Category World News

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.

New York City, United States – A passionate crowd of a few hundred people lined the heavily trafficked Fifth Avenue in New York City, cascading with picket signs calling on coffee giant Starbucks to negotiate a contract with its union.

Picketers held signs saying “No Contract, No Coffee” and “Baristas on Strike” as they lined the sidewalk, blocking the front doors of the Empire State Building, the single most iconic landmark in the United States and which houses an office for the company alongside one of its more high-end signature stores called Starbucks Reserve.

Several demonstrators were arrested. Two of the men who identified themselves as “T-bone” and “Elon” spoke to Al Jazeera about why they’re picketing.

“Stop stalling contracts, negotiate with the workers and sign a contract for fair wages,” Elon, one of the detained baristas, told Al Jazeera as he was loaded into an NYPD bus.

Starbucks Workers United told Al Jazeera that a total of 12 people were arrested, but the NYPD did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request to confirm the figures.

Representatives for Starbucks said as per their “rough estimate”, only 25 people in the crowd were actually team members.

Representatives for Starbucks Workers United disputed that and told Al Jazeera that more than 100 baristas were in attendance.

This is the third straight week of open-ended strikes, which began on November 13 as the union calls for Starbucks to offer them a contract.

War of words

These tensions are not new for the company, which operates 18,300 stores in the US and Canada. They come amid a longstanding history of the coffeeshop chain being at odds with its workers. In December 2024, workers hit the picket line when negotiations for a contract that had started in April, stalled.

At the time, the union rejected a proposal that guaranteed raises of 2 percent, but did not include any improvements in healthcare packages, which workers said were inadequate. Starbucks has not budged.

“We’re focused on continuing to offer the best job in retail, including more than $30 an hour on average in pay and benefits for hourly partners. The facts speak for themselves: partner engagement is up, turnover is nearly half the industry average, and we get more than 1 million job applications a year,” Starbucks spokesperson Jaci Anderson told Al Jazeera.

Starbucks Workers United points out that starting wages, which do not include tips, in 33 states are $15.25 per hour. That’s what Al Jazeera found on Starbucks’ jobs board: a barista position in Elko, Nevada starts at  $15.25, a supervisor role in Kansas starts at $19.37 per hour, a barista role in Brooklyn, New York, is open for a starting wage of $17.25 and a shift supervisor role that starts at $22.25 per hour.

The union said that many baristas get less than 20 hours per week, which is below the cut-off for benefits; Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify those claims.

Starbucks said that the union is demanding a 65 percent pay increase in the immediate future and 77 percent over the next three years, and higher pay for other elements of their jobs, including weekend hours, early or late hours, sorting inventory, and working on days of promotions, like the store’s Red Cup Day, which typically brings in heavier traffic.

Starbucks Workers United has pushed back and has said that it is a misrepresentation of their requests and combines several proposals into one.

“That allegation is not true. We presented a set of economic proposals as options to negotiate over and ultimately get to more pay and benefits. Starbucks simply said ‘no’ to all of them, and then disingenuously added up all the options as if they were one cohesive demand,”  Michelle Eisen, Starbucks Workers United spokesperson, told Al Jazeera.

“That would be like walking into Starbucks, adding up the entire menu, and saying it costs $1,000 to order a drink at Starbucks.”

Political pressure

Starbucks is also facing increased pressure in New York City, where the chain has 300 stores. Both the outgoing mayor, Eric Adams, and the incoming one, Zohran Mamdani, are putting pressure on the company to meet union demands.

This week, the current Adams administration solidified a $38.9m settlement with the coffeeshop chain for violations of the city’s Fair Workweek law, which requires employers to provide predictable schedules, advance notice, and to give existing workers the opportunity for more hours before hiring new employees. The city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) said the company committed more than half a million violations of the law since 2021.

The settlement covers those who worked at one of the 300 locations across New York City between July 4, 2021, and July 7, 2024.

Also this week, Mamdani and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined striking workers outside a Starbucks location in Brooklyn, New York.

