Category World News

United States President Donald Trump has been awarded FIFA’s newly created peace prize at the draw for the 2026 men’s football World Cup.

Trump, who has campaigned aggressively for a Nobel Peace Prize, thanked FIFA on Friday and called the award “one of the great honours of my life”.

The US leader had been heavily favoured to win the football governing body’s inaugural prize.

He and FIFA president Gianni Infantino are close allies, and Infantino had made it clear that he thought Trump should have won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to broker a ceasefire in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

“This is your prize, this is your peace prize,” Infantino said at the glitzy, celebrity-studded ceremony at Washington’s Kennedy Center.

Infantino has repeatedly spoken about football as a unifier for the world, but the prize is a departure from the federation’s traditional focus on sport.

The US, along with Canada and Mexico, will host the football tournament next year. The prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney, and the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, were at the ceremony, too.

In a nod to Trump’s love of spectacle, Infantino, who served as master of ceremonies, had the three leaders stand behind brightly coloured podiums – game-show style – to draw their teams.

After the draw, they all posed for a selfie with Infantino.

“This will be unique, this will be stellar, this will be spectacular,” Infantino said at the outset of the ceremony, referring to next year’s games.

The men’s World Cup will be held from June 11 to July 19, 2026, with a record 104 matches in 16 host cities. It will kick off with Mexico playing South Africa at the Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, followed by South Korea against a playoff winner.

The US and Canada will join the World Cup party the following day.

FIFA award under scrutiny

FIFA announced the annual peace prize in November, saying it would recognise “individuals who have taken exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace”.

A video prior to the presentation celebrated Trump for resolving the war in Gaza and trying to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The trophy, a gold-plated globe carried by upraised hands, was considerably larger than the Nobel, which is just a simple medal.

Trump was given a medal as well and donned it as Infantino lauded him. The president deserved the award for “promoting peace and unity around the world”, he said.

“Thank you very much. This is truly one of the great honours of my life. And beyond awards, Gianni and I were discussing this, we saved millions and millions of lives,” Trump said.

“The world is a safer place now.”

The US, he said, was “not doing too well” before he took office, but now “we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world”.

Earlier, Trump told reporters he did not care about the prize, but noted that he had “settled eight wars” in his 10 months in office.

“I don’t need prizes. I need to save lives,” Trump said. “I saved millions and millions of lives, and that’s really what I want to do.”

The claim that Trump has ended eight wars this year is widely disputed.

Much work remains before most of the conflicts the president claims to have ended, including Israel’s war on Gaza, can actually be considered resolved.

Trump received the award as he continues to face criticism from Democrats and rights groups for launching a huge US military build-up around Venezuela and ordering deadly air strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats.

He has also ordered a hardline migration crackdown, threatening to move World Cup games from cities where he has sent troops and freezing asylum decisions from 19 countries – including World Cup participants Haiti and Iran.

It also came days after the president demeaned Somali immigrants in the US as “garbage” – triggering an outcry both at home and abroad.

There has been little transparency around FIFA’s peace prize.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said it has written to FIFA to request a list of the nominees, the judges, the criteria and the selection process – and has received no response.

“FIFA’s so-called peace prize is being awarded against a backdrop of violent detentions of immigrants, national guard deployments in US cities, and the obsequious cancellation of FIFA’s own anti-racism and anti-discrimination campaigns,” Minky Worden, who oversees sport for HRW, said in a statement.

Washington, DC – Players often face fines and bans from FIFA for displaying political messages, as the football governing body has long proclaimed a policy of political neutrality.

But on Friday, the association’s chief Gianni Infantino handed United States President Donald Trump the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize, further cementing his embrace of the Republican leader.

Critics pointed out that the award came less than 24 hours after the Trump administration carried out another deadly air strike in the Caribbean.

Craig Mokhiber, a former United Nations official who has campaigned to suspend Israel from world football over its genocidal war in Gaza, called the award to Trump a “truly shameful development”.

Infantino has refused to take action against Israel, arguing that football “cannot solve geopolitical” issues.

