee implied that some members of the commission’s decision-making committee were reluctant to recognize cases in which adoptees had yet to prove beyond doubt that the biological details in their adoption papers had been falsified — either by meeting their birth parents or confirming information about them.
Most Korean adoptees were registered by agencies as abandoned orphans, although they frequently had relatives who could be easily identified or found, a practice that often makes their roots difficult or impossible to trace. Government data obtained by The Associated Press shows less than a fifth of 15,000 adoptees who have asked South Korea for help with family searches since 2012 have managed to reunite with relatives.
Lee said the committee’s stance reflects a lack of understanding of the systemic problems in adoptions and risks excluding many remaining cases.
“Personally, I find yesterday’s decision very regrettable and consider it a half-baked decision,” Lee said.
After reviewing government and adoption records and interviewing adoptees, birth families, public officials and adoption workers, the commission assessed that South Korean officials saw foreign adoptions as a cheaper alternative to building a social welfare system for needy children.
Through policies and laws that promoted adoption, South Korea’s military governments permitted private adoption agencies to exercise extensive guardianship rights over children in their custody and swiftly transfer custody to foreign adopters, resulting in “large-scale overseas placements of children in need of protection,” the commission said.
Authorities provided no meaningful oversight as adoption agencies engaged in dubious or illicit practices while competing to send more children abroad. These practices included bypassing proper consent from biological parents, falsely documenting children with known parents as abandoned orphans, and switching children’s identities, according to the commission’s report. It cited that the government failed to ensure that agencies properly screened adoptive parents or prevent them from excessively charging foreign adopters, who were often asked to make additional donations beyond the standard fees.
The commission’s findings broadly aligned with previous reporting by The AP. The AP investigations, which were also documented by Frontline (PBS), detailed how South Korea’s government, Western countries and adoption agencies worked in tandem to supply some 200,000 Korean children to parents overseas, despite years of evidence that many were being procured through questionable or outright unscrupulous means.
The Unification Church in Japan was ordered dissolved by a court Tuesday after a government request spurred by the investigation into the 2022 assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The church said it was considering an immediate appeal of the Tokyo District Court’s revocation of its legal status, which would take away its tax-exempt privilege and require liquidation of its assets.
The order followed a request by Japan’s Education Ministry in 2023 to dissolve the influential South Korea-based sect, citing manipulative fundraising and recruitment tactics that sowed fear among followers and harmed their families.
In the ruling, the court said the church’s problems were extensive and continuous, and a dissolution order is necessary because it is not likely it could voluntarily reform, according to NHK television.
"We believe our claims were accepted,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshiasa Hayashi told reporters. He added that government will continue efforts to support victims of the church.
The Japanese branch of the church had criticized the request as a serious threat to religious freedom and the human rights of its followers.
The church called the court order regrettable and unjust and said in a statement the court’s decision was based on “a wrong legal interpretation and absolutely unacceptable.”
The investigation into Abe’s assassination revealed decades of cozy ties between the South Korea-based church and Japan’s governing Liberal Democratic Party. The church obtained legal status as a religious organization in Japan in the 1960s during an anti-communist movement supported by Abe’s grandfather, former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi.
The man accused of killing Abe resented the church and blamed it for his family’s financial troubles.
The church, which officially calls itself the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, is the first religious group subject to a revocation order based on violations of Japan’s civil code. Two earlier case involved criminal charges — the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult, which carried out a sarin nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system, and Myokakuji group, whose executives were convicted of fraud.
To seek the church’s dissolution, the Education Ministry had submitted 5,000 documents and pieces of evidence to the court, based on interviews with more than 170 people.
The church tried to steer its followers’ decision-making, using manipulative tactics, making them buy expensive goods and donate beyond their financial ability and causing fear and harm to them and their families, seriously deviating from the law on religious groups, officials and experts say.
The Agency for Cultural Affairs said the settlements reached in or outside court exceeded 20 billion yen ($132 million) and involved more than 1,500 people.
A group of lawyers who have represented people suing the church welcomed the court decision as a major first step toward redress. They demanded an apology and compensation from the church as soon as possible.
The church, founded in Seoul in 1954, a year after the end of the Korean War, by the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed messiah who preached new interpretations of the Bible and conservative, family-oriented value systems.