While Mamdani answered Al Jazeera’s questions on Tuesday in a news conference, his press team did not respond to requests for comment following the arrests of members of the union he marched with only two days before.

Sanders — who in March 2023 grilled then-CEO Howard Schultz on union-busting allegations — told Al Jazeera that momentum is now on the side of workers.

“I’ll tell you what is also different is that for years, four years have come and gone, and hundreds of shops have voted to join unions, 12,000 workers have voted to join unions. And yet Starbucks has refused to sit down and negotiate a fair contract,” Sanders told Al Jazeera.

It’s not clear what the next steps are. On the federal level, under the administration of US President Donald Trump, the National Labor Relations Board — the federal agency where workers bring labour rights complaints to— has been scaled back.

Since Trump took office, the agency has lacked quorum, meaning there are not enough members to make key decisions related to allegations of unfair labour practices. Earlier this year, the Trump administration fired board member Gwynne Wilcox, and fired the general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, two Biden-era appointees who took pro-labour stances.

Long-term tensions

The nationwide movement — a wave of unionisation that has called for better pay has been years in the making, beginning after a store in Buffalo, New York, voted to unionise in 2021.

Among allegations of union-busting practices under then CEO Schultz, is surveillance amongst workers and what are called “captive audience” meetings in which workers had to listen to anti-union messaging from the company.

In 2024, the NLRB ruled that Schultz made a threat to employees in a 2022 town hall in which he said, “If you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company.”

“There is an exhaustion amongst New Yorkers at the sheer contrast between these workers, who cannot afford to live in this city, and CEOs who are making $96m a year on the backs of those same workers’ labour,” Mamdani said.

Mamdani was referring to Brian Niccol, who took over as CEO from Schultz in September 2024, with a compensation package  of nearly $96m — or 6,666 times the median employee salary. That represents the largest CEO-to-worker pay gap among the S&P 500, according to the AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch tracker.

With sales slumping, Niccol was brought in with the hopes that he would turn the company around after a short stint by Laxman Narasimhan, who was ousted by the board amid looming pressure from activist investors and slowing sales.

Starbucks Workers United said that the former CEO was at the negotiating table.

“Bargaining commenced in a real way under his [Narasimhan] leadership,” Eisen added.

A new CEO

Niccol’s appointment was a step back, according to Eisen.

“We had a solid 9 months of really good bargaining in 2024, which came to a screeching halt when this current CEO stepped into that role,” said Eisen, whose Buffalo location became the first store to vote to unionise.

Niccol has struggled to address slumping sales. Global same-store sales rose by 1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025 compared to the previous quarter, lifted by international markets. North America same-store sales remained flat.

In September, the Seattle-based coffee shop chain announced the closure of 1 percent of its US stores. While it does not impact store workers, 900 corporate employees lost their jobs as part of a $1bn restructuring plan.

Niccol came from Chipotle, which faced a slew of union-busting allegations and settlements under him during the more than six years he led the company. In 2023, the company closed its first unionised store in Augusta, Maine, and later agreed to pay employees of the store $240,000 as part of a settlement.

Chipotle also faced similar penalties from the City of New York, much like this week’s settlement with Starbucks. In 2022, the company agreed to pay $20m to settle allegations it violated city labour laws, including failing to provide predictable schedules and paid sick leave. That settlement covered 13,000 workers.

Under Niccol, the chain was also accused of violating child labour laws and paid out settlements across the country. In 2022, the company settled with the state of New Jersey for $7.75m after a state agency found more than 30,000 allegations of child labour violations. In Massachusetts, the company paid almost $2m to settle 13,000 allegations of child labour law violations.

Workers hope that amid the settlement this week, renewed pressure from lawmakers, and bigger turnout of picketers will be enough to move contract negotiations forward.

“I think this company recognises that there are some serious systemic issues within it. I think they do recognise that the people with the solutions are the ones in the cafes every single day and we are just waiting for them to pick that conversation up so we can finalise that contract,” Eisen said.

And the company spokesperson suggested it is as well amid a jab at strikers on the picket line.

