Category World News

One person was killed in a drone attack in Sumy, northeast of Ukraine, while another was killed in a similar attack by a Russian missile strike in Kharkiv.

According to Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov and emergency services, at least five children were among the dozens of people who were hurt in the attack on Kharkiv on Friday morning, which left 15 residential buildings, a business, and an educational facility.

At least one person was killed and another hurt when a drone struck a bakery making Easter cakes in Sumy.

According to Zein Basravi, a reporter from Kyiv, Russia also targeted Kyiv, Dnipro, Mykolaiv, and Lviv.

Around 5am local time, when curfews come to an end and people begin their daily lives, “we saw multiple missile, drone, artillery, and rocket attacks in cities across the country,” he said.

One person died and 74 were hurt in Kharkiv’s civil infrastructure. Of the 74, five were children aged 3, 4, 14, 16, and a 17-year-old boy. Numerous apartments and vehicles were damaged, according to Basravi.

No reports of dead or injured have been made in Dnipro, but we do know that a missile attack targeted a neighborhood with offices, including a gym, hotel, and office complex, and left quite a lot of damage.

He claimed that nearly 20 drones and three cruise missiles had been downed by Ukrainian air defenses.

Civilian targets

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, president of Russia, stated on Thursday that despite Russia’s apparent reduction in its focus on energy infrastructure, missile and drone attacks have remained unaffected overall. Instead, he continued, it is attacking Ukraine’s civilian sites.

Moscow also received a warning about potential escalation if Germany launches Taurus long-range missiles against Ukraine.

Vassily Nebenzia, the ambassador of Russia, stated at the UN on Thursday that this action would signal Germany’s entry into the conflict.

He claimed that “these nations are using their proxy forces to fight Russia.” “The delivery of Taurus missiles would add another step in the direction of escalation.”

The Taurus missile system is a potentially revolutionary addition to Ukraine’s arsenal because it has a range of more than 500 kilometers (310 miles) and can penetrate fortified positions.

Nebenzia also alleged Kyiv of ignoring the partial truce signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in a phone call in mid-March.

He claimed that Ukraine carried out more than 120 attacks, including on Russian power infrastructure, despite Russia’s compliance with the agreement.

The partial ceasefire in terms of energy infrastructure was not implemented by Ukraine. Talking about a ceasefire is therefore unwise at this point, he said.

Zelenskyy accuses China of providing weapons to Russia.

Zelenskyy accused China of providing weapons to Russia for the first time, adding to the tension. He claimed during a speech in Kyiv that Beijing was producing arms and providing artillery within Russian territory.

Without specifying whether he meant shells, launchers, or both, he said, “We finally have information that China is supplying weapons to the Russian Federation.”

Beijing on Friday denied providing lethal weapons to any Ukrainian opposition party.

China has long maintained that it is not a participant in the conflict. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed its support for a peaceful resolution just last week and rejected any claims of direct involvement.

Federal Judge James Boasberg said on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump’s administration could face criminal contempt of court for disobeying an order halting alleged Venezuelan gang members’ deportations if they refused to file a deposition.

Boasberg has given the US government one week to remedy its dismissal of his order by providing the deported men with the right to due process in court. The decision has been challenged by the Trump administration. The judge’s decision on Wednesday is just the latest in a long line of legal challenges Trump’s executive orders and actions face.

So, what does it mean to be held in contempt of court? What comes next? What would happen if the president steadfastly disregarded a court’s rulings?

What happened?

The Trump administration was prevented from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to carry out deportations by Boasberg’s temporary restraining order late on March 15. The District of Columbia’s chief judge is Bosberg.

The Alien Enemies Act gives the US president the discretion to detain or deport non-citizens during wartime. Without a hearing, the president has the authority to carry out these deportations solely based on citizenship.

Boasberg also mandated that deportation flights en route to El Salvador turn around and return while issuing the restraining order.

Hours after this restraining order was issued, on the morning of March 16, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele claimed in an X post that his country had received 238 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and 23 members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13 from the US. Additionally, Bucele also posted a news item about Boasberg’s decision, which was titled “Oopsie… Too Late” and featured an emoji with a cry-with-laughter emoji.

Oopsie…

Too late a picture twitter.com/nDHL6deLJq

The alleged gang members are being held in El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento (Centro de Confinamiento), or CECOT, a maximum-security prison.

In a post on March 18 on his Truth Social platform, Trump called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and called for his impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts, who criticized Trump’s impeachment claim, said that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement regarding a judicial decision.”

