On Brazil’s streets, protesters are voicing their disapproval of US President Donald Trump’s severe tariffs on his exports.
Residents of cities like Sao Paulo and Brasilia erupted on Friday as part of Trump’s most recent tariff campaign’s first day to express their anger.
Some of the world’s highest US tariffs are anticipated for Brazil.
In response to a number of political complaints, most notably the prosecution of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, Trump made the announcement last month that he would increase the import tax on Brazilian goods to 50%.
Bolsonaro, a far-right leader and former army captain, is charged with trying to smuggle his alleged coup d’etat against Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the current president. Bolsonaro was president from 2019 to 2023.
A 2024 report from a federal police investigation led to Bolsonaro’s and his allies’ claims that they were trying to sabotage the results of the 2022 election, which he narrowly lost to Lula.
A “state of siege” to suspend civil liberties and compel the military to intervene was reportedly one option they had in mind. That would also open the door for fresh elections.
Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who had accused Bolsonaro of spreading false information about the 2022 election process, was allegedly to poison Lula and execute him.
In the end, De Moraes was in charge of Bolsonaro’s alleged coup attempt, making him a well-known target for Bolsonaro’s supporters.
Trump is one of them. He claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated in his July 9 letter announcing the tariffs, drawing a line from his tariff increase to how Brazil treated Bolsonaro.
“The way that Brazil treated former president Bolsonaro, a highly respected leader throughout the world, including by the United States, is a disgrace,” Trump wrote in a statement.
“This trial shouldn’t be occurring,” he said. A witch hunt needs to end right away.
Trump also accused the Brazilian Supreme Court of launching “insidious attacks on Free Elections” and censoring right-wing voices. Trump has been accused of trying to stifle Joe Biden’s defeat in the US’s 2020 election.
Trump has even threatened de Moraes, frozen his US-based assets, and revoked his visa in an effort to defend Bolsonaro.
Trump has been accused of trying to stifle Brazil’s judiciary by critics, though. Some people have compared the de Moraes’ sanctions and the tariff increase to a push by Brazilian prosecutors to drop Bolsonaro’s case.
On Friday, protesters burned two Bolsonaro-style effigies positioned in an embrace, one representing Trump, the other representing Bolsonaro, on the streets of Sao Paulo. Placards were waved, some with Trump’s forehead protruding from devil horns, and others with cartoons of Moraes flicking Trump’s middle finger.
Meanwhile, a banner read, “Sovereignty is not negotiable,” along with the phrase. On T-shirts and signs were Brazilian flags everywhere.
Switzerland says it will try to negotiate its way out of stiff United States tariffs, hours after US President Donald Trump’s administration shocked the European country by announcing plans to impose a 39-percent tariff rate on Swiss goods.
The Swiss government said on Friday that it was “disappointed” and would decide how to proceed after Trump unveiled the 39-percent rate, more than double the 15 percent being applied for most European Union imports into the US.
The new tariffs, which are set to go into effect on August 7, would prove painful for several key Swiss industries, including manufacturing and watchmaking.
The Swiss government said in a statement on social media that it remains in contact with US authorities and “still hopes to find a negotiated solution”.
“The Federal Council notes with great regret the intention of the US to unilaterally burden Swiss imports with considerable import duties despite the progress made in bilateral talks and Switzerland’s very constructive position,” it added.
The Trump administration unveiled a range of new tariffs on many US trading partners on Thursday, saying the move aimed to address a “continued lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships”.
Nearly 70 countries now face import duties that were due to come into force on Friday. But most will now begin on August 7, giving countries a few days to try to reach an agreement with Washington to stave off or reduce their respective tariff rate.
“Everyone had been focused on August 1 … and now there is a new deadline,” Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett reported from the White House on Friday morning.
“The reason is so that there can be a little bit more time and breathing space to get some more deals done. There were a few that were very close but didn’t quite make the deadline, and so the White House [said] this will allow … for these final agreements to be worked out.”
Trump negotiated trade frameworks over the past few weeks with the EU, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines — allowing the US president to claim victories as other nations sought to limit his threat of charging even higher tariff rates.
He said on Thursday there were agreements with other countries, but he declined to name them.
Asked on Friday if countries were happy with the rates set by Trump, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said, “A lot of them are.”
The new tariffs also include a 35-percent duty on many goods from Canada, 50 percent for Brazil, and 20 percent for Taiwan. Taiwan said its rate was “temporary” and it expected to reach a lower figure.