“We’ve been very clear that we’re ready to talk when the union is ready to return to negotiations. Instead, they are focused on staging and promoting a protest in New York City, where they represent only 200 of the 4,500 partners in NYC,”  Anderson said.

ECOFEST 2025 is under way in Dakar, Senegal, with a focus on how culture fosters resilience amid political crises in West Africa. Al Jazeera’s Nicolas Haque spoke to attendees about what the celebrations mean to them.

They are not acceptable in our nation. I’ll be open and honest with you, okay. Someone will say, “Oh, that’s not politically correct.” I’m not interested. In our nation, I don’t want them. For a reason, their country is no good.

On the first day of an immigration crackdown targeting their community, President Donald Trump said this. He argued that Somali migrants have made Minnesota, a state where 2 percent of the population is of Somali descent, into a “hellhole” and should be “out of here.” Trump then vented his ire at Ilhan Omar, a Democratic representative from Minnesota who was born in Somalia, who was also a vocal critic. Her close friends are garbage. These individuals do not perform work. These people don’t say, “Let’s go, come on, let’s make this place great,” they just say.

None of this is, of course, novel or unexpected. Immigration and asylum seekers have always been the pillars of Trump’s MAGAverse. Who can forget that several MAGA Republicans seriously attempted to revoke Zohran Mamdani’s US citizenship before his cordial meeting with Trump at the White House? Since Trump’s ascent to power, hostility toward immigrants has become a guiding principle in American politics.

However, Trump’s increasingly isolated America and its validation and promotion by those in positions of power are not exclusive to this. Other countries are adopting similar rhetoric and strategies, which shows a global trend that extends far beyond the United States. One such example is Denmark.

Denmark has recently grown to be one of Europe’s most restrictive states on immigration and asylum, despite its long-held reputation as a progressive, compassionate, and orderly society built on universal healthcare, Lego, highly liveable cities, and minimalist designer aesthetics. Islamophobic rhetoric was prominent during the recently concluded local elections, and the ruling Social Democrats have put their campaign’s emphasis on addressing the alleged immigration issue.

The supposedly progressive Labour government in the United Kingdom appears eager to emulate the Danish example across the border. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants to put an end to a quappy chapter of British immigration policy under the pressure of the far right and Reform UK’s enduring rise in the polls. He has promised that immigration will drop as a result of his government’s reforms, and that the UK could end up with a population of strangers if immigration is drastically reduced. That is a promise. Most strikingly, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently traveled to Denmark to look into its immigration and asylum laws, which highlights how severely Labour’s position has weakened.

Outside of the West, xenophobia is also becoming more prevalent. It serves as a constant source of policy and practice for countries as far as South Africa, a sign that anti-immigrant politics are now a global tool of government.

In Libya, migrants traveling through Europe are subject to horrific levels of abuse and violence. They are subject to prolonged arbitrary detention, forced disappearances, torture, rape, unlawful killings, extortion, and forced labor, according to Amnesty International. These abuses occur within a system that is effectively funded by European governments, which have given Libyan coastguard units tasked with intercepting migrants before they enter international waters funding, training, and equipment. Despite being aware of the consequences, European Union countries have outsourced border control to Libya in an effort to stop the flow of migrants across the Mediterranean, allowing the authorities to carry out measures that the UN says are likely to be crimes against humanity.

Further west, Black African migrants have experienced years of intermittent violence in Tunisia. Tunisia became a purely African nation without any affiliation to the Arab or Islamic countries in the early 2023s, according to President Kais Saied’s claim in the beginning of a criminal plan to change the country’s demographic makeup through irregular migration. His statements sparked a rise in violent attacks on Black people, including asylum seekers, students, and immigrants. Additionally, there were more arrests, and it appeared that police were pursuing Black African foreigners based on their appearance. Undocumented migrants, registered refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants with valid credentials were among those detained, a stark illustration of how state policies can change once xenophobia is legislated for political gain.