“Not satisfied with two years of FIFA complicity in genocide in Palestine, Infantino and his cronies have now invented a new ‘peace prize’ in order to curry favour with Donald Trump,” Mokhiber told Al Jazeera.

He added that the award also aims to “obscure” Trump’s “disgraceful record” of support to Israel, his deadly strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea, and “gross violations of human rights” inside the US.

Infantino praises Trump

While presenting the prize on Friday, Infantino expressed support for Trump’s international deals, including the so-called Abraham Accords that established formal ties between Israel and several Arab states without resolving the question of Palestinian statehood.

“This is what we want from a leader: a leader that cares about the people. We want to live in a safe world, in a safe environment. We want to unite, and that’s what we do here today, and that’s what we want to do at the World Cup,” Infantino said as he presented the award.

“Mr President, you definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action, for what you have obtained in your way, but you have obtained in an incredible way.”

Trump has openly campaigned for the Nobel Peace Prize but missed out on the award earlier this year.

He said the new FIFA recognition is one of the “great honours” he has received, and he repeated his claim that his presidency has saved millions of lives and ended eight wars.

The US president’s remarks were brief, but he still could not help but take a shot at the record of his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.

“The United States, one year ago, was not doing too well, and now I have to say we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world,” Trump said.

A departure from past statements

Infantino has previously warned against using football to stoke division. “There’s no more powerful tool than sport to unite the people,” he said in 2023. “Now we have to protect the autonomy of sport: the political neutrality of sport and to protect the values of sport.”

Two years later, critics point out that Infantino has created a prize to celebrate peace and unity, and then handed it to a president who called people from Somalia “garbage” just days prior.

“Giving Donald Trump a prize for peace is like giving Luis Suarez a prize for not biting people’s ears off,” football journalist Zach Lowy wrote on social media, referring to the Uruguayan forward who has been caught up in at least three biting incidents on the pitch throughout his career.

Infantino appears to have forged strong ties with Trump as the US prepares to co-host the World Cup with Mexico and Canada next year.

The FIFA president has been a regular guest at the White House, and in October, he attended a ceremony with Trump to formalise the Gaza truce in Egypt.

FIFA did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment by the time of publication.

The Democratic Party was among the critics taking aim at the new FIFA award. “Trump couldn’t win a Nobel Peace Prize so FIFA made one up for him,” it said in a social media post.

But rights advocates levelled more serious criticism at the US president, invoking his rights record and foreign policy.

Trump’s record

While Trump has helped broker some peace deals between warring parties, most recently between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he has been an advocate for increased military spending across the Western world.

Trump also ordered the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, and he has continued to arm Israel despite its well-documented abuses against Palestinians.

In the Western Hemisphere, Trump’s administration has also carried out 22 air strikes against vessels that it says are carrying drugs, killing at least 86 people. Legal experts have widely condemned the attacks as unlawful acts of extrajudicial killing.

Moreover, Trump has been amassing military assets near Venezuela, raising speculation that the US may go to war with the country to topple left-wing President Nicolas Maduro.

At home, Trump has intensified an anti-immigration crackdown that has led to the detention and attempted deportation of non-citizens. Some advocates have been targeted for their criticism of Israel, an act of free speech protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“US President Donald Trump was just awarded the newly created ‘FIFA Peace Prize’,” Human Rights Watch said on the social media platform X.

“But his administration’s appalling human rights record certainly does not display ‘exceptional actions for peace and unity’.”

For his part, Mokhiber, the former UN official, said the “vulgar” prize to Trump must be rescinded.

Frank Gehry, who designed some of the most imaginative buildings ever constructed and achieved a level of worldwide acclaim seldom afforded any architect, has died. He was 96.

Gehry passed away on Friday in his home in Santa Monica after a brief respiratory illness, said Meaghan Lloyd, the chief of staff at his firm Gehry Partners LLP.

Gehry’s fascination with modern pop art led to the creation of some of the most striking buildings ever constructed. Among his many masterpieces are the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain; Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles; and Berlin’s DZ Bank Building.

He also designed an expansion of Facebook’s Northern California headquarters at the insistence of the company’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.

Gehry was awarded every major prize architecture has to offer, including the field’s top honour, the Pritzker Prize, for what has been described as “refreshingly original and totally American” work.