The Trump administration said it decided to impose 39-percent tariffs on Switzerland because of what it called the European country’s refusal to make “meaningful concessions” by dropping trade barriers.
“Switzerland, being one of the wealthiest, highest-income countries on Earth, cannot expect the United States to tolerate a one-sided trade relationship,” a White House official said on Friday.
Swissmem, a group representing the mechanical and electrical engineering industries, said it was “really stunned” by the US move. “It’s a massive shock for the export industry and for the whole country,” said Deputy Director Jean-Philippe Kohl.
“The tariffs are not based on any rational basis and are totally arbitrary … This tariff will hit Swiss industry very hard, especially as our competitors in the European Union, Britain and Japan have much lower tariffs.”
Stock market tumbles
But Trump’s new tariffs have created yet more uncertainty, with many details unclear.
Global stock markets stumbled on Friday, with Europe’s STOXX 600 down 1.8 percent on the day and 2.5 percent on the week, on track for its biggest weekly drop since Trump announced his first major wave of tariffs on April 2.
Wall Street also opened sharply lower on Friday.
Reporting from the New York Stock Exchange, Al Jazeera’s Kristen Saloomey explained that US markets were “definitely down” following the tariffs announcement, but the drop was not as bad as what was seen after the first round of tariffs in April.
“When the first round of tariffs were enacted, the market did drop substantially, but then clawed back a lot of the losses about a month later as deals were worked out. A lot of economists are saying that this time around, the market has priced in tariffs,” Saloomey said.
According to reports, Newcastle have rejected Liverpool’s initial offer to sign tense Swedish striker Alexander Isak.
After reportedly telling Newcastle he wanted to leave St James’ Park, Isak has been training at his former club Real Sociedad this week.
The Premier League champions are now believed to have formalized their interest with an offer of about 110 million pounds ($146 million) plus potential add-ons after the 25-year-old has been linked with Liverpool since the end of last season.
However, Newcastle, who reportedly valued Isak at 150 million pounds ($199 million), have rebuffed Liverpool’s initial offer.
Isak, who moved from Real Sociedad to Newcastle in a 60-million-pound ($80m) deal in 2022, scored 23 Premier League goals last year to help them advance to the Champions League.
He has three more years on his Newcastle contract, but the club reported that he had a minor thigh injury and did not travel to Asia for the Magpies’ preseason tour.
Real Sociedad confirmed on Thursday that he and his trainers were at Zubieta.
Newcastle reportedly told Isak he could agree to a new deal with a clause for the following year, but he insisted he wanted to move right away when it was reported on Friday.
In the wake of the current transfer window, Liverpool manager Arne Slot has already increased his attacking options by signing Bayer Leverkusen playmaker Florian Wirtz and Eintracht Frankfurt striker Hugo Ekitike.
In order to win back-to-back English titles for the first time since the 1980s, the Reds are eager to add Isak to their forward line, which will only make it stronger.
Eddie Howe, the manager of Newcastle, made a defiant statement earlier this week, saying: “He is still our player. He has a contract with us.
We have some control over what comes next for him, to some extent. I’d like to think that we have every chance still.
“I want him to stay, but I don’t have complete control over that.”
According to official reports from both sides, fighting broke out between the long-ago armies of Uganda and the neighboring South Sudan, which are both long-time allies.
Thousands of civilians have since been displaced in affected areas as people fled to safety amid the rare outbreak of violence.
A gunfight broke out on Monday as South Sudan, one of the youngest nations in the world, resumed fighting due to a government fracturing that has prompted fighting between South Sudanese troops and a rebel-armed group.
By deploying troops to support Kiir’s forces, Uganda has played a key role in containing that issue. However, the latest conflict between the two countries ‘ armies is raising questions regarding the state of that alliance.
In May 2020, a truck approaches a checkpoint at the Uganda-South Sudan border. [Sally Hayden/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images]
What has occurred?
There are conflicting accounts of the events that began at about 4: 25pm local time (13: 25 GMT) on Monday, making it hard to pinpoint which side struck first.
Although the two parties acknowledge that the location of the fighting is their own, each party asserts that the location is unique.
Major-General Felix Kulayigye, a spokesman for the Ugandan military, claimed that fighting broke out when West Nile state soldiers entered Ugandan territory and set up camp there. The South Sudanese soldiers refused to leave after being told to do so, Kulayigye said, resulting in the Ugandan side having “to apply force”.