Boasberg also demanded that the government verify the flight information of the deported detainees’ aircraft, to determine whether it had the ability to turn around and return to the US in accordance with his instructions.

But on March 24, the US Department of Justice revealed that the Trump administration was invoking the “state secrets privilege” to avoid providing these details. When military or national security interests are in jeopardy, the doctrine is intended to be applied.

Boasberg testified at a hearing on April 3 to determine whether the Trump administration had violated the restraining order. The Justice Department denied this, saying the flights had already left the US by the time the restraining order was filed.

On April 7, the US Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to deport immigrants, holding that they must first undergo a court hearing.

Judge Boasberg’s statement: what?

In a 46-page ruling on Wednesday, Boasberg wrote that the Trump administration’s actions were “sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt”.

He claimed that despite his temporary restraining order, the US government had rushed the deportees to El Salvador before they could file a deposition challenge in court.

The Constitution forbids willful disregard of judicial orders, particularly by coordinate branch officials who have sworn an oath to support them, according to Boasberg.

Boasberg also noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio reposted Bukele’s post in which he had reposted the news snippet. According to Boasberg, “Defendants’ boasts indicated that they had purposefully and gleefully defied the Court’s Order.”

What does “contradictory in court” mean?

Contempt of court refers to the willful disobedience of the court of law or its officers.

Civil contempt, which occurs when a person violates a court order or interferes with court proceedings, can also occur, or criminal contempt, which occurs when someone intentionally or willfully disregards a court’s orders.

In the majority of cases, courts criticize those who are found guilty of civil contempt but don’t punish those who eventually complie with their orders.

Criminal contempt of court, on the other hand, carries a punishment spelled out in the statute books – a fine of up to $1, 000, a prison sentence of up to six months, or both.

According to Bruce Fein, an American lawyer with a focus on constitutional and international law, “failing to faithfully execute the laws as required by Article 2 of the Constitution would be an impeachable offence.” The US president has specific authority and responsibilities, according to Article 2 of the US Constitution. One such responsibility is that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.

What will the White House do after this?

According to Boasberg, White House officials can change their disregard for his restraining order to prevent being held in criminal contempt. They can do this by allowing the deported men to challenge their deportations in court. He set a deadline of April 23 for the White House.

In order to bring charges against the officials who chose not to turn the planes around and disobeyed his orders, the White House could contact them.

In this case, the Justice Department has appealed the ruling before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to Just Security, a non-partisan digital law and policy journal, the Trump administration has more than 190 legal challenges to its policies overall.

According to the US government, it committed an “administrative error” by deporting Salvadoran citizen Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, 29, to CECOT. On April 10, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that Trump should facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the US. US District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland announced on Tuesday that she would investigate whether Abrego Garcia had broken a law that the Trump administration had violated. Xinis claimed she has no intention of yet holding the government in contempt.

What happens if the White House refuses to obey a court’s orders?

Boasberg has threatened to do so by holding specific officials in contempt of a court.

However, the president has the authority to pardon officials who have been found guilty of violating the law. During his first term in 2017, Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, a former county sheriff, who was found guilty of criminal contempt after he defied a court order asking him to stop racially profiling Latinos. The government can challenge a court’s decision in this case, as the White House has done in the White House.

The Supreme Court can be reached by that process of appeal.

But ultimately, the task of enforcing a contempt order falls on the US Marshals Service, which comes under the Department of Justice, a part of the Trump administration. Although it is expected that law enforcement officials adhere to court orders, this hasn’t always been the case.

Fein claimed that Trump could be held in contempt by the court.

Congress could also impeach him for violating a court order. However, the motion would need a two-thirds majority in the Senate and a majority in the House to be effective. The Senate currently has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents, while the House currently has 218 Republicans and 213 Democrats.

A Congress “currently controlled by Republicans, will not act unless the American people demand the same through phone calls, emails, and demonstrations”, Fein said.

Bottom line: Congress and ultimately the American people are now the ones to decide whether to continue with a government of laws or a government of men.

Has the Trump administration previously broken law?

Yes, it has – during Trump’s first term.

Trump signed an executive order enforcing a ban on entry for citizens of several Muslim-majority nations shortly after taking office in 2017. The ban was overturned after a number of federal judges issued orders to suspend it. However, Democrats and lawyers at airports complained that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents were going against these suspensions and detaining refugees and travellers from the Muslim countries.

