UN refugee agency warns funding cuts may leave 11 million without aid

The UN refugee agency estimates that a “dramatic” funding crisis poses a risk of preventing access to humanitarian aid for more than 11 million refugees.

UNHCR’s funding situation was revealed in a report released on Friday, which claimed it had only received 23 percent of the $10.6 billion goal for the year so far and that it had projected an end-of-year budget of only $3.5 billion.

Our funding situation is troubling, according to Dominique Hyde, UNHCR’s director of external relations.

“We worry that UNHCR’s humanitarian assistance is being withdrawn from the hands of up to 11.6 million refugees and people who have fled.”

Countries with slashed contributions were not named in the report, but a significant decrease in funding from the United States, which made up more than $ 2 billion of the organization’s overall donations last year.

President Donald Trump’s administration, which it claims is a part of its wider plan to eliminate wasteful spending, has cut funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and its aid programs around the world since taking office in January.

UNHCR reported that in many nations, including Sudan, Myanmar, and Afghanistan, aid programs that were halted or suspended had to be stopped or suspended.

According to the report, “On the Brink: The devastating toll of aid cuts on people forced to flee,” critical areas like medical aid, education, shelter, nutrition, and protection are among the services that are suffering severe cuts.

Some 230 000 children in Bangladesh are at risk of losing their education because they have spent years living in overcrowded camps as a result of Rohingya refugees.

Women and girls are disproportionately impacted by UNHCR funding cuts, with the organization having to reduce gender-based violence programs by a quarter.

According to the report, Afghanistan’s women and girls are the hardest hit by cuts.

Over 50% of protection activities have been cut, putting pressure on programs for women’s empowerment, mental health, prevention, and gender-based violence, according to Hyde.

UNHCR is reducing 3,500 staff positions at its Geneva headquarters and regional offices by a third overall.

CBS cancels Colbert’s Late Show amid pending Paramount-Skydance merger

In May 2026, Stephen Colbert, the president of the United States, approved of the comedian’s decision to stop airing The Late Show.

The show’s cancellation was announced by CBS on Thursday in preparation for a looming merger between its parent company Paramount and Skydance Media.

The comedian also made the comment after Paramount apologized for their $ 16 million settlement with Trump. Trump claimed in a lawsuit that Kamala Harris, Trump’s Democratic challenger, and CBS’s flagship news program, 60 Minutes, had a doctored interview during the presidential campaign in 2024.

Due to the pending merger, which requires approval from the Department of Justice and is valued at $8 billion, Colbert, a long-time critic of the president, described the decision to settle as “a big fat bribe.”

The president wrote in a post on Truth Social, which read, “I absolutely love that Colbert was fired.”

Before going after Colbert’s other two rivals Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon, saying they are next, without any supporting evidence, he continued, “His talent was even less than his ratings”.

Contrary to what the president claims, Colbert is performing well, earning 2.42 million viewers in the second quarter of 2025, making his show the highest rated late-night program in the industry.

The long-running late-night series, which replaced Pat Sajak on television in 1993 and was first hosted by David Letterman, was also terminated by the cancellation.

At a March 28, 2024, campaign fundraising event held at Radio City Music Hall in New York, US, former US Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton moderate a discussion moderated by Stephen Colbert, the host of CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” [Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters]

financial strains

“This is purely a financial choice against a challenging late-night setting.” According to a statement from CBS to Al Jazeera, the show’s performance, content, or other issues happening at Paramount are unrelated.

After a two-year run, CBS previously ended its late-night program After Midnight, which was hosted by comedian Taylor Tomlinson.

Experts think that assertion has merit.

The reality is that the late-night entertainment industry does not have any viable alternatives to the exorbitant salaries this talent earns and the costs associated with these productions. In the end, late-night production will largely be consumed on YouTube, according to Andrew Rosen, the founder of the media strategy firm Parqor.

According to reports from the outlet Puck, the show reportedly costs $100 million to produce each year and loses about $40 million in revenue.

Rosen continued, citing Paramount’s efforts to cut costs as it focuses on merging with Skydance, saying, “They’ve just maxed out the model for as long as they can and for a variety of reasons that I think probably have more to do with the economics of the merger with Skydance than they do with Trump.”