Other honours include the Royal Institute of British Architects gold medal, the Americans for the Arts lifetime achievement award and his native country’s highest honour, the Companion of the Order of Canada.

Even some of his early work has gained public appreciation.

In 2006, years after Gehry had stopped designing ordinary-looking buildings, word surfaced that the pedestrian Santa Monica mall project he designed early in his career might be headed for the wrecking ball. The project had reportedly led to his career epiphany.

Gehry admirers were aghast, but the man himself was amused.

“They’re going to tear it down now and build the kind of original idea I had,” he said with a laugh.

Eventually, the mall was remodelled, giving it a more contemporary, airy outdoor look. Still, it’s no Gehry masterpiece.

Gehry, meanwhile, continued to work well into his 80s, turning out heralded buildings that remade skylines around the world.

The headquarters of the InterActiveCorp, known as the IAC Building, took the shape of a shimmering beehive when it was completed in New York City’s Chelsea district in 2007. The 76-storey New York By Gehry building, once one of the world’s tallest residential structures, was a stunning addition to the lower Manhattan skyline when it opened in 2011.

That same year, Gehry joined the faculty of his alma mater, the University of Southern California, as a professor of architecture. He also taught at Yale and Columbia University.

Not everyone was a fan of Gehry’s work. Some naysayers dismissed it as not much more than gigantic, lopsided reincarnations of the little scrap-wood cities he said he spent hours building when he was growing up in the mining town of Timmins, Ontario.

Princeton art critic Hal Foster dismissed many of his later efforts as “oppressive”, arguing they were designed primarily to be tourist attractions. Some denounced the Disney Hall as looking like a collection of cardboard boxes that had been left out in the rain.

Still other critics included Dwight D Eisenhower’s family, who objected to Gehry’s bold proposal for a memorial to honour the nation’s 34th president.

Although the family said it wanted a simple memorial and not the one Gehry had proposed, with its multiple statues and billowing metal tapestries depicting Eisenhower’s life, the architect declined to change his design significantly.

If the words of his critics annoyed Gehry, he rarely let on. Indeed, he even sometimes played along. He appeared as himself in a 2005 episode of The Simpsons cartoon show, in which he agreed to design a concert hall that was later converted into a prison.

In that episode, he came up with the idea for the design, which looked a lot like the Disney Hall, after crumpling Marge Simpson’s letter to him and throwing it on the ground. After taking a look at it, he declared, “Frank Gehry, you’re a genius!”

“Some people think I actually do that,” he would later tell The Associated Press news agency.

Ephraim Owen Goldberg was born in Toronto on February 28, 1929, and moved to Los Angeles with his family in 1947, eventually becoming a US citizen. As an adult, he changed his name at the suggestion of his first wife, who told him anti-Semitism might be holding back his career.

Although he had enjoyed drawing and building model cities as a child, Gehry said it wasn’t until he was 20 that he pondered the possibility of pursuing a career in architecture, after a college ceramics teacher recognised his talent.

“It was like the first thing in my life that I’d done well in,” he said.

He went on to earn a degree in architecture from the University of Southern California in 1954. After serving in the army, he studied urban planning at Harvard University.

His survivors include his wife, Berta; daughter, Brina; sons Alejandro and Samuel; and the buildings he created.

Egypt found itself back on the international front pages in the second half of this year. The country played host to the Sharm el-Sheikh conference in October when US President Donald Trump rallied global and regional powers alike behind his ceasefire plan for the Gaza Strip. Shortly after, in November, Cairo invited world leaders to attend the spectacular opening of the new Grand Egyptian Museum next to the pyramids.

Amid these eye-catching events, other domestic developments have received less attention. Most notable were Egypt’s parliamentary elections, with the first round held in November, and runoffs planned for early December.

The elections have been dominated by a coalition of pro-government parties running unopposed for the party list seats, which are half of the parliamentary seats being voted for. Individual candidates can run for the other half of the seats in contention, but those seats are difficult to win for candidates without the necessary financial resources and connections.

Critics, therefore, believe that the race is essentially only between loyalists to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, with a group of Egyptian human rights groups saying that the elections had occurred “under chronic and severe restrictions on meaningful political participation”.