In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court overturned the travel ban, which had been suspended by several lower court decisions.

Trump isn’t the first president to find himself in a fight with the courts, despite his well-known conflicts with judges.

Some have come close to defying even Supreme Court orders.

Have US presidents previously disregarded Supreme Court decisions?

Possibly . The most notable example of this is former President Abraham Lincoln defying former Chief Justice Roger Taney. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln revoked a habeas corpus order to imprison people who he thought were sympathisers of the Confederacy. A detainee may file a lawsuit against their detention in court using a centuries-old common law principle known as Habeas Corpus. Chief Justice Taney held that Congress had the power to suspend the writ, not the US president. Quinn largely disregarded Taney’s opinion. However, Taney was “riding circuit” at the time, and he and his opinion were filed with the District of Maryland Circuit Court, not the US Supreme Court, and historians continue to debate the authority that Taney used to make his decision.

At the beginning of World War II in 1942, Democrat President Franklin D Roosevelt invoked a proclamation authorising the trial of eight German saboteurs at a military tribunal. The Supreme Court eventually supported the president’s policy, despite Roosevelt’s suggestion that he would proceed with it regardless of whether the Supreme Court believed him to be correct.

US presidents have also nearly defied the Supreme Court in some cases. In 1974, in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, former President Richard Nixon claimed that the concept of executive privilege allowed him to withhold sensitive information, such as communication between officials and tape recordings, from investigators. Nixon ultimately agreed with the Supreme Court, and the latter eventually agreed to comply with the court’s order shortly afterward. Nixon resigned two weeks after the decision was made. &nbsp,

When his post-9/11 strategy for national security clashed with a Supreme Court decision regarding the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, the Republican president from 2001 to 2009. However, Bush eventually revoked his Supreme Court decision.

Presidents have also been called on to enforce Supreme Court contempt orders. After the governor of Arkansas supported the segregationists, President Dwight Eisenhower sent a thousand army soldiers to Arkansas in 1957 to enforce the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling.

Presidents haven’t always been deferred to the Supreme Court.

The United States bought $439bn worth of goods from China in 2024 – more than three times the $143.5bn it sold in return. That $295bn gap, known as the trade deficit, is something US President Donald Trump is determined to shrink.

In an effort to close the gap, Trump has raised tariffs on China to 145 percent. This means Chinese goods sold to the US are now taxed at 2.45 times their original price, making them much more expensive and less competitive in the US market.

China has retaliated with 125 percent levies on US goods.

The tit-for-tat escalation of tariffs between the world’s biggest trading powers has led to uncertainty on what it means for the cost and production of everyday items such as smartphones, semiconductors and clothing.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said it is willing to “fight to the end” and has accused the US of violating the rules of the World Trade Organization.

February 1 

On February 1, President Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10 percent tariff on China. The order also placed 25 percent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports.

March 4 

The president placed an additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods on February 27, which came into effect on March 4.

April 2 

A 10 percent tariff was applied to all nations importing goods to the US as well as higher tariffs on select countries, including China that had a 34 percent tariff placed on it.

April 4 

China’s Ministry of Finance announced a retaliatory 34 percent tariff on imports from the US.

April 7

President Trump threatened more levies on China’s retaliatory tariffs with an additional 50 percent tariff on Beijing, meaning that China could face 104 percent taxes on all exports.

April 9

China responded with an additional 50 percent tariff on US goods, meaning an additional 84 percent import tax on US goods coming to China.

President Trump later said he would pause reciprocal tariffs for the next 90 days, bringing tariff levels to a baseline 10 percent. However, this did not apply to China; instead, President Trump raised tariffs on exports to 125 percent.

April 10

The White House stated the 125 percent reciprocal tariff on China would be levied in addition to the 20 percent tariff already imposed, bringing the final tariff rate to 145 percent.

What items have been excluded?

On April 11, President Trump said smartphones, laptops and a host of other tech components would be spared from so-called “reciprocal tariffs”.

The US Customs and Border Protection agency listed 20 product categories, including all computers, laptops, disc drives and automatic data processing equipment. It also included semiconductor devices, equipment, memory chips and flat panel displays.

However, on Sunday, Trump threatened new tariffs on Chinese electronic goods, three days after his administration announced exemptions. On Monday, he advanced plans to introduce tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceutical products.

What does the US sell to China?

In 2024, the US sold $143.5bn worth of goods to China.

China’s biggest purchases from the US were mineral fuels, oil seeds, machinery and aircraft. As a single product, soya beans are the largest US export to China, primarily used as pig feed.

