Djibouti’s democracy takes another knock as ageing president engineers yet another term

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Federico Donelli, Associate Professor of International Relations, University of Trieste

Djibouti’s president, Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, pushed through constitutional changes removing presidential age limits in October 2025. The changes enable him to remain in power beyond 2026. He has already ruled for 26 years and is a shoo-in at elections in April 2026. Guelleh leads a country on the Horn of Africa where the Red Sea meets the Indian Ocean – one of the world’s most strategically important locations. Federico Donelli, who has studied Djibouti’s political landscape, unpacks the dynamics that have kept him in power.

Who is Ismaïl Omar Guelleh and what is his governance style?

Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, commonly known as IOG, has been the president of Djibouti since 1999. He succeeded the country’s first president, Hassan Gouled Aptidon, whom he served as chief of staff for more than two decades.

Now aged 77, Guelleh is one of the longest-serving leaders in east Africa.

He belongs to the majority Issa-Somali ethnic group, which has monopolised power since the country gained independence from France in 1977. Djibouti’s population is largely composed of two main groups – the Issa-Somali and the Afar. This demographic mirrors the context in Afar regional state of neighbouring Ethiopia. It’s mirrored even more closely in the de facto state of Somaliland due to clan and family ties.

Consequently, political dynamics in Djibouti frequently intertwine with developments in these neighbouring states. This is particularly true when it comes to security, cross-border mobility and clan-based networks.

In theory, Djibouti is a presidential republic with a multiparty system. In practice, however, political authority remains highly centralised, leaving little room for genuine political competition.

The ruling Popular Rally for Progress (RPP) party dominates parliament, holding 45 of the 65 seats. The broader pro-presidential coalition, the Union for the Presidential Majority (UPM), controls 58 seats in total, consolidating the executive’s influence over the legislative arena.

Opposition coalitions such as the Union for Democratic Change (UAD) and the Union for Democratic Movements (UMD) face significant constraints. They have occasionally boycotted elections. There have been five presidential elections and five legislative elections since 1999.

International organisations frequently highlight restrictions on the media and public dissent, with the majority of outlets being state-controlled.




Read more:
Media freedom and democracy: Africans in four countries weigh up thorny questions about state control


Guelleh also owes his longevity to a close-knit network of officials, family members and political allies who occupy key roles in government and business. The coalition around him is not always entirely harmonious. Subtle rivalries have emerged among political figures and members of his inner circle from time to time. But these dynamics do not pose a political threat.

What accounts for his longevity?

Guelleh’s tenure can be attributed to a combination of institutional changes, geopolitical factors and elite dynamics.




Read more:
From Algeria to Zimbabwe: how Africa’s autocratic elites cycle in and out of power


One such element is constitutional reform. Over the years, Djibouti’s parliament has eroded key democratic safeguards of the 1992 constitution.

First came the removal of presidential term limits in 2010. These changes enabled Guelleh to stand for re-election and reduced presidential terms from six to five years.

The November 2025 parliamentary vote to abolish the presidential age limit followed this pattern. This eliminated the last formal restriction on his eligibility for office come April 2026.




Read more:
Africa faces a new threat to democracy: the ‘constitutional coup’


A second factor is Djibouti’s strategic importance. Located at the entrance to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a vital shipping lane connecting the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, the country is home to several foreign military bases. Represented here are the US, France, China, Japan and Italy. For many international partners, the stability of the Djibouti government has been viewed as a source of predictability in a volatile region.

Consequently, there has been limited external pressure for political reform. In turn this has reinforced the stability of the current leadership.




Read more:
Global power shifts are playing out in the Red Sea region: why this is where the rules are changing


Thirdly, the cohesion of the ruling elite has played a central role in domestic politics. A network of influential figures, including members of the president’s family, long-standing advisers, and economic figures, has formed around Guelleh’s leadership. This group controls key state institutions and sectors of the economy, providing strong incentives to maintain leadership continuity.

Djibouti’s economy relies primarily on port and logistics services, particularly its international port which serves regional trade, as well as on the revenues generated from hosting multiple foreign military bases.

At the same time, the absence of an openly designated successor has sparked quiet competition within this circle. The prospect of a post-Guelleh era has, in recent years, encouraged various individuals to seek to increase their influence. This has ranged from family members to senior advisers and political figures.

Emerging rivalries do not openly challenge the president’s authority. Nevertheless, they do illustrate the complex internal dynamics that underpin the current political order.