It developed relations with conservative world leaders including U.S. President Donald Trump, as well as his predecessors Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
The church faced accusations in the 1970s and 1980s of using devious recruitment tactics and brainwashing adherents into turning over huge portions of their salaries to Moon. In Japan, the group has faced lawsuits for offering “spiritual merchandise” that allegedly caused members to buy expensive art and jewelry or sell their real estate to raise donations for the church.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Columbia University is “on the right track” toward recovering federal funding after the elite New York City university agreed to implement a host of policy changes demanded by the Trump administration.
Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, McMahon described “great conversations” with Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong.
“She said she knew that this was her responsibility to make sure that children on her campus were safe,” McMahon said. “She wanted to make sure there was no discrimination of any kind. She wanted to address any systemic issues that were identified relative to the antisemitism on campus.”
Armstrong announced Friday that the university would put its Middle East studies department under new supervision and overhaul its rules for protests and student discipline. It also agreed to adopt a new definition of antisemitism and expand “intellectual diversity” by staffing up its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, according to an outline posted on its website.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration pulled $400 million in research grants and other funding over how the university handled protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. In order to consider restoring those funds and billions more in future grants, federal officials demanded nine separate changes to the university’s academic and security policies.
Armstrong’s decision acceding to the administration’s demands drew condemnation from some faculty and free speech groups, who accused the university of caving to President Donald Trump’s largely unprecedented intrusion on academic freedom.
Asked whether the university had done enough to secure its funding, McMahon said: “We are on the right track now to make sure the final negotiations to unfreeze that money will be in place.”
The Trump administration’s crackdown on Columbia University, where a massive pro-Palestinian protest movement began with a tent encampment last spring, has thrust the campus into crisis and sparked fears of similar actions at colleges across the country.
Federal immigration officials on March 8 arrested Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who served as a spokesperson and negotiator for pro-Palestinian demonstrators last year. Khalil, a legal permanent resident, is challenging his detention and potential deportation in court.
A court formally arrested the mayor of Istanbul, a key rival to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on Sunday and ordered him jailed pending the outcome of a trial on corruption charges.
Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu was detained following a raid on his residence earlier this week, sparking the largest wave of street demonstrations in Turkey in more than a decade. It also deepened concerns over democracy and rule of law in Turkey.
His imprisonment is widely regarded as a political move to remove a major contender from the next presidential race, currently scheduled for 2028. Government officials reject the accusations and insist that Turkey’s courts operate independently.
The prosecutor’s office said the court decided to jail Imamoglu on suspicion of running a criminal organization, accepting bribes, extortion, illegally recording personal data and bid-rigging. A request for him to be imprisoned on terror-related charges was rejected although he still faces prosecution. Following the court’s ruling, Imamoglu was transferred to Silivri prison, west of Istanbul.
The Interior Ministry later announced that Imamoglu had been suspended from duty as a “temporary measure.” The municipality had previously appointed an acting mayor from its governing council.
Alongside Imamoglu, 47 other people were also jailed pending trial, including a key aide and two district mayors from Istanbul, one of whom was replaced with a government appointee. A further 44 suspects were released under judicial control.
Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said Sunday that 323 people were detained the previous evening over disturbances at protests.
Largely peaceful protests across Turkey have seen hundreds of thousands come out in support of Imamoglu. However, there has been some violence, with police deploying water cannons, tear gas, pepper spray and firing plastic pellets at protesters in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, some of whom hurled stones, fireworks and other missiles at riot police.
The formal arrest came as more than 1.5 million members of the opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, began holding a primary presidential election to endorse Imamoglu, the sole candidate.
The party has also set up symbolic ballot boxes nationwide to allow people who are not party members to express their support for the mayor. Large crowds gathered early Sunday to cast a “solidarity ballot.”
“This is no longer just a problem of the Republican People’s Party, but a problem of Turkish democracy,” Fusun Erben, 69, said at a polling station in Istanbul’s Kadikoy district. “We do not accept our rights being so easily usurped. We will fight until the end.”
Speaking at a polling station in Bodrum, western Turkey, engineer Mehmet Dayanc, 38, said he feared that “in the end we’ll be like Russia, a country without an opposition, where only a single man participates in elections.”