In post-apartheid South Africa, xenophobia has always been a constant feature of life and politics, just like it has been with immigrants from other African nations. There have been 1, 295 recorded incidents since 1994, including displacement, looting of migrant-owned businesses, and killings, according to Xenowatch, a project hosted by the University of the Witwatersrand that tracks xenophobic discrimination and violence. In 2008, there were 150 incidents and 72 fatalities. The overall number of xenophobic incidents again reached 2008 levels in 2025, underscoring the persistent nature of the crisis, which included 16 fatalities.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government consistently cut off migrant communities, cutting many out of relief efforts, and placing South Africans’ protection at the top of the priority list. Despite having only 11 confirmed COVID-19 cases at the time compared to South Africa’s 1, 845, the state constructed a 40-kilometer fence along the border with Zimbabwe to stop infected or undocumented people. Current myths about foreign-owned businesses posing health risks were reinforced by politicians. Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, the then-Minister of Small Business Development, declared that only South African-owned, managed, and run shops would remain open when he announced that spaza shops could remain open.

Additionally, there is a rise in explicitly anti-immigrant mobilization in South Africa. On September 23, 2020, a coalition of civil society organizations called for the widespread deportation of African migrants and marched to the Nigerian and Zimbabwean embassies, claiming that foreigners contribute to South Africa’s social problems like drug use, human trafficking, and child abductions.

Following the former president’s imprisonment, in 2021, the vigilante organization Operation Dudula emerged as a result. Despite its claims to address crime and drug use in Gauteng communities, Dudula, which means “force out,” in isiZulu, accurately sums up its true focus. The organization is more well known for urging mass deportations, preventing immigrants from using hospitals and clinics, and launching foreign-owned businesses.

I could continue, of course, from increasing restrictions in nations like Colombia, Peru, Chile, and Ecuador that are intended to stop the flow of Venezuelan immigrants to Indian authorities forcibly expelling ethnic Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh for lack of respect for their rights, including international human rights standards, claiming they are undocumented. Xenophobia is now ingrained into the political life of nations all over the world, not just in any ideology or region.

Why are we so eager to accept xenophobic ideologies and policies? partly because they are practical. They make it easier for governments and societies to externalize domestic failures, providing an easy explanation for issues that are much more complicated and frequently rooted in political and economic mismanagement at home, in austerity, worsening inequality, and precarious work than in stranger arrivals.

In this way, the migrant functions as a ready-made scapegoat, a person we project all of our beliefs as a threat to who we are or what we stand for. Then it becomes simple to make claims that immigrants are a part of some hideous plan to alter the country’s demographic or cultural fabric by adhering to dangerous ideologies, using strained national resources, carrying diseases, or using migrants as part of a dangerous ideology or strategy.

Reality is realized through perception. By blaming those who live outside our borders, we can see where the threat is hiding, giving us peace of mind that we are not the problem. The saddest part is that our own systems’ dysfunctions and corruptions remain unaffected. And scapegoating the ostensible outsider doesn’t help our societies become fairer, safer, or more compassionate; it just wastes time for those who are unwilling to face the crises they contributed to.

The focus quickly turned to football as the fate of the participating teams was revealed at the event in Washington, DC, after weeks of a politically charged build-up to the FIFA World Cup 2026 draw and amid Donald Trump’s presence.

President Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum were all in attendance as the leaders of the three co-host nations as the US capital played host for the event at the Kennedy Center on Friday.

The US president was declared the favorite to receive the new FIFA Peace Prize in the weeks that followed the announcement of the award in November, according to FIFA President Gianni Infantino.

The final two rounds of the competition, which included four teams each, were drawn, but it was more important for the 42 qualified teams, their officials, and the fans.

The World Cup’s first game will be a throwback to 2010 when Mexico take on South Africa on June 11 in Mexico City in a replay of the 2010 edition’s tournament opener. Fans of the 2026 version will hope Lawrence Tshabalala’s opening goal matches the screamer scored by the then-hosts South Africa.

One of the hardest groups of the 12 will be Mexico’s group, A, which also includes South Korea, Denmark, Macedonia, Czechia, and Ireland.

Team USA are placed alongside Australia, Paraguay, plus one of Turkiye, Romania, Slovakia or Kosovo.