With that context in mind, the elections have not attracted a groundswell of attention from Egyptians, continuing a pattern since el-Sisi took power in the country more than a decade ago, after a coup against Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi.

“They are even less important than under [former President Hosni] Mubarak, it is not the talk of the day,” said a businessman in the textile industry, who did not wish to give their full name for fear of reprisals. “There are fewer banners and posters than during previous elections.”

Capital injections

In the shadow of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, it is often forgotten that less than two years ago, Egypt experienced the worst economic crisis seen under el-Sisi. Billions of dollars worth of capital injections from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the European  Union, and massive investment pledges from the UAE in early 2024 prevented an economic crisis in Egypt.

Leading to the question, how is Egypt’s economy faring now? On paper, the picture looks promising. Recently, Egypt’s credit rating was upgraded, GDP growth is increasing, skyrocketing inflation rates that battered the population for years have cooled down, and investment from the Gulf continues. For example, Qatar is planning to develop a prime coastal strip near el-Alamein on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast, not far from a similar UAE-funded project now under construction.

Earlier this year, the IMF completed its fourth review of Egypt’s economic reforms as part of conditions attached to its loan, and distributed a further $1.2bn – part of a loan worth $8bn in total, of which Egypt has now withdrawn $3.2bn.

The IMF continues to voice concern about state and military control in the economy – issues that have been on the table continuously under el-Sisi’s rule – but the overall message has been that Egypt is performing as desired. Between the lines, one can read that el-Sisi’s Egypt, especially as the precious peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has held steady amid Israel’s war in Gaza, is simply too big to fail.

Dollars available

The capital injections have had their impact on the ground. There are dollars in the banks and after a major devaluation in 2024, the Egyptian pound is relatively stable. It serves the business community well.

“Our exports rise every quarter,” said a textile company owner. “There are many Turkish textile companies opening in Egypt, drawn by our cheap labour costs.”

That is the intended effect of the devaluation: translated into foreign currency, labour costs decrease, making Egypt an attractive destination to move production that depends on low-skilled labour.

While Turkish companies are a new competitor to his business, the company owner sees the benefit for Egyptian workers. “I had to raise salaries to keep up with what Turkish companies offer, I can see that has a positive effect on people,” he said.

That said, when measured in foreign currency, salaries are still lower than before the 2024 devaluation.

“For the past year or two, exports were ridiculously cheap [due to low labour costs]. We see that advantage slowly fading now. Salaries will get better every year.”

Mohamed Usama, an engineer in a facility manufacturing steel products, has also seen conditions improve. His employer relies on the import of raw materials and export of higher-value products.

“The stable exchange rate made a huge difference,” Usama said. “It made imports and exports reliable. There are no more problems with wiring money; it is predictable when shipments come in. There are dollars available.”

“The waiting time for the arrival of an order of raw materials is now one month instead of three to six,” he added.

That predictability has allowed factories to hire again, according to Usama, even if he pointed out that many contracts were still temporary, leaving workers cautious.

Osama Diab, a Egyptian political economist at the Belgium university KU Leuven, is sceptical that the loans and investment deals have fixed Egypt’s economy.  “These mainly treat the symptoms,” he wrote in an email. “I don’t believe that any of the structural issues are resolved. The economy is still dependent on offering high interest rates to generate hard currency, and there are still massive current account imbalances.”

And while business sentiment is generally positive, hardship for many Egyptians appears far from over.

One economic parameter, non-oil private sector activity, has remained in contraction for most of the past five years. One culprit is low domestic consumer demand. That is also something the textile company owner has noticed.

“Purchasing power is not strong; it has not improved yet,” the textile company owner said. “Customers complain about not having money. Not only in textile, but in many sectors.”

More improvements needed

Diab explained that money from international institutions and investments is primarily being used to repay debts, and not on income or job-generating activities. “That means the vast majority of citizens will not feel any improvement,” he said.

“The government’s ability to honour its increasing debt obligation runs in contradiction with its ability to fulfil its social obligations,” according to Diab.