According to Kulayigye, a Ugandan soldier was killed in the skirmish that followed, and the Ugandan side then retaliated and opened fire, killing three South Sudanese soldiers.
However, Major-General Lul Ruai Koang, a spokesman for the South Sudanese military, reported earlier on Tuesday that the “two sisterly republics” had engaged in combat on the South Sudanese side in Central Equatoria’s Kajo Keji County. Both sides suffered casualties, he said, without giving more details.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Kajo-Keji County’s Wani Jackson Mule added that Ugandan forces had launched a “surprise attack” on South Sudanese territory to support this claim. Five South Sudanese officers’ bodies were reportedly counted by local authorities, according to Mulle.
Kajo-Keji County army commander Brigadier General Henry Buri, in the same statement as Mule, said the Ugandan forces had been “heavily armed with tanks and artillery”, and that they had targeted a joint security force unit stationed to protect civilians, who are often attacked by criminal groups in the area. Two South Sudanese soldiers, two police officers, and one prison officer were among the deceased men, according to the army general.
Residents who spoke to the media claimed that the fighting had affected border villages and that panic was eerily present when people fled the area and loaded their belongings quickly onto their backs. Children were lost in the chaos. As local priests supervised the removal and transportation of remains, photos of crowds gathered on social media.
[Al Jazeera] Map of Uganda and South Sudan
What is the border conflict about?
Although there have been few such instances of conflict between Uganda and South Sudan, their previous clashes have been minor. The fighting frequently features tension and violence, just like the Monday clash. However, heavy artillery fighting, which occurred on Monday, is rare.
The border disputes date back to the delimitations made during the British colonial period between Uganda and Sudan, which South Sudan was once a part of. The two nations have failed to come to terms on border points despite establishing a joint demarcation committee (unknown when).
A representative of the South Sudanese army refuted the allegations and suggested the forestry commission was responsible for the attack. A few days later, Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni and South Sudan’s Kiir met and promised to work through the border dispute, but that was a foregone conclusion.
Little was reported on the matter for several years after that, but in October 2020, two Ugandan soldiers and two South Sudanese soldiers were killed when the two sides attacked each other in Pogee, Magwi County of South Sudan, which connects to Gulu district of northern Uganda. Territories in the region are at odds with. Three South Sudanese people were reported dead, according to some reports. Each side blamed the other for starting the fight.
The Ugandan parliament urged the government to speed up the demarcation process in September 2024, noting that in parts of rural Uganda, insufficient clarity was preventing Ugandan forces from successfully pursuing criminal cattle rustling organizations operating in the border region.
The nations have pledged to form a new joint committee to investigate the clashes following the most recent uprising this week, according to South Sudan’s military spokesman General Koang in a statement on Tuesday. The committee will also investigate any recurring issues along the border in a bid to resolve them, the statement read.
On Sunday, February 5, 2023, President Salva Kiir, right, and Vice President Riek Machar, left, attend a mass led by Pope Francis at the John Garang Mausoleum in Juba, South Sudan.
Why does Uganda support President Kiir of South Sudan militarily?
Uganda’s Museveni has been a staunch ally of South Sudan’s independence leader, Kiir, and his Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) party for many years.
Following allegations of collusion between former Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group that was established in Uganda but regularly attacks both Ugandan and South Sudanese locations as part of its efforts to overthrow the Ugandan government, Museveni backed South Sudan’s liberation struggle.
In January 2011, South Sudan was granted independence. In 2013, Uganda sent troops to support Kiir after a civil war broke out in the new country.
Before and after independence, Riek Machar, Kiir’s longtime rival, and the two parties’ allies, had engaged in conflict over allegations that Machar planned a coup.
The tensions were also exacerbated by ethnic differences between the two (Makar is Nuer and Kiir is Dinka). Machar fled the capital, Juba, to form his own Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO).
Before coming to a peace agreement in August 2018, the SPLM and SPLM-IO fought for five years. In the war, 400 000 people were killed, or so. Uganda deployed troops to fight alongside Kiir’s SPLM, while the United Nations peacekeeping mission (UNMISS), which was in place following independence, worked to protect civilians.
However, a power-sharing agreement that the government claims is supported by Machar has been broken, and fighting has erupted between South Sudanese forces and the White Army, an armed group in Nasir County, northeast of the nation.