As of 1 p.m. in New York (17:00 GMT), Paramount’s stock is up 0.2%.

political planning

The Department of Justice is considering the merger as the news of the show’s cancellation comes. Despite having economics in mind, the decision is also perceived as being political.

Its timing raises a lot of questions. Rodney Benson, professor in the New York University’s Department of Media, Culture, and Communication, told Al Jazeera that the politics surround it, especially for broadcast legacy media.

The administration claims that the coverage is biased, including the $ 16 million lawsuit that Paramount settled with Trump, and the administration has pursued news organizations and their parent media companies. Disney-owned ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit in December by paying for Trump’s library with a $ 15 million settlement and apologizing for inaccurate on-air remarks. The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) use and cuts to the public media also pose a threat to their broadcasting licenses’ future.

The FCC regulates broadcast networks, according to the FCC. The government can pursue them for what they perceive as news distortion if they need their licenses renewed, which they can be. They have already raised that, Benson continued.

Democrats have criticized the network for its alleged political justification for the show’s cancellation.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren claimed on the social media platform X, which was formerly known as Twitter, that CBS canceled Colbert’s show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $ 16 million settlement with Trump, which appears to be bribery.

The timing suggests that if it were just financial, they would have wanted to wait a little, Benson continued. The optics are simply terrible, so there must have been some pressure, according to Benson.

David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, is in charge of Skydance, the company that is preparing to buy Paramount.

David Ellison, former confidante Elon Musk, health and human services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, and Ted Cruz, among others, fought for the UFC in April.

Hamas says Israel rejected ceasefire deal releasing all captives in Gaza

Israel rejected a ceasefire agreement that would release all of the prisoners held in Gaza, according to the military wing of Hamas, and it is said the organization is prepared for a protracted conflict if a deal is not reached.

The Qassam Brigades’ long-time leader, Abu Obeida, claimed in a nearly 20-minute prerecorded video that the organization had in recent months offered a “comprehensive deal” that would release all captives at once, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right ministers rejected it.

Hamas supports a deal that allows the Israeli military to withdraw, the release of humanitarian aid, and the entry of besieged Palestinians, he said, adding that it has become clear that the government of the criminal Netanyahu has no real interest in the captives because they are soldiers.

According to Abu Obeida, Hamas cannot guarantee a return to any partial agreements, including a 60-day deal currently being discussed that would result in the release of ten captives if Israel resigns from this round of indirect talks held in Qatar.

In Gaza, Hamas is still holding 50 people, with 20 of whom are reportedly still alive.

Palestinians who were killed in Israeli airstrikes are interred at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip, on July 18, 2025. [Hussam Al-Masri/Reuters]

Abu Obeida added that Hamas fighters are “ready to continue a long battle of attrition” and will keep up ambushes throughout Gaza with the intention of capturing or killing Israeli soldiers in his first video message since early March.

He criticized the governments of the Arab and Islamic countries for their actions in response to Israel’s “genocide,” stating that “your necks are burdened with the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people who were betrayed by your silence.”

The comments come as the Doha talks have failed to produce any conclusions because Israel insists on maintaining and expanding military dominance over Gaza, including the Morag Corridor and the new Magen Oz Corridor, which set Rafah and Khan Younis apart from the rest of the enclave, respectively.

Israel is moving forward with plans to construct a concentration camp on the ruins of Rafah as soldiers continue to block humanitarian aid to the besieged population and slaughter Palestinians who are starving at GHF-run sites, despite international criticism.

According to medical sources, Israeli forces killed at least 41 Palestinians on Friday, according to Al Jazeera.

Since Israel broke the last ceasefire in March, more than 58, 667 Palestinians have died and 139, 974 have been injured, including at least 7, 843 of whom have been killed and 27 993 have been injured, according to the most recent figures released by Gaza’s Ministry of Health.

Dubois-Usyk 2: Londoner ‘on a different level’ before title fight

Oleksandr Usyk should defeat Daniel Dubois to claim the undisputed world heavyweight title on Saturday night for a number of reasons.