While the opening of the Grand Museum was surrounded by promises of increased tourism revenues coming in, people were hit with another fuel price increase in November. The price of electricity and cooking gas are set to rise, as well, early next year.

That means that even with the improved wages on offer in some sectors, the general sentiment is that they still need to rise further.

In fact, last year Egypt introduced a new labour law that decreased the mandatory annual raise for workers, and excluded a portion of the workforce from guaranteed annual raises all together. The law also allowed employers to use temporary contracts at will.

The government presented the law as a positive step for Egypt – for instance, it increases paid maternity leave, modernising relations between employer and employee. “The new law is simple, clear, and easy to apply. It provides contractual flexibility,” said Minister of Labour Mohamed Gobran after the law came into effect in September. “The new law is highly advantageous for employers. It simplifies many aspects of workforce management.”

Mahmoud, a farmer in his 40s from a village in Egypt’s Nile Delta, north of Cairo, is typical of those who are still struggling despite the economic shots. He owns a small plot of land that provides most of the income for his family of six, and takes up household service jobs in addition.

Rural areas in the Nile Delta, and especially Upper Egypt, have been hit hardest with high poverty rates in the past years, driving people to move away for work.

“The museum is good for Egypt, but mainly for tourism, for hotels, not for all Egyptians,” he said. ‘The farmers and others in the countryside are just trying to get by with the expensive prices. They wouldn’t abandon their whole lives and go work in hotels in Cairo. What would a farmer go to do in tourism anyway?’

Mahmoud complained that subsidies – for instance, those on fuel and food – have been removed as part of the IMF-induced reforms, making life more expensive.

That leads to often heard criticism of IMF conditions, including that, in the pursuit of free market economics, it is the poor that suffer, even if the general business climate improves.

Since early September, the United States has carried out at least 22 declared military strikes targeting alleged drug-trafficking vessels off the coast of Latin America.

Legal experts and international officials say that the attacks, which have killed at least 86 people, are a violation of the law and represent acts of extrajudicial killing.

But despite what scholars describe as clear-cut illegality, Trump’s lethal campaign has shown few signs of slowing down, and critics see an alarming shift towards the use of military force against criminal activities.

“I was utterly shocked that the United States would do this,” Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, told Al Jazeera in a telephone interview.

“It shows that the Trump administration has no respect for international law or conventions around the use of force.”

The situation points to a trend of impunity for powerful countries. Though there may be a broad consensus that Trump is breaking international law, it is unclear what legal or political mechanisms could halt his bombing campaign.

“Certainly, trying to rein in a superpower like the United States is something very difficult,” Saul said. “This has to stop from within the US itself.”

‘Guardrails have been eroded’

Experts say that oversight could potentially come from a number of sources.

On the domestic front, the US Congress has the ability to pass legislation barring military strikes or cut off funds for the campaign.

Military members involved in the attacks could also refuse to carry out what they see as unlawful orders.

Foreign leaders could limit or pause intelligence cooperation with the US.

Thus far, however, few meaningful restraints have been placed on the Trump administration.

Twice, the US Senate has voted to defeat legislation that would have required the White House to obtain congressional support for its bombing campaign.

In October, the first bill failed by a vote of 51 to 48. In November, the second was voted down by a margin of 51 to 49.

On the international side, there have also been reports that the United Kingdom and Colombia considered whether to stop sharing intelligence from the Caribbean with the US.

But officials from both countries have downplayed those reports, with Colombian Interior Minister Armando Benedetti calling the situation a “misunderstanding”.

Other mechanisms meant to assess the legality of the Trump administration’s military actions have faced political pressure.

News outlets such as CNN and NBC News reported that US military lawyers — known as judge advocates general or JAG officers — who questioned the legality of the bombing campaign were sidelined or fired.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has previously said that he does not want military lawyers acting as “roadblocks” to Trump’s policies.

“Military lawyers are only roadblocks if you want to break the law,” said Sarah Harrison, an analyst at the International Crisis Group.

Harrison previously served as an associate general counsel at the Department of Defense, where she advised the military on questions of international law. She said the Trump administration has deliberately weakened institutional norms and legal safeguards meant to prevent the abuse of military power.