As fears of a new civil war grew, Uganda once more deployed special forces to fight alongside Kiir’s forces in March. Kiir ordered Machar to be placed under house arrest and also detained several of his allies in the government.
During the country’s civil war, Jikany Nuer White Army fighters were armed in Upper Nile State, South Sudan, on February 10, 2014.
Are there concerns about South Sudan’s influence from Uganda?
Some South Sudanese who support Vice President Machar, who is still under house arrest, are opposed to Uganda’s deployment of troops in the country, and say Kampala is overreaching.
Some South Sudanese have taken to Facebook to criticize the army for not condemning alleged territorial violations committed by Ugandan soldiers and mock the spokesman Koang for calling the countries “sisterly.”
One poster wrote, “I wish the escalation would continue.” “The reason why South Sudan is not peaceful is because of Uganda’s interference in our country’s affairs”.
What did South Sudan anticipate when they subsided with Uganda’s cheap sale of their sovereignty? Added a second commenter.
Since joining forces to fight the rebel White Army, South Sudanese forces and the Ugandan Army have been accused by Machar and local authorities in Nasir State of using chemical weapons, namely barrel bombs containing a flammable liquid that they say has burned and killed civilians. The UN mission’s head, Nicholas Haysom, confirmed that the bombs had been used in airstrikes. Uganda has, however, refuted these claims. The South Sudan army has not commented.
The White Army and other Machar-area forces have been accused of also attempting to kill civilians. Since March, at least 100, 000 people have fled northeastern South Sudan and died.
As Rome prepares to deport migrants to Albanian detention centers, the European Union’s top court has given its support to Italian judges who questioned a list of “safe countries” created by Rome.
The ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was condemned by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s hard-right government, which said it “weakens policies to combat mass illegal immigration.”
Others in the bloc have closely followed Meloni’s plan to outsource migrant processing to a non-EU nation and expedite the repatriation of asylum seekers.
The expensive scheme has been hampered by legal challenges for months.
Italian magistrates cited the European Court’s ruling that states of the EU cannot designate specific regions as “safe” when others are not.
The Luxembourg-based ECJ ruled on Friday in a long-awaited decision, saying that Italy is free to choose which nations are “safe.” However, it should adhere to stringent legal requirements and permit applicants and courts to access and challenge the supporting evidence.
A Rome court turned to EU judges, according to the ECJ’s statement, citing the impossibility of accessing such information and preventing it from “challenging and reviewing the legitimacy of such a presumption of safety” in its statement.
The ECJ concurred with Italian judges who raised this issue last year by saying that a nation might not be considered “safe” if it does not provide adequate protection to its entire population.
In November 2023, Meloni and her Albanian counterpart, Edi Rama, signed a migration agreement, and Rome opened two centers in Albania last year, with the intention of processing up to 36, 000 asylum seekers annually.
Due to legal challenges, the detention facilities have been deserted for months. A report last week discovered that their construction cost seven times more than an Italian equivalent center.
Government’s strategy “dismantled”
The European court rendered its decision in the case of two Bangladeshi nationals who were taken to Albania by Italian authorities after being rescued at sea and denied asylum because of Italy’s definition of Bangladesh as a “safe” nation.
The Albanian migrant camps scheme, according to Dario Belluccio, a lawyer who represented one of the Bangladeshi asylum seekers at the ECJ on Friday, has been put to death.
According to him, “It will not be possible to continue with the Italian government’s decision that was made prior to this decision.” “Technically speaking, it seems to me that the government’s approach has been completely destroyed,” he told the Reuters news agency.
The EU judgment, according to Meloni’s office, “further restricts the already limited” capacity of parliament and government to make decisions on the matter.”
It stated that “this development should concern everyone.”
Italy’s overall strategy to stop illegal immigration by sea has been successful, even though the Albanian scheme is still in legal limbo.
According to law enforcement, Shane Tamura, a Las Vegas man suspected of killing four people on July 28 in a Manhattan office building, had a history of mental illness, which raised questions about his access to weapons.
Four people were killed, including a police officer who worked for a corporate security detail, and then himself when Tamura, 27, was identified as the shooter who opened an M4 rifle in the building where the NFL headquarters is located. Former high school football player Tamura, according to reports, had a note claiming to have CTE, or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is thought to be related to head trauma.
On July 28, Las Vegas police commissioner Jessica Tisch told them about Tamura’s history of mental illness. No more details were provided by her.