The Ukrainian hasn’t lost a fight in 16 years and is undefeated in all competitions, including Dubois, which he stopped two years ago. British fighters are a staple diet for Usyk. In a packed Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in 2021, he defeated Anthony Joshua to take the title. At the London Olympics, he won a gold medal.

Dubois, a native of London, insists that things will change this time and that his three most recent clinches, including Joshua’s defeat at Wembley in September, demonstrate that he can do Beat Usyk, a feat no other professional has ever done.

The 27-year-old Dubois said, “I’m just on a different level now.” On Saturday, I’m prepared to go through whatever I need and get those belts.

When Usyk (3-0, 14 KOs) places his WBA, WBC, and WBO titles on the line, an expected crowd of 90,000 will be present. He’ll fight to become the two-time undisputed world heavyweight champion after capturing Dubois’ IBF belt.

Lennox Lewis won the title of last British heavyweight champion in November 1999, making it the last time he’d won a major belt.

Usyk values “young guy” Dubois.

In their first fight, Dubois (22-2, 21 KOs), who was unable to defend the Ukrainian southpaw’s jab and who lacked numerous power punches in Wroclaw, Poland, in August 2023, duo Usyk and Dubois (22-2). In the fifth round, Dubois sent Usyk to the box, but the decision was made to consider the punch to be low. In the ninth minute, Dubois’ evening was ended by a straight right turn.

Egor Mekhontsev from Russia won the amateur world championships in September 2009, defeating Usyk.

Usyk shrugged off the rumors that he was getting too old to keep up his success.

Usyk remarked, “I respect this guy, this young man.” “I’m motivated, but this guy isn’t alone.” 38 is not an old man, but I’m not an old man.

Daniel Dubois and Oleksandr Usyk speak at the Wembley Stadium press conference [Andrew Couldridge/Reuters]

The last six of Usyk’s six fights were against British opponents, with victories coming against Tyson Fury, the Dubois stoppage, Anthony Joshua victories in a row, and then Zimbabwe-born boxer Derek Chisora, who was born in Zimbabwe.

Only one of his heavyweight fights featured a non-British opponent, which was Chazz Witherspoon of the United States in his division debut in October 2019.

Usyk is content to compete on Dubois’ own turf in London.

At Wembley, Usyk declared, “I’m happy to be here again.”

He has a good reason to be.

At the 2012 London Olympics, he won an Olympic gold medal. He won the amateur European title in the light heavyweight category four years prior to his victory in Liverpool.

In his final fight at cruiserweight, Usyk defeated Tony Bellew of Liverpool in Manchester. In 2020, he defeated Chisora at Wembley Arena.

Joseph Parker said he would use more combinations and pressure on Usyk than Chisora did five years ago.

After the news conference on Thursday, Parker said, “I think this fight depends on how Dubois appears.” In his previous three fights, we saw him become much more self-assured of his abilities in the ring.

Boxing - Oleksandr Usyk & Daniel Dubois Workouts - BoxPark Wembley, London, Britain - Dubois during his workout
Before Saturday’s title fight, Dubois performed in London. [Photo: Andrew Couldridge/Reuters]

Dubois was scheduled to defend his title against Parker in February, but he resisted the invitation due to a medical issue.

Dubois’ father, Stanley, who also plays Dave in his son’s career, continues to have a significant influence on him. Caroline Dubois, who is also a world champion boxer, was one of his children’s parents who backed home education. About two years ago, Caroline Dubois told The Associated Press that it was either that or that she would have ended boxing and be in a “really bad mental place.”

Riz Khan, Daniel Dubois’ manager, claimed that one person is responsible for his fighter’s success since losing to Usyk.

“We have all the credentials to support Daniel in the background, so we have to acknowledge that his father, Stan Dubois, has clearly guided the resurgence, whether it be from a management perspective or from a coaching perspective,” Khan said.

Dubois’ attempts to talk about things seem more like box-checking than being a man, such as when he grinned when he yelled “And the new”! this week in Usyk’s face. There was a slow-motion shove of Usyk that wasn’t strong enough at the time.

He’s still the same type of person he was before the Joshua fight, which Dubois was awestruck by.