In a message posted on social media, Imamoglu called on people to show “their struggle for democracy and justice to the entire world” at the ballot box. He warned Erdogan that he would be defeated by “our righteousness, our courage, our humility, our smiling face.”
“Honestly, we are embarrassed in the name of our legal system,” Ankara Mayor Mansur Yavas, a fellow member of Imamoglu’s CHP, told reporters after casting his vote, criticizing the lack of confidentiality in the proceedings.
CHP leader Ozgur Ozel said Imamoglu’s imprisonment was reminiscent of “Italian mafia methods.” Speaking at Istanbul City Hall, he added: “Imamoglu is on the one hand in prison and on the other hand on the way to the presidency.”
The Council of Europe, which focuses on promoting human rights and democracy, slammed the decision and demanded Imamoglu’s immediate release.
North Carolina appeals court judges listened to arguments Friday about whether votes on tens of thousands of ballots in an unsettled state Supreme Court election from November should remain in the tally or could be discarded.
A three-judge panel of the intermediate-level Court of Appeals will decide if the State Board of Elections in December properly dismissed the formal protests of those ballots by Republican Jefferson Griffin. A trial judge upheld the board’s actions last month.
After two recounts, Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs leads Griffin by 734 votes from more than 5.5 million ballots cast in the Supreme Court race. Griffin’s lawyers have cited more than 65,000 ballots from three categories they argued came from ineligible voters. Removing them from counts could flip the vote advantage to Griffin.
No immediate ruling was issued Friday after 90 minutes of arguments before the panel, which is composed of two registered Republicans and one Democrat. There’s no date set on when the panel will act. But there is pressure to act quickly. The eight-year term on the highest court in the ninth-largest state was supposed to begin in early January. Riggs has meanwhile remained serving in her seat. And Griffin is in his current job as one of the 15 Court of Appeals judges.
While The Associated Press declared more than 4,400 winners in the 2024 general election, the state Supreme Court election is the only race that is still undecided.
However Judges John Tyson, Fred Gore and Toby Hampson rule, their decision will likely be subject to more appeals to the state Supreme Court on which the two candidates are fighting to serve, as well as potentially federal courts.
While Griffin has recused himself from Court of Appeals deliberations in his case, having the three judges rule in a matter directly affecting a colleague and Riggs — herself a Court of Appeals judge briefly in 2023 — is extraordinary.
The panel’s judges asked many questions about the three categories of ballots Griffin challenged.
The largest category covers ballots cast by voters whose registration records lacked either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. Other votes being challenged were cast by overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S. and military or overseas voters who did not provide copies of photo identification with their ballots.
Griffin’s lawyers have argued that counting the challenged ballots violates state laws or the state constitution, and the state elections board — composed of three Democrats and two Republicans — is to blame by failing to follow them. They want these ballots declared ineligible and ultimately discounted.
Doesn’t the 2005 ruling “say that if a voter relied on board guidance that is contrary to the statute that still is not a reason to excuse the noncompliance?” Tyson asked state attorney Nick Brod, representing the board. Brod disagreed.
Riggs’ allies have held rallies across the state demanding Griffin concede. Before Friday’s hearing, several outside groups filed briefs backing the board’s decisions, including voters whose ballots have been challenged by Griffin.
Lennon Tyler and her German fiancé often took road trips to Mexico when he vacationed in the United States since it was only a day’s drive from her home in Las Vegas, one of the perks of their long-distance relationship.
But things went terribly wrong when they drove back from Tijuana last month.
U.S. border agents handcuffed Tyler, a U.S. citizen, and chained her to a bench, while her fiancé, Lucas Sielaff, was accused of violating the rules of his 90-day U.S. tourist permit, the couple said. Authorities later handcuffed and shackled Sielaff and sent him to a crowded U.S. immigration detention center. He spent 16 days locked up before being allowed to fly home to Germany.
Since President Donald Trump took office, there have been other high-profile incidents of tourists like Sielaff being stopped at U.S. border crossings and held for weeks at U.S. immigration detention facilities before being allowed to fly home at their own expense.
They include another German tourist who was stopped at the Tijuana crossing on Jan. 25. Jessica Brösche spent over six weeks locked up, including over a week in solitary confinement, a friend said.