Read more:
Weaning African leaders off addiction to power is an ongoing struggle


What has he achieved; what does he promise?

Over more than two decades in office, Guelleh has presided over a period of relative stability in Djibouti. While neighbouring Somalia and Ethiopia have experienced ongoing insecurity and internal conflict, Djibouti has remained comparatively insulated.

The government frequently cites this stability as one of the defining features of his tenure.

Djibouti has also developed its position as a strategic hub. The presence of multiple foreign military bases, alongside port and logistics facilities, has generated significant state revenue.

Since 2016, Chinese investment and management have increasingly shaped the country’s main port infrastructure, further integrating Djibouti into global commercial networks. These factors have raised the country’s profile in international trade and security arrangements.

In addition, Djibouti has played a part in regional diplomacy. It is an important member of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). This is the regional organisation mandated to address conflicts rooted in resources, political competition and identity. Djibouti’s most recent engagement includes participation in the attempts to mediate the conflict in Sudan.

The government has also highlighted certain institutional reforms as markers of progress. An example is the abolition of the death penalty in 2010.

However, structural challenges remain significant. Djibouti has a very young population. Issues such as unemployment, high living costs and limited political participation persist.

What does the age-limit vote tell us about Djibouti’s politics?

The decision was adopted without public debate and with no dissenting votes among the 65 lawmakers present. This reflects the extent to which the National Assembly aligns with the executive.

The vote also highlights the central role of elite consensus in Djibouti’s political system. Key figures within the ruling coalition, including representatives from the Issa and co-opted Afar elites, supported the reform. For these groups, maintaining leadership continuity is often seen as a means of preserving access to economic and political resources. This is preferred to uncertainties associated with a change in leadership.

Bypassing a popular vote on the constitutional provision limits the opportunity to see the true levels of support or opposition. This has the effect of particularly excluding younger citizens who have only ever known one president.

Overall, the vote shows that constitutional provisions can be modified when they hinder leadership continuity. This reinforces a model in which formal rules adapt to political needs rather than constrain them. It also highlights the importance of elite cohesion in maintaining the current political order.

As the 2026 presidential election approaches, the government’s dominant narrative remains one of continuity, supported by those who view stability as essential to protecting national and regional interests.

However, socio-economic pressures and underlying concerns about the inevitable succession continue to influence public expectations, particularly among younger citizens.

The Conversation

Federico Donelli is affiliated with the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI), the Nordic Africa Institute (NAI), and the Orion Policy Institute (OPI)

ref. Djibouti’s democracy takes another knock as ageing president engineers yet another term – https://theconversation.com/djiboutis-democracy-takes-another-knock-as-ageing-president-engineers-yet-another-term-271009

Two people injured after jet boats crash in Wairarapa

Source: Radio New Zealand

Wellington Free Ambulance vehicle attended the scene of the incident.

Wellington Free Ambulance says two patients are in a moderate condition. Photo: Photo / Supplied

Two people have been taken to hospital after two jet boats crashed in the Wairarapa.

Wellington Free Ambulance said two patients were transported to Wairarapa Hospital in a moderate condition following the collision in the Tauwharenīkau River on Sunday morning.

The Jetsprint Association confirmed the crash happened during the round one of the New Zealand Jetsprint Championship in Featherston.

Police said they received reports of the crash at the river, near Tauherenikau Racecourse Road, at about 10.45am on Sunday.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Review: Jennifer Lawrence ‘spectacularly, fearlessly, uncompromisingly brilliant’ in Die My Love

Source: Radio New Zealand

Die My Love is a film by Scottish director Lynne Ramsay, whose reputation rests on just a handful of films over 25 years.

She’s probably best known for the chilling We Need to Talk About Kevin, though I was introduced to her in the mesmerizing Morvern Callar, which this film shares some DNA with.

Ramsay’s ace in the hole is her great ear for the absolutely appropriate music. This is far rarer skill than many directors think.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Two in moderate condition after jet boat crash in Wairarapa

Source: Radio New Zealand

Wellington Free Ambulance vehicle attended the scene of the incident.

Wellington Free Ambulance says two patients are in a moderate condition. Photo: Photo / Supplied

Two people have been taken to hospital after a jet boat crash in the Wairarapa.

Wellington Free Ambulance said two patients were transported to Wairarapa Hospital in a moderate condition following the collision in the Tauwharenīkau River on Sunday morning.