In Nevada in 2022 and 2024, according to news reports citing unnamed law enforcement sources, Tamura had two mental health crisis “holds” that allow for a person to be held illegitimately for evaluation and treatment for up to 72 hours.
Tisch claimed Tamura used an AR-15-style assault rifle while possessing a Nevada gun license. According to Tisch, Tamura was able to purchase a revolver with his concealed carry card in June. Tamura’s 2022 permit was captured by CBS and CNN, along with other photos of it.
Before a violent act occurs, “Red flag” laws are intended to remove weapons from insular individuals. Sometimes the laws go by different names, such as “high risk protection orders” or “extreme risk protection orders” in Nevada.
A high-risk protection order is not made by the state attorney general as a result of a mental health crisis hold. In Nevada, law enforcement or family members have the right to request that a court grant a person’s request to temporarily revoke their firearms or the right to keep a gun if they pose a threat to themselves or others.
No response was provided when we inquired about the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s response to whether Tamura had reacted to the law in order to grant the department’s request to use it.
A growing number of state laws aim to stop gun injuries and deaths, including Nevada’s high-risk protection orders.
Since enacting in 2020, the Nevada law has not been very widely used. According to experts, states typically put their red flag laws slowly, with some exceptions, into effect. For instance, Florida issued roughly 2,500 orders in the first 18 months of its 2018 law, according to University of California, Davis assistant professor Veronica Pear, an expert on violence prevention.
What laws have red flags?
Since 1999, 21 states and Washington, DC, many of which have Republican support, have passed red flag laws.
Who can begin a civil petition process to remove or restrict access to weapons is defined by state laws. Some states permit requests for orders from only law enforcement. Other states permit petition filing by relatives or close friends, such as coworkers or teachers. Law enforcement files the majority of petitions, and courts typically grant them.
Nevada law enforcement uses a detailed description of conduct and high-risk behavior as well as a question to the petitioner about having a firearm.
Orders are issued for longer-term and weeklong periods in Nevada. Following a hearing where only one party’s cause for action was presented, the seven-day order is issued. Up to a year can be placed in an extended order.
Former President Joe Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022, which provided funding for states to implement red flag laws.
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, these laws can save lives when properly implemented. Additionally, the organization claimed that linking mental illness with violence is a harmful stereotype.
People who commit violent crimes, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression, account for 3 to 5 percent of violent crimes. More frequently than the general population, those who have a mental illness are victims of violence.
Nevada’s red flag law
Nevada’s 2020 law was sponsored by Democratic State Representative Sandra Jauregui, who was present at a 2017 music festival where a gunman killed 58 people.
Former Governor Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, signed the legislation, which Republicans opposed. Former Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, the current Republican governor, campaigned in 2022 on a promise to “remove antiquated laws”, including Nevada’s red flag law. But the law remains on the books with Democrats controlling the Legislature.
According to Everytown for Gun Safety, these laws have been used nationwide more than 49, 000 times up to 2023.
How frequently do red flag laws be used can depend on how well-versed in law enforcement is in them. Every year, orders are filed in Florida, New York, California, and Connecticut.
Nevada started out slowly, but it has since increased its legal usage.
In 2024 and 2023, there are 28 high-risk protection orders listed on the website of the Nevada attorney general. According to a spokesperson for the office, there have been six orders so far in 2025.
How effective are red flag laws?
There are varying opinions on whether red flag laws actually work.
In July 2024, The Rand Corp., a nonprofit public policy research organization, reviewed studies on red flag laws. According to researchers, there was little evidence of the laws’ impact on mass shootings and violent crime, and it was limited to suicide.
It’s difficult to predict the effects of the laws because most of them have been implemented in the last ten years, according to Rand. There are also differences between the frequency of use of the laws in states and cities.
Other researchers point to studies that demonstrate how red flag laws can help stop crime or, perhaps, suicide.
According to a study conducted in August 2024, Florida’s red flag gun law, which was passed in response to the 2018 Parkland mass shooting, was linked to an 11 percent decrease in firearm homicide rates between 2019 and 2021. One of the authors demanded further investigation because the study did not show a significant reduction in gun suicide.
One significant law in a network of laws aims to stop access to firearms by professor Pear of the University of California, Davis, according to a statement made by PolitiFact in 2022 is called “extreme risk protection orders.” However, there are other laws that can be supported by evidence, such as those that forbid the purchase and possession of firearms following a violent misdemeanor conviction, waiting periods, and laws governing firearm licensing.