Felix Baumgartner death: Witnesses heard loud boom before crash

Beachgoers were aware of a paraglider’s malfunction when they heard a loud boom ring as it sprang into flames near the Adriatic Sea, killing its only passenger, extreme athlete Felix Baumgartner.

A 30-year-old mother and her two young children, who were enthralled by the constant paragliding above the beach town of Porto Sant’Elipido in the Marche region, watched the deadly descent unfold Thursday afternoon from a nearby house.

“Everything was normal until it started to spin like a top,” Mirella Ivanov said on Friday. We audibly heard a roar as it fell. I actually turned around because I believed it had sunk into the rocks. Then I ran into two lifeguards, heading toward “the crash site.”

She hustled her two children away when she saw people attempting to save the owner.

Baumgartner, 56, was credited with being the first skydiver to fall more quickly than the speed of sound, according to the city’s mayor. Investigating the paragliding accident was ongoing. Calls to the police for comment were not returned.

According to Mayor Massimiliano Ciarpella, “It is a destiny that is very difficult to comprehend for a man who has broken all kinds of records, who has been an icon of flight, and who travelled through space.”

Baumgartner claimed that he had taken a vacation and that Baumgartner’s family believed he may have fallen ill during the fatal flight.

In recent days, Baumgartner has been taking off from a nearby airfield surrounded by cornfields while using a motorized paraglider, or paramotoring, above seaside towns.

In Porto Sant’Elpidio, Italy, where Felix Baumgartner’s paraglider crashed, killing him and injuring an hotel employee on the ground, workers stand near the resort’s swimming pool.

A statement from the beachside resort Clube de Sole Le Mimose claimed that a worker who was “middle injured” in the accident was in good condition. The pool has been reopened, and there are no injuries.

Baumgartner, known as “Fearless Felix,” broke the silence on sound with only his body in 2012. He jumped from a capsule he had inflated to more than 24 miles (39 kilometers) by a huge helium balloon over New Mexico while wearing a pressurized suit.

During a nine-minute descent, the Austrian, who was a member of the Red Bull Stratos team, topped out at 843.6 mph (1, 357.6 km/h), which is the equivalent of 1.25 times the speed of sound. His crew later reported that at one point, while still supersonic, he spun for 13 seconds before going into a potentially dangerous flat spin.

Millions of people watched Baumgartner’s livestream on YouTube in 2012 as he activated his parachute as he approached the ground and raised his arms in triumphant height as he rose from the capsule high above Earth.

Before Google’s executive Alan Eustace set new records for the highest free-fall jump and longest free-fall distance, Baumgartner’s altitude record lasted for two years.

Former Austrian military parachutist Baumgartner performed thousands of jumps from famous landmarks, including the Christ the Redeemer statue in Brazil, including airplanes, bridges, skyscrapers, and other landmarks.

After being dropped from a plane in 2003, he took a carbon-fiber wing across the English Channel.

He has recently performed as a helicopter stunt pilot for The Flying Bulls, an aviation team owned and run by Red Bull, in various European venues.

In a post on Friday, Red Bull paid tribute to Baumgartner, calling him “precise, demanding, and critical.” Above all, you have to respect yourself.

The statement highlighted Baumgartner’s bravery and research in facing “the greatest challenges.”

Analysis: PKK recalibrates from armed struggle to politics in Turkiye

“We voluntarily destroy our weapons … as a step of goodwill and determination,” said senior Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Bese Hozat, speaking in front of a gathering of the group’s fighters.

The footage, filmed last Friday in the northern Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah, then shows the fighters – about 30 of them – placing their weapons inside a cauldron, where they were set alight.

The ceremony may have been symbolic, but it capped what might be one of the most consequential periods in Turkiye’s recent political history. It wraps up a carefully planned sequence of gestures and messages, and shows that both sides are not just coordinating symbolically, but are also politically aligned in their intent to move from armed conflict to political dialogue.

The choreography of the build-up to the ceremony unfolded with remarkable precision, revealing both political coordination and calculated restraint. Such an alignment would have been impossible without mutual recognition between the PKK and Turkiye of the importance of what was about to happen, as well as the consequences of any failure.