Police said they received reports of the crash at the river, near Tauherenikau Racecourse Road, at about 10.45am on Sunday.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

What to watch: Succession star shines in tense psychological thriller All Her Fault

Source: Radio New Zealand

Set in Chicago – though filmed mostly in Melbourne (more on that later) – All Her Fault immediately pulls us into the tension.

Sarah Snook (Shiv in Succession), stars as Melissa Irving, a successful wealth manager whose life unravels in the opening minutes when she discovers her 5-year-old son Milo has been taken. Snook is brilliant as always – you can feel her panic and simmering rage.

We follow the police investigation and Melissa’s own discoveries, suspecting various family members and friends across eight tightly-wound episodes. Her husband Peter is played by Jake Lacy (Shane from season one of The White Lotus), who nails his portrayal of another entitled man.

There are three main threads that will keep you hooked. The spine of the series is the missing child mystery, complete with steady revelations and clever misdirection which keeps us guessing until the very end.

The second thread is the upper middle-class affluence. The characters inhabit stunning, large, minimalist homes and employ nannies. This privilege doesn’t shield them from judgment or tragedy, which brings us to the third theme of the story: the weight of motherhood.

This is where the title comes in. Melissa is vilified by the media, accused of complicity in her son’s disappearance, mainly because she’s a working mother. Another key player, Jenny (Dakota Fanning), a publishing executive and fellow mum, becomes entangled after discovering her nanny is involved in Milo’s disappearance. All Her Fault doesn’t fall into the trope of pitting these women against each other, instead it’s a welcome relief that they have each other’s backs.

If you know Chicago or Melbourne, here’s where the illusion falters. Lake Michigan’s shores don’t resemble St Kilda’s yellow sand, and the waves look more ocean than lake.

Some scenes were shot in Chicago, but it feels like they added filters to the brighter Australian environment. If I was from Chicago, I’d be pretty unhappy having my city faked in this way.

Then there’s the array of Australian actors (all nailing their American accents). It makes the series feel slightly dislocated – but definitely not enough to derail the drama.

Don’t watch if … location trickery triggers you.

The Beast in Me: Psychological thriller starring Matthew Rhys (the Americans) and Clare Danes (Netflix).

Playing Nice : Psychological thriller starring James Norton (Happy Valley) and Niamh Algar (Raised by Wolves) about two families whose lives implode after they discover their children were swapped at birth (3 Now).

Dark Winds: A gripping US crime thriller set in the 1970s in Navajo country in the US Southwest (Netflix).

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Justice, trust and Sharia: why Malaysia must reform its Islamic home financing

Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Nuarrual Hilal Md Dahlan, School of Law, Universiti Utara Malaysia

Image of a abandoned property project at Bukit Beruntung Malaysia Provided by author, CC BY

Islamic home finance in Malaysia was introduced in the 1980s with high expectations. It promised to create a system free from riba (usury), gharar (harmful uncertainty), and ẓulm (injustice) for 20.6 million Malaysian Muslims.

Four decades on, the original vision of Islamic home finance as an ethical, risk-sharing alternative compliant to Islamic law Sharia is now being put to the test.

Ironically, Sharia-compliant home financing has been implicated in the government’s recent findings, which identified 15,553 homebuyers affected by 107 abandoned housing projects comprising 29,587 units as of 30 September this year.

Some Shariah-labelled home financing products closely resemble conventional loans, highlighting the need for clearer and more substantive differentiation to better guide and protect consumers — a concern that has already prompted calls for reform.

Consequently, many families continue to make monthly payments for homes that remain unfinished, are delivered long past their promised dates, or — in some cases — never materialise at all.

These perceptions have eroded public trust and confidence in Islamic home-financing instruments.

Reforms aim at enhancing fairness, transparency, and shared responsibility are gaining momentum.




Baca juga:
The government wants more of us living in high rises. Here’s why Australians don’t want to


Form over substance: The problem with contentious contracts

The most common Islamic home financing structures in Malaysia are Bayʿ Bithaman al-Ājil (BBA, or deferred payment sale) and tawarruq (a deferred purchase followed by a quick resale for cash).

Both are designed to avoid the direct payment of interest. Yet, their financial outcomes often resemble those of conventional loans.

In a typical BBA arrangement, for instance, the bank purchases the property and resells it to the buyer at a marked-up price to be paid in instalments.