In 2024, the US’s main exports to China included:

• Mineral fuels ($13.4bn) accounting for 10.7 percent of total exports
• Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits ($13.3bn) accounting for 10.6 percent of total exports
• Electrical machinery, equipment and parts ($11.5bn) accounting for 9.1 percent of exports
• Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances ($10.5bn) accounting for 8.3 percent of exports
• Aircraft, spacecraft and parts ($10.2bn) accounting for 8.1 percent of total exports.

What does the US buy from China?

In 2024, the US bought $439bn worth of goods from China.

China is a major supplier of electrical equipment and electronics including chips, laptops and smartphones to the US.

In 2024, the US’s main imports from China were:

• Electrical machinery, equipment and parts ($123.8bn) accounting for 28.2 percent of total imports
• Nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery and mechanical appliances ($82bn) accounting for 18.7 percent of imports
• Toys, games and sport equipment ($30bn) accounting for 6.8 percent of imports
• Plastics ($19.3bn) accounting for 4.4 percent of total imports
• Furniture, bedding and cushions ($18.5bn) accounting for 4.2 percent of imports.

What does each US state buy the most from China?

According to the US International Trade Administration, California buys the most of any other state from China. It bought $122.8bn worth of goods in 2024.

Illinois imported the second-most amount of goods from China at $42.1bn, followed by Texas, which bought $35.9bn worth of goods.

Texas sells the most of any other state to China. In 2024, it sold $22.5bn of goods to China. California sold the second-most of any state at $15.1bn, followed by Washington at $12bn.

Explore the table below to see which states import and export the most to and from China.

What are the main items coming from China by state?

Miscellaneous manufactured commodities are the leading imports for 15 states, including Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.

These include items like jewellery and for silverware manufacturing, sporting and athletic goods manufacturing, doll, toy, and game manufacturing, and all other miscellaneous manufacturing.

Communications equipment ranks second, being the top import for six states: Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Which US state sells the most to China?

Animal slaughtering and processing is the leading export from six states to China, including Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and Utah.

Aerospace products and parts rank second, being the top export from five states: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky and Ohio.

Names marked with an asterisk have been changed to protect identities.

Paris, France – When Moussa*, an undocumented construction worker, joined a wildcat strike at the building site of Paris’s Adidas Arena in the early hours of October 17, 2023, he was hoping the protest might lead to him getting the papers he needed to travel home to Mali.

Since arriving in France in 2019, having first boarded a boat from Algeria to Spain, Moussa, 25, has not taken a single vacation. After his grandparents died during his time away, he felt an urge to return and mourn with his family.

For eight months, he worked at the arena, which has 8,000 seats and was being prepared for the 2024 Summer Olympics. More than 400 construction workers operated at the site.

He was compensated with normal pay slips by using someone else’s papers – a common strategy among undocumented workers. He was paid about 75 euros ($85) a day for gruelling 10-hour shifts at the arena – a rate, he said, that did not include transport expenses, masks or other protective gear.

Moussa’s bid paid off.

The workers occupied the site before dawn, blocked it off, and then negotiated all day. By the evening, they had a deal.

After intense discussions between Moussa’s employer, the city of Paris, the workers and their union, a list of 14 undocumented individuals who worked at the site was handed over to the French police prefecture, which deals with visa requests, in order for their paperwork to be processed.

They signed a framework agreement that would lead to a residency permit and health insurance. It was signed by the city of Paris, the construction company Bouygues, and several subcontractors.

But 18 months later, the dossiers have still not been approved. Only one of the 14 has been given an appointment at the Paris prefecture.

A number of the undocumented workers are beginning to wonder whether the delays are by design.

“We didn’t ask for much, just a residency permit and health insurance card. It’s our right. To this day we don’t have the right to work in this country,” Moussa said.

Three of the 14 workers and Rafika Rahmani, a lawyer for the CNT-SO union who focuses on the rights of expatriates, told Al Jazeera that they submitted all the information requested of them more than a year ago.

“We have payslips, we have everything. We’re playing by the rules. But so far, we haven’t had even a single summons,” said Adama*, one of the builders. “We have no idea why the files are taking so long. We’ve resubmitted them twice.

“It’s like being in prison in France,” added Adama, who has also struggled to find comfortable housing. He sleeps in a room with 11 other people in the eastern suburb of Montreuil. “It’s like if you don’t have papers in this county, you don’t have any value.”