Making it out of a group that includes Switzerland, Qatar, one of Italy, Northern Ireland, Wales, or Bosnia also presents a challenging challenge for Canada.

Which teams are in the FIFA World Cup 2026?

The 42 nations that have been confirmed are:

Algeria, Cape Verde, Egypt, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, and Algeria

Asia: Australia, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Uzbekistan

Europe includes Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Croatia, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, and Switzerland.

Oceania: New Zealand

Americas: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Curacao, Panama, Haiti, USA, Mexico, Canada

What teams will play in the FIFA World Cup in 2026?

Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, plus one of Denmark, Macedonia, Czechia, or Ireland in Group A.
• Group B: Canada, Switzerland, Qatar, plus one of Italy, Northern Ireland, Wales or Bosnia
• Brazil, Morocco, Scotland, and Haiti are all included in Group C.
• Group D includes the United States, Australia, Paraguay, plus one of Turkiye, Romania, Slovakia, or Kosovo.
• Group E: Germany, Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Curacao
• Group F includes Albania, Ukraine, Sweden, Poland, and Tunisia, as well as the Netherlands, Japan, and Tunisia.
• Group G: Egypt, New Zealand, Iran, and Belgium.
• Group H: Spain, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, Cape Verde
• Group I: France, Senegal, Norway, plus one of Iraq, Bolivia, or Suriname.
• Group J: Jordan, Jordan, Austria, and Argentina
• Group K: Portugal, Colombia, Uzbekistan, plus one of DRC, Jamaica or New Caledonia
• Group L: Ghana, Panama, Croatia, and England.

What’s the format of the FIFA World Cup 2026?

One group-stage round and four knockout rounds will precede the final in the tournament.

The knockouts will begin with the round 32, followed by the round 16, four quarterfinals, and two semifinals, unlike previous years.

How will teams proceed from group stage to round of 32?

Each of the 12 groups’ four teams will play one more time.

The top two teams from each of the 12 groups will advance to the round 32 at the conclusion of the 68 group-stage matches, along with the eight best third-place finishers.

What’s the ‘ group of death ‘ at the FIFA World Cup 2026?

The most competitive groups in multistage international sporting competitions are referred to as the “group of death” in an informal manner.

It is typically given to groups with more top-performing or highly ranked teams than qualifying slots available for the next stage.

At the 2026 edition, the toughest groups will likely be: Groups A, D, G and L.

What are the top ten World Cup 2026 group matches that everyone must watch?

• Morocco vs. Brazil
• USA vs Paraguay
• Croatia vs. England
• Japan vs. the Netherlands
• Iran vs Egypt
• Uruguay vs. Spain
• Senegal vs. France
• Argentina vs Austria
• Jordan vs. Algeria
• Colombia vs. Portugal

Trump received the FIFA Peace Prize for what reason?

The US president won the award weeks after Trump failed to receive a highly coveted Nobel Peace Prize, making him the first person to ever receive the new peace prize from FIFA.

Infantino said Trump won the award for “exceptional and extraordinary” actions to promote peace and unity around the world.

Infantino stated to Trump that the prize was a “beautiful medal for you that you can wear everywhere you want to go” when presenting the award. Trump rolled his medal straight away around his neck.

FIFA announced the annual prize in November, saying it would recognise people who bring “hope for future generations”.

The US president frequently asserts that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to put an end to what he claims is an illustrious year of conflicts, including a flimsy ceasefire in Gaza.

The US president’s second presidency has turned on the World Cup.

What did Trump say at the World Cup 2026 draw?

In his brief remarks, Trump praised the leaders of the other two host countries and his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, adding that the cooperation between the two countries was “exemplary.”

Trump continued, “most important, I just want to thank everyone,” saying, “This is truly one of my life’s greatest honors.” The world is a safer place now”.

When will the FIFA World Cup 2026 teams be confirmed?

We won’t know our final 48 World Cup teams until March 31, 2026 as the European qualifying rounds continue through March and the intercontinental playoff final is scheduled for the same month.

Which teams are in the World Cup 2026 playoffs?