While this structure formally avoids charging interest, its economics are almost identical. Banks lock in fixed returns, while buyers bear the risks of non-delivery, delays, or even project abandonment.

This goes against the principle of al-ghunm bi al-ghurm — that profit should come hand in hand with risk.

Prominent scholars, including Justice Taqi Usmani, have warned that such contractual manoeuvres risk undermining the ethical foundations of Islamic finance.

Many homebuyers continue to service loans for projects that are severely delayed, partially abandoned, or unlikely to be completed.

Such financial and emotional burdens run counter to the maqāṣid al-sharīʿah — the higher objectives of Shariah, which uphold justice, welfare, and the protection of wealth.




Baca juga:
Turning houses into homes: Community land trusts offer a fix to Canada’s housing crisis


Pressures from the Basel Accord and investor expectations

Islamic banks are under growing pressure from global regulations and investor expectations. The Basel Accord enforces stringent capital, liquidity, and risk-weight requirements to maintain financial stability.

These regulations, however, make debt-based contracts such as bayʿ bithaman al-ājil (BBA), murābaḥah (a cost-plus resale on deferred payment), and tawarruq more capital-efficient — and therefore more appealing to banks.

By contrast, genuine risk-sharing models such as mushārakah mutanāqiṣah (diminishing partnership) and ijārah (Islamic leasing contract) typically demand more capital and appear less profitable on paper.

This dynamic forces banks to prioritise balance-sheet “safety,” often shifting delivery risks onto homebuyers. In doing so, Basel inadvertently reinforces the “form over substance” dilemma that continues to shadow Islamic finance.

At the national level, neither the Shariah Advisory Council of Bank Negara Malaysia (SAC) nor the Shariah Committees (SCs) of individual Islamic banks are legally required to include consumer representatives.

To enhance fairness, Malaysia’s Islamic finance sector should ensure that Shariah Committees are appointed and remunerated independently — a move that would reduce potential conflicts of interest and strengthen public trust.

As a result, borrowers’ hardships — such as paying instalments for homes that are delayed or abandoned — often go unheard. Dispute mechanisms, meanwhile, tend to favour financiers, leaving affected families with little meaningful recourse.

Lessons from the Gulf

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries face similar challenges — and have taken steps to guard against them.

Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE): A 2007 law mandates all buyer payments be placed in regulated escrow accounts to safeguard funds and ensure transparency.

Funds can only be released in line with verified construction progress. If a project stalls, the Dubai Land Department or a special tribunal may order refunds or transfer the project to another developer.

Bahrain: Established under a 2014 decree, the Stalled Property Committee is empowered to replace failing developers, merge projects, or liquidate assets to protect homebuyers.

Saudi Arabia: The Wafi off-plan sales programme and SAMA’s escrow regulations ensure that buyer payments are ring-fenced, with any liquidation handled through the Infath Centre.

Nonetheless, property development oversight and consumer protection in these GCC countries still require stronger safeguards and more consistent enforcement.




Baca juga:
The hidden costs of building a home: what every family should know


Pathways to reform

To restore public trust and uphold Shariah principles, Malaysia’s Islamic home financing should prioritise the Build-Then-Sell model — offering financing only for completed homes, thereby eliminating abandonment risks and avoiding harmful gharar (uncertainty).

Where the Sell-Then-Build model remains in use, developers should be required to provide insurance coverage and a clear rehabilitation plan within financing contracts. Shariah governance should also be strengthened through an independent consumer ombudsperson, third-party Shariah audits, and consumer representation on the country’s Sharia advisory council and committees.

Malaysia should also reform the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (Act 118) to make financiers partially accountable when projects fail — creating a fairer balance of responsibility among banks, developers, and homebuyers.

To advance Malaysia’s goal of fully embedding Islamic principles in banking and finance, the country could expand sukuk-funded housing programmes and create a dedicated rehabilitation fund to revive distressed or abandoned projects.




Baca juga:
To end chronic homelessness, we must stop evictions


A National Islamic Housing Fund could adopt the Build-Then-Sell model and the profit-and-risk-sharing principle of al-ghunm bi al-ghurm, offering stronger protection for homebuyers.

Capital could be drawn from Khazanah Nasional Berhad, the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), the Retirement Fund (KWAP), Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB), and Tabung Haji. This could be reinforced through government guarantees, musharakah-based sukuk, and targeted contributions from waqf (Islamic endowments), zakat (mandatory almsgiving), and corporate social responsibility programmes.

If