Despite these challenges and his long shifts in construction work, Adama takes evening classes to learn French.

‘It’s revenge’

In January 2025, CNT-SO, which represents construction and cleaning workers, collectively resubmitted 13 dossiers to the Paris prefecture.

“The files are still blocked, despite the fact that I’ve re-applied for these 13 people,” Rahmani told Al Jazeera.

She suspects that the lack of response is a form of backlash, as the strikes unveiled poor working conditions in France in the lead-up to the Olympics.

“It’s revenge,” Rahmani said. “For them, the [striking workers] gave [France] a bad image, even if it’s the reality.”

The project developer and two subcontracting companies – which have not responded to Al Jazeera’s request for comment – have allegedly prevented some workers from returning to construction sites, meaning they have lost jobs and housing.

According to Adama, at least three colleagues have not worked since October 2023, and rely on charities to subsidise their food and housing.

“We have information that the company employing them did not reinstate them. It was a disciplinary measure against the strike in which they had participated,” Jean-Francois Coulomme, a representative of left-wing La France Insoumise party, told Al Jazeera. “It’s a strategy of ostracising these employees in particular.”

In February, Coulomme wrote to France’s interior minister via a government accountability mechanism on the “fate of the files submitted to the Paris Prefecture”, demanding “the legitimate regularisation of these workers”.

The letter remains unanswered.

“The arena workers’ case is representative of a systemic problem. It’s a good illustration of the fact that these workers are silenced due to the [precariousness] of their administrative situation,” Colomme said.

The CNT-SO union and so-called Gilets Noirs, or Black Vests – a collective of mostly undocumented migrants working to get administrative regularisation and housing rights for migrants in France – tried expediting the process through the city of Paris, as the city was one of the negotiating parties.

“We’ve plugged a few more holes by going through the mayor of Paris, because they’re the intermediary between our contacts and the Paris prefecture. We want to know what the situation is,” Doums, a spokesperson for the Gilets Noirs, told Al Jazeera. “Today, the situation is still, let’s not say totally blocked, but a bit blocked at the level of the prefecture.”

Colomme suggested the Ministry of the Interior is preventing the dossiers from being approved.

“The prefectures take their orders from the ministry. So as far as we’re concerned, the prefects simply apply the directives of the minister in charge,” Coulomme said.

Al Jazeera contacted the minister of the interior and Paris prefecture, but did not receive a comment by the time of publication.

The initially swift response and negotiations are a typical reaction when a city is scrutinised before major international events, but often there is no follow-through when the hype dies down.

“The state of exception that the Olympics bring can be really important for leveraging gains for workers,” Jules Boykoff, researcher and author of the book Power Games: A Political History of the Olympics, told Al Jazeera. “The key is to lock in those gains while the hot glare of the Olympic spotlight still shines in your city. After that, it becomes much more difficult to take advantage of that Olympic moment to make promises to these workers.”

This can be an opportune time for people to push for rights, but the Olympics and other major sporting events also open the door for exploitation, especially for people in precarious situations like undocumented workers.

“This is just one more egregious example of taking advantage of people to create a sporting event that claims to benefit the many but actually just benefits the few,” Boykoff said. “The Olympics tend to spotlight what we might call surplus populations – whether we’re talking about expendable athletes or expendable workers who make the Olympic spectacle possible.”

Rahmani said, “During the strike, all these people came and made big promises … These deputies and senators come to a demonstration or strike and make a commitment to regularise these workers, but in the end, there’s no follow-up, and they tell you that they have no power.”

‘This ideology is currently affecting our country as a whole’

For years, France’s government has hardened its stance against immigration.

In December 2023, the French Parliament passed a controversial immigration law that differentiates between foreigners “in a situation of employment” and those who are not. The measure made it more difficult to receive social benefits for out-of-work expatriates.

The new regulations have played out in workplaces.

Between 2023 and 2024, according to official figures, the number of undocumented workers who were regularised dipped by 10 percent. Deportations, on the other hand, rose by more than a quarter.

“This ideology is currently affecting our country as a whole, with an instrumentalisation of the migration issue, which means we’re taking a totally utilitarian approach,” Coulomme said.

On the ground, Doums said the Gilets Noirs have observed the same phenomenon.

“The political situation in this country concerning immigrants and foreigners is becoming increasingly complicated,” Doums stated. Still, he insisted the collective would keep pushing for their rights. “We’re not going to stop there. Even after regularising the 14 people, we’re not going to stop.”