The playoffs are divided into European and Intercontinental teams.

Representatives from all other continental groups will compete for the final two berths in the intercontinental playoff, where the final four UEFA spots will be secured by the European leg.

European playoff teams: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czechia, Denmark, Italy, Kosovo, Poland, Republic of Ireland, Slovakia, Turkiye, Ukraine, Wales, Romania, Sweden, Northern Ireland, North Macedonia

Bolivia, DR Congo, Iraq, Jamaica, New Caledonia, and Suriname are the intercontinental playoff teams.

When will the World Cup 2026 playoffs for Europe and the intercontinental be held?

In Europe, the 16 competing teams vying for four places have been divided into four playoff paths, with each of the four paths comprising two single-leg semifinals and one single-leg final.

The final four finalists will advance to the final UEFA spots. March 26 will host the semifinals, and March 31 will host the finals.

The intercontinental playoffs determine the last two non-European finalists.

The top two seeded teams, Iraq and DRC, have already qualified for the two finals, while the other two finalists will be decided by two semifinals between the four remaining teams.

March 23 is when the intercontinental semifinals will take place, with the March 31 final.

Which major teams are not in the World Cup 2026?

The biggest names that aren’t included in the tournament are Nigeria, Chile, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Greece, and Serbia.

The FIFA World Cup 2026 will Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo play?

Ronaldo has confirmed that the tournament will be his swansong on football’s biggest stage.

The Portuguese superstar has 226 appearances and is the most successful man in international football history with 143 international goals.

Ronaldo has yet to win a trophy for his nation despite having played in five FIFA World Cups.

Meanwhile, Messi has also expressed hope that he will lead Argentina’s title defence in North America but acknowledged that his age and fitness will dictate his role.

In an interview with ESPN Argentina this week, he said, “I’m going to take it one day at a time, being honest, trying to be realistic and feel good.”

“I felt very good this year.”

The Inter Miami star admitted that playing club football in the US will make it easier for him to consider his participation.

The Argentinian captain said in another interview from October that it was “something extraordinary to be able to be in a World Cup” and that he would love to.

If I’m there, I want to be there, to be well, and play a significant role in the success of my team. I’m going to assess that on a day-to-day basis when I start preseason next year with Inter, and see if I can really be 100 percent, if I can be useful, and then make a decision.

Because it’s a World Cup, I’m very eager. Being able to defend it on the field once more is amazing because it’s always a dream to play for the national team. “We’re coming off winning the last one.

When is the FIFA World Cup 2026 scheduled?

The tournament will start on June 11 and end on July 19.

The FIFA World Cup 2026 final will be held in which country?

The tournament will begin at the Mexico City Stadium, while the US will host the final at the MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

What is the World Cup 2026 schedule in its entirety?

The United States government’s top-level vaccine panel has approved to repeal advice that newborn babies should be given a vaccine to prevent hepatitis B, a virus that can lead to chronic liver problems.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 8 to 3 on Friday to overturn the medical advice, which has made hepatitis B vaccines a common component of post-natal care.

Instead, the ACIP approved new guidance that advises parents who have no prior hepatitis B infection to discuss whether to give their children the vaccine.

Additionally, it continues to advise against pregnant women who have hepatitis B from distributing the vaccine.

The change was quickly denounced by medical professionals and even pharmaceutical companies, who warned that it might encourage parents to leave their kids without vaccinations.

Undersecretary of health and human services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the change is regarded as the biggest move to change US vaccination practices.

“Our country will define itself today. The University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, Michael Osterholm, told the news agency Reuters, “We can no longer trust federal health authorities when it comes to vaccines.”

ACIP ignored decades of evidence that demonstrated its potent safety profile and efficacy when voted to ban the hepatitis B vaccine’s universal birth dose. More people with chronic liver disease and more hepatitis B infections will be affected by its decision.

He further stated that “parents and clinicians must ignore ACIP” if the organization continues to ignore the evidence regarding vaccine efficacy and safety.

Hepatitis B: What is it?