On the Canadian border, a backpacker from Wales spent nearly three weeks at a detention center before flying home this week. And a Canadian woman on a work visa detained at the Tijuana border spent 12 days in detention before returning home last weekend.
Sielaff, 25, and the others say it was never made clear why they were taken into custody even after they offered to go home voluntarily.
Pedro Rios, director of the American Friends Service Committee, a nonprofit that aids migrants, said in the 22 years he has worked on the border he has never seen travelers from Western Europe and Canada, longtime U.S. allies, locked up like this.
“It’s definitely unusual with these cases so close together, and the rationale for detaining these people doesn’t make sense,” he said. “It doesn’t justify the abhorrent treatment and conditions” they endured.
“The only reason I see is there is a much more fervent anti-immigrant atmosphere,” Rios said.
U.S. authorities did not respond to a request from The Associated Press for figures on how many tourists have been held at detention facilities or explain why they weren’t simply denied entry.
The incidents are fueling anxiety as the Trump administration prepares for a ban on travelers from some countries. Noting the “evolving” federal travel policies, the University of California, Los Angeles sent a notice this week urging its foreign-born students and staff to consider the risks of non-essential travel for spring break, warning “re-entry requirements may change while you are away, impacting your return.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in an email to the AP that Sielaff and Brösche, who was held for 45 days, “were deemed inadmissible” by Customs and Border Protection. That agency said it cannot discuss specifics but “if statutes or visa terms are violated, travelers may be subject to detention and removal.” The agencies did not comment on the other cases.
Both German tourists were allowed into the United States under a waiver program offered to a select group of countries, mostly in Europe and Asia, whose citizens are allowed to travel to the U.S. for business or leisure for up to 90 days without getting a visa in advance. Applicants register online with the Electronic System for Travel Authorization.
But even if they are authorized to travel under that system, they can still be barred from entering the country.
Sielaff arrived in the U.S. on Jan. 27. He and Tyler decided to go to Tijuana for four days in mid-February because Tyler’s dog needed surgery and veterinary services are cheaper there. They figured they would enjoy some tacos and make a fun trip out of it.
New York state’s top court put an end Thursday to New York City’s effort to empower noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.
In a 6-1 ruling, the high court said “the New York constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens.”
New York City never actually implemented its 2022 law. Supporters estimated it would have applied to about 800,000 noncitizens with legal permanent U.S. residency or authorization to work in the nation. The measure would have let them cast a ballot for mayor, city council and other local offices, but not for president, Congress or state officials.
State Republican officials quickly sued over the law, and state courts at every level rejected it. Republicans hailed Thursday’s ruling from the state’s highest court, called the Court of Appeals.
“Efforts by radical Democrats on the New York City Council to permit noncitizen voting have been rightly rejected,” NYGOP Chair Ed Cox said in a statement. The Republicans’ attorney, Michael Hawrylchak, said they were pleased that the court recognized the state constitution’s “fundamental limits” on voter eligibility.
The heavily Democratic City Council passed the law, and its leaders took the case to the high court. Speaker Adrienne Adams said she was disappointed in the outcome but respected the court. “The council sought to strengthen our city’s democratic process and increase civic engagement by enfranchising the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who pay taxes and contribute to our communities but are unable to make their voices heard in local elections,” she said in a statement.
Democratic Mayor Eric Adams had neither vetoed nor signed the measure but allowed it to become law without his signature. An Adams spokesperson, Kayla Mamelak Altus, said the administration respects the court’s decision.
A handful of Maryland and Vermont towns let noncitizens cast ballots in local elections, and noncitizen residents of Washington, D.C., can vote in city races. San Francisco allows noncitizen parents to participate in school board elections.
Farther south in California, residents of Santa Ana rejected a noncitizen voting measure last year. Some other states specifically prohibit localities from enfranchising noncitizens.
In New York, the state constitution says “every citizen shall be entitled to vote” if at least 18 years old and a state resident. The document adds that county and municipal election voters must live in the relevant county, city or village.
New York City argued that “every citizen” doesn’t mean “citizens only,” and that the city had a self-governance right to choose to expand the franchise for its own elections. The law’s supporters said it gave an electoral voice to many people who have made a home in the city and pay taxes to it but face tough paths to citizenship.