On July 7, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan received his country’s pro-Kurdish DEM Party delegation for the second time in four months. A smiling group photo from the meeting was widely circulated, signalling both the normalisation of dialogue and the symbolic approval of the process at the highest level.

Two days later, on July 9, Abdullah Ocalan – the imprisoned PKK leader and founder – appeared in a seven-minute video released by ANF, the PKK’s affiliated media outlet. It marked his first public visual appearance in 26 years and carried a simple but historic message: The time for arms has ended.

In it, Ocalan emphasised that the movement’s original aim, the recognition of Kurdish identity, had been achieved, and that political engagement must now replace armed resistance. The message was as much to the PKK as it was to the public.

Lastly, on July 13, Erdogan addressed the governing AK Party’s retreat, reaffirming his commitment to the disarmament process and announcing that a parliamentary commission would be established to address its legal framework. His message aimed to reassure the broader public, especially his supporters, that the process would strengthen national untiy and benefits all of Turkiye’s citizens, whatever their ethnicity.

Message to the Kurdish public

Ocalan’s rare video message aimed to reassure his Kurdish supporters that this was not a defeat, but a recalibration: a shift from armed struggle to political engagement. The message was carefully measured and stripped of triumphalism; it sought to redefine the past, rather than glorify it.

The dignified tone of the weapons-burning ceremony allowed both the PKK and state narratives to coexist. It did not alienate those who had sacrificed for the PKK’s struggle – activists, politicians in prison or exile, and the families of the disappeared. Instead, it signalled that their voices had been heard.

Despite his years of isolation, Ocalan’s words still carry weight. Not only because of his symbolic authority, but because his message reflects what many Kurds now seek: dignity without martyrdom, a voice without violence, and a future beyond armed struggle.

Public support for disarmament is growing, even among those long sceptical of the state’s intent. Recent surveys show that more than 90 percent of DEM voters, as well as those who identify as Kurdish or Zaza (a Kurdish-adjacent minority group) in Turkiye, support the process. Belief that the PKK will fully disarm is also significantly higher than the national average.

The PKK’s decision to disarm is not a retreat but a recalibration.

Since its founding in 1978, the group has waged a protracted armed struggle against the Turkish state, demanding autonomy and rights for Kurds. But after decades of rebellion, the regional landscape has changed.

In northern Iraq and Syria, the PKK’s operational space has altered. While the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a key PKK-linked actor, remains active in northeastern Syria, its future hinges on shifting US commitments and delicate understandings with the new government in Damascus, an ally of Turkiye.

At the same time, Iran’s weakening regional influence, sustained Turkish military pressure, and a quiet but growing preference among Western actors for a stable Turkiye have all contributed to reshaping the group’s strategic calculus.

Crucially, this recalibration does not conflict with the United States and Israel’s core interests in curbing Iranian influence and maintaining a manageable status quo in Syria.

Against this backdrop, a disarmed and politically engaged Kurdish movement in Turkiye is not an isolated anomaly. In this context, the PKK has opted to step off the battlefield and into the political arena. As Ocalan expressed in his July 9 message, “I believe in the strength of peace, not the force of arms.”

The weapons-burning ceremony is not the end of the disarmament process. A Turkish parliamentary commission is expected to define the conditions for the reintegration of PKK fighters into civilian and political life in Turkiye, while a verification mechanism involving the Turkish Armed Forces and intelligence agency will monitor disarmament and issue a report to guide further steps.

Hozat, the PKK senior leader, framed the ceremony as a political milestone, and reaffirmed the group’s ambition to enter civilian politics, expressing an aim to become “pioneers of democratic politics in Amed [Diyarbakir], Ankara, and Istanbul” – a deliberate reference to key centres of Kurdish representation in Turkiye and national political power.

Yet this transition hinges on comprehensive legal reforms and credible guarantees that are both socially and politically viable, and civil society groups and humanitarian organisations in Turkiye are likely to play an active role in the forthcoming stages of full disarmament.

Turkish political support

In Turkiye, there is broad buy-in for the peace process with the PKK from across the political spectrum.