1.2 million people invent hepatitis B each year all over the world. The virus is also responsible for roughly 1.1 million deaths in 2022, according to the World Health Organization.

Children who share a toothbrush might be able to spread the virus through simple bodily fluid contact, which is where hepatitis B is found.

Infections are known to shorten life expectancy and lead to fatalities like liver cancer and cirrhosis, which are caused by tissue scarring.

The hepatitis B vaccine offers lifelong virus protection for the majority of people.

The three-dose regimen’s initial shot is typically given shortly after birth. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had previously advised that doctors give birth within 24 hours of the baby’s birth in order to maintain a healthy baby.

The first vaccination should occur 12 hours after birth, whichever comes first for a child who has a parent who has a hepatitis B test positive.

Prior to giving birth to a premature child, it was advised to wait a month before giving the first dose.

The infant typically receives its third and final dose before the infant reaches the age of 18.

Prior to Friday’s announcement, US government health experts had also advised all newborns to get shots. The vaccine itself has been available since the 1980s, and those guidelines have been in place for decades, dating back to 1991.

Changing medical advice

However, Kennedy has pushed for a revision of vaccination laws since joining President Donald Trump’s second-term cabinet.

The younger Kennedy is an environmental lawyer and former presidential candidate who gained notoriety as a vaccine sceptic. He is the son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.

He has been accused of spreading vaccine conspiracy theories despite repeatedly claiming he is not “anti-vaccine.”

For instance, he claimed that the COVID-19 shot was the “deadliest vaccine ever made” when speaking to a group of Louisiana politicians in 2021. He also published an article in 2005 disproving a widely discredited theory in favor of vaccines for autism and other neurological disorders. The publishers of that article later retracted it.

Despite having no prior medical background, Kennedy was appointed as Trump’s health and human services secretary in February. The position is in charge of a number of health and welfare organizations, including the CDC, the FDA, and Medicaid.

The US government quickly altered its approach to some vaccines under his leadership.

For instance, the FDA’s guidance on who should take the COVID-19 vaccine was constrained in August. Only people with health conditions or those over the age of 65 were advised to get the vaccine.

Critics warned that changes could force younger people to get a prescription and pay out of pocket for the preventive care. They would also limit the COVID-19 vaccine’s availability.

Under his leadership, the CDC removed assurances from its website that vaccines don’t cause autism last month.

In addition, he has changed the guidelines for vaccine development and cut back on government funding for research into the mRNA vaccines, which are the foundation of the COVID-19 vaccination.

Shake-up at ACIP

However, one of Kennedy’s most notable changes was the ACIP, a panel that has been in charge of vaccines since 1964.

The 17-member committee was replaced by people who, according to Kennedy, are largely sceptical of vaccination or have little prior research experience.

Kennedy argued that the panel’s mass firing was necessary to maintain its independence and defend “unbiased science.”

He stated in a statement that “today we are placing the restoration of public trust before any particular pro- or anti-vaccine agenda.”

However, Kennedy’s own beliefs were replaced by those who lacked trust, according to public health experts, who expressed outrage.

Despite the panel’s altercation, the panel’s members were still divided on how to change the hepatitis B vaccine recommendation.

Since September, there have been two delays in voting on the subject. One ACIP member, paediatrics professor Cody Meissner, cited the medical obligation to “do no harm” during the vote on Friday.

By changing this wording, we are harming ourselves. And he cast his ballot, saying “no”

However, the majority of the ACIP panel ultimately voted in favor of the change, citing the “flexibility” it provided for new parents. However, the CDC’s recommendations were not legally binding in the past.

Concerned about the uncertainty that the change would bring, industry groups expressed grave concerns.

The American Pharmacists Association stated in a statement that “the science is clear: the hepatitis B birth dose saves lives, and there is no new evidence to support delaying or removing this essential protection.”

Thomas Frieden, a former director of the CDC, urged the public to oppose the change.

“No one should accept this misguided and dangerous recommendation,” he wrote. “Now obstetricians, pediatricians, insurers, state health departments, and others should stand up for fact-based care, protect our children, and not mess with success.”