The GOP accused Democrats of violating the state constitution in order to make partisan gains.
In an extraordinary display of conflict between the executive and judiciary branches, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected calls for impeaching judges Tuesday, shortly after President Donald Trump demanded the removal of one who ruled against his deportation plans.
The rebuke from the Supreme Court’s leader demonstrated how the controversy over recent deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members has inflamed tensions over the judiciary’s role, with a legal case challenging Trump’s actions now threatening to spiral into a clash of constitutional powers.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
The rare statement came just hours after a social media post from Trump, who described U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg as an unelected “troublemaker and agitator.” Boasberg had issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law.
“HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY,” Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social. “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
Although Trump has routinely criticized judges, especially as they limit his efforts to expand presidential power, his latest post escalated his conflict with a judiciary that’s been one of the few restraints on his aggressive agenda. Impeachment is a rare step that is usually taken only in cases of grave ethical or criminal misconduct.
In an interview with Fox News later on Tuesday, Trump emphasized that Roberts “didn’t mention my name in his statement,” suggesting that the chief justice could have been referring to other people who have said Boasberg should be impeached.
Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s priority bill to limit lawsuits and large jury verdicts has gotten increasing pushback after an initial boost in support as the legislative session enters its final weeks.
Crowds of business owners and doctors swarmed the Capitol to back Kemp when he announced the proposal, also called tort reform. Now, people who have sued businesses are rallying as Democrats argue the bill is a handout to businesses and insurance companies.
And a number of House Republicans remain skeptical, even though House Speaker Jon Burns said he is confident it will pass.
“There are two Republicans that are trial lawyers, but I’ve heard a more broad group of people express concerns with the bill as currently written,” said Rep. Trey Kelley, a Cedartown Republican.
Millions of dollars have gone into lobbying for and against Kemp’s package. Here are some reasons why people are concerned. Kemp’s bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn’t provide adequate security.
Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.
“Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,” Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.
There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.
“Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,” said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.
Kemp’s bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn’t provide adequate security.
Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.
“Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,” Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.
There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.
“Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,” said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.
Trial lawyers are worried that other changes would drag out trials and delay preparation. Lawyers and doctors dispute whether fair compensation is the face value of a medical bill or only the portion an individual directly paid.
Opponents also question whether the problems the bill claims to address exist, and if it would actually solve them.
For example, doctors have said unfair lawsuits make it hard to recruit talent to rural areas and lead them to administer unnecessary medical tests. They also say they’re getting slammed by rising medical malpractice premiums. In an analysis for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Northwestern University Professor Bernard Black said it’s difficult to recruit doctors outside of urban areas nationwide.
The State Department says South Africa’s ambassador to the United States, who was declared “persona non grata” last week, has until Friday to leave the country.
After Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined that Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool was no longer welcome in the U.S. and posted his decision Friday on social media, South African embassy staff were summoned to the State Department and given a formal diplomatic note explaining the decision, department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said.
She said Rasool’s diplomatic privileges and immunities expired Monday and that he would be required to leave the United States by Friday.
South African Foreign Ministry spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said in a television interview on Monday that Rasool was still in the U.S. but would be leaving as soon as possible.
Rubio announced his decision in a post on X as he was flying back to the United States from a Group of 7 foreign ministers meeting in Canada. In it, he accused Rasool of being a “race-baiting politician” who hates President Donald Trump. His post linked to a story by the conservative Breitbart news site about a talk Rasool gave earlier Friday in Johannesburg as part of a South African think tank’s webinar. Rasool, speaking by videoconference, talked about actions taken by the Trump administration in the context of a United States where white people soon would no longer be in the majority.
It is highly unusual for the U.S. to expel a foreign ambassador, although lower-ranking diplomats are more frequently targeted with persona non grata status.
Rubio’s decision was the latest Trump administration move targeting South Africa. Trump signed an executive order last month halting funding to the country. It criticized the Black-led South African government on multiple fronts, saying it is pursuing anti-white policies at home and supporting “bad actors” in the world like the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa told reporters on Monday that Rasool would give him a report when he returned home.
Ramaphosa said his government has “noted the displeasure that has been expressed by the United States,” and particularly about Rasool’s remarks, but stressed that he believed South Africa was in the process of rebuilding its relationship with the U.S.