“They have established a blueprint to direct the military to commit an unlawful order without resistance,” she said.

“The guardrails inside have been eroded.”

‘Unlimited authority’

Numerous laws, however, exist to prohibit extrajudicial killings like those Trump is currently carrying out in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific.

Article Two of the UN Charter, for instance, largely prohibits countries from using force internationally, barring an act of self-defence.

The Geneva Conventions, a cornerstone of humanitarian law, also bar military violence against “persons taking no active part” in hostilities.

The Trump administration’s use of “double-tap” strikes — where a second attack is conducted to kill survivors from the first — has raised additional legal concerns.

The Hague Convention explicitly outlaws “no quarter given” policies, wherein soldiers are ordered to execute those who could otherwise be taken prisoner.

The Trump administration nevertheless denied that any of its strikes violate international or domestic law.

Instead, it argues that the vessels it bombed contained deadly narcotics, and that drug-traffickers are ‘unlawful combatants’ whose transportation of narcotics represents an attack on the US.

“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both US and international law, with all actions in complete compliance with the law of armed conflict,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said.

“Lawyers up and down the chain of command have been thoroughly involved in reviewing these operations prior to execution.”

But legal scholars say that the administration’s claims do not hold water.

Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University who previously served as an adviser to the US Department of State, said that the Trump administration has tried to erase the distinction between criminal activity and an armed attack that would justify a military response.

She compared the administration’s reasoning to the kind of garbled legal analysis an AI assistant like Grok might produce.

“It feels to me that some political actors inside the executive branch have taken all of the statements and memos about the use of force over the last 25 years, jumbled up the words, thrown them into Grok, and asked it to come up with a legal argument,” said Ingber.

“They think they can throw around words like ‘armed conflict’ and ‘terrorist’, and that if they label someone as such, it can give them unlimited authority,” she added.

A pliant Congress

Trump is not the first president to spur concerns about his broad use of military force.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, presidents including George W Bush and Barack Obama carried out military strikes in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen, as part of a global “war on terror”.

Both men drew on congressional authorisations for military force (AUMFs) that had been narrowly drafted to respond to the September 11 attacks.

Those authorisations were applied over time to an expanding list of organisations and conflicts.

Critics, however, have argued that this growing use of military force extends presidential authority beyond its constitutional limits and has weakened oversight and transparency.

Trump has continued the trend of presidents deploying the military without Congress’s approval first.

Normally, the power to declare war and authorise military action falls to Congress, not the president, and Congress retains the authority to rein in presidential military deployments.

Many conservative lawmakers, however, have been hesitant to challenge Trump, who maintains a firm hold over the Republican Party. Others accept the administration’s depiction of the air strikes as an anti-narcotics campaign.

Only two Republican senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted with Democrats in their recent attempts to stop the boat bombings.

“From the bombing of Iran to possible attacks on Venezuela, there are some entrepreneurial figures on the right willing to criticise the administration when it carries out interventionist policies,” said Curt Mills, the director of the American Conservative magazine, which advocates for a more restrained foreign policy.

“But Congress is weak. Its influence over foreign policy is at a historical nadir.”

‘There is no limiting principle’

Given the reluctance of most Republican lawmakers to assert congressional authority, some experts expressed hope that voters will send lawmakers to Congress who will exert greater control over military attacks abroad.

But thus far, at least, a majority of voters do not appear to view the current strikes with particular alarm.

In a CBS News poll last month, about 53 percent of respondents expressed approval for the strikes against the alleged drug boats, while 47 percent expressed disapproval.

Ingber, the Yale Law professor, speculated that decades of military action overseas during the war on terror may have primed the public to see the current strikes as normal.

“It’s possible that this is a frog that has already been boiled, and the public has grown to accept the idea of the president using force on his say-so,” said Ingber. “Even, in this case, against suspected criminals for suspected crimes that we don’t even have the death penalty for in this country.”

But if the “war on terror” has helped desensitise the public to the use of military power overseas, legal experts say the current strikes represent a radical new development: the application of wartime powers to criminal activities.

“The president is claiming the power to kill anyone he accuses of a crime, no questions asked,” said Annie Shiel, the US director at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), an advocacy group.