This is largely because the process benefits nearly all political actors by reducing the securitised political climate, easing judicial pressure, and offering a chance to reset deeply polarised governance.

With “terrorism” charges having been used expansively in recent years, even members of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) have found themselves entangled in legal problems. In this context, a de-escalation appeals to many, including party leaders such as Ozgur Ozel and Ekrem Imamoglu, even if many remain wary of the AK Party’s intentions. For many CHP supporters, what they view as the contradiction of a reconciliation effort with the PKK unfolding alongside a clampdown on opposition mayors is hard to ignore.

Other Turkish parties have been supportive, despite coming from different political traditions. The DEM Party has, of course, been a central part of the negotiations and the messaging that a page has been turned on the past.

It is notable that the group that the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) – perhaps the Turkish political party most opposed to the DEM Party and long a staunch opponent of any rapprochement with Kurdish nationalist groups – has also publicly backed the process, and indeed has also been heavily involved in the choreography in the past few months.

Its leader, Devlet Bahceli, has been front and centre in the process, formally inviting Ocalan to dissolve the PKK and reaching out to DEM members of parliament. His pragmatic stance has stemmed from his belief that the end of the PKK’s armed campaign aligns with national interests. In fact, delays in the process were ultimately overcome with the aid of the MHP leader.

And the AK Party has steered the peace process through some of its central figures, including Efkan Ala, a former interior minister and one of Erdogan’s most-trusted political allies. Erdogan has personally taken on the task of normalising the discourse of making peace with the PKK.

Still, not everyone in the party may be on board. Years of conflict with the PKK and attacks from the group, securitised rhetoric, the criminalisation of DEM-aligned actors, and the stigma surrounding any cooperation with the DEM Party have left deep internal reservations. Stepping away from that position is not easy, even if Erdogan has set a clear tone, signalling firm commitment from the very top of the Turkish establishment.

Potential pitfalls

This is not a conventional peace process, nor is it a one-sided act of capitulation.

Rather, it marks a convergence – tenuous, complex, and partial – between two longstanding adversaries.

Spoilers exist – within the state, among political factions, and across the border – but so far, none has derailed the process.

But those tied to the war economy, ideological hardliners, or actors who thrive in a securitised climate might yet try, even if the process has already weathered a lot of potential pitfalls, including the Turkish military bombing PKK positions in March and regional turbulence in the form of the war between Israel and Iran.

However, that does not mean that no future problems could arise. What lies ahead may be even harder. Without meaningful political reforms or guarantees, the space opened up by disarmament may quickly narrow again.

On the Kurdish political side, many questions also still remain.

DEM Co-Chair Tuncer Bakirhan, speaking in an interview with the Kurdish media outlet Rudaw last Wednesday, emphasised that symbolic gestures must be followed by institutional action.

“We have submitted our proposals to the speaker of parliament,” he noted, including mechanisms for reintegrating former militants into political and civilian life. “We don’t need to dwell on the details — those will follow. But there must be clarity: What happens to those who disarm? Where do they go? What protections will they have? These are not trivialities; they are the foundation of a credible peace.”

He is right to point out that disarmament alone is not enough; it is merely the starting point. The real question is what comes next.

What will happen to those imprisoned on “terror” charges, whether for political reasons or past involvement in armed struggle?

What about the fighters still in the mountains, the families stranded and the political figures exiled in Iraq, Europe or elsewhere? And what about the broader ecosystem: civil society actors, journalists, and others long caught in the grey zones of criminalisation?

For the PKK’s disarmament to reach this point, the right domestic and geopolitical conditions had to align, and today, they have.

Weapons will be burned, and the armed chapter, potentially including the Syrian front, as hinted by ongoing but difficult negotiations between the SDF and Damascus, will come to a close within Turkiye’s borders. But from this point on, representative politics, diplomacy, and public deliberation will matter more than ever.

It marks a historic threshold. What follows will depend not on symbols, but on substance: on the courage to legislate, to decentralise power, and to trust society’s readiness for coexistence.

No one can fully predict how the region will evolve, and most actors are likely preparing for multiple scenarios, not a single roadmap.