“This is a hiccup, a hiccup we are working on straightening out,” he said.
“We will engage with the United States of America in a formal way,” Ramaphosa said. “We will do so with deep respect for them and for President Trump as well. Our relationship with the United States is going to be put on an even keel, so I would like the people of South Africa not to have sleepless nights.”
Bruce said the United States expects a certain level of respect.
“We’ve had a decent level of diplomacy with South Africa. There are some challenges, but you want people in each embassy who can actually facilitate a relationship,” she told reporters on Monday. “And these remarks were unacceptable to the United States, not just to the president, but to every American.”
U.S. President Donald Trump will speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday in a possible pivot point in efforts to end the war in Ukraine and an opportunity for Trump to continue reorienting American foreign policy.
Trump disclosed the upcoming conversation to reporters while flying from Florida to Washington on Air Force One on Sunday evening, while the Kremlin confirmed Putin’s participation on Monday morning.
“We will see if we have something to announce maybe by Tuesday. I will be speaking to President Putin on Tuesday,” Trump said. “A lot of work’s been done over the weekend. We want to see if we can bring that war to an end.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Monday morning confirmed the plans for the two leaders to speak on Tuesday, but declined to give details, saying that “we never get ahead of events” and “the content of conversations between two presidents are not subject to any prior discussion.”
European allies are wary of Trump’s affinity for Putin and his hardline stance toward Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who faced sharp criticism when he visited the Oval Office a little more than two weeks ago.
Although Russia failed in its initial goal to topple Ukraine with its invasion three years ago, it still controls large swaths of the country.
Trump said land and power plants are part of the conversation around bringing the war to a close.
“We will be talking about land. We will be talking about power plants,” he said, a process he described as “dividing up certain assets.”
Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff recently visited Moscow last week to advance negotiations.
Russia illegally annexed four Ukrainian regions after launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the east and the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions in the southeast of the country — but doesn’t fully control any of the four. Last year, Putin listed Kyiv’s withdrawal of troops from all four regions as one of the demands for peace.
In 2014, the Kremlin also annexed Crimea from Ukraine.
In the occupied part of the Zaporizhzhia region, Moscow controls the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant — the largest in Europe. The plant has repeatedly been caught in the crossfire since the invasion. The International Atomic Energy Agency, a U.N. body, has frequently expressed alarm about the plant amid fears of a potential nuclear catastrophe.
During his conversation with reporters on Air Force One, Trump said he was pushing forward with his plans for tariffs on April 2 despite recent disruption in the stock market and nervousness about the economic impact.
“April 2 is a liberating day for our country,” he said. “We’re getting back some of the wealth that very, very foolish presidents gave away because they had no clue what they were doing.”
Trump has occasionally changed course on some tariff plans, such as with Mexico, but he said he had no intention of doing so when it comes to reciprocal tariffs.
In the span of a week, a hush has descended on higher education in the United States.
International students and faculty have watched the growing crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University with apprehension. Some say they are familiar with government crackdowns but never expected them on American college campuses.
The elite New York City university has been the focus of the Trump administration’s effort to deport foreigners who took part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at colleges last year.
Federal immigration agents have arrested two foreigners — one of them a student — who protested last year at Columbia. They’ve revoked the visa of another student, who fled the U.S. this week. Department of Homeland Security agents also searched the on-campus residences of two Columbia students on Thursday but did not make any arrests there.
GOP officials have warned it’s just the beginning, saying more student visas are expected to be revoked in the coming days.
Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism issued a statement reporting “an alarming chill” among its foreign students in the past week.
“Many of our international students have felt afraid to come to classes and to events on campus,” said the statement signed by “The Faculty of Columbia Journalism School.”
International students and faculty across the U.S. say they feel afraid to voice opinions or stand out on campus for fear of getting kicked out of the country.
“Green-card-holding faculty members involved in any kind of advocacy that might be construed as not welcome by the Trump administration are absolutely terrified of the implications for their immigration status,” said Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.
Dubal, who is also general counsel for the American Association of University Professors, says some international faculty are now shying away from discourse, debate, scholarly research and publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals.
International - POSTED: 2025/03/26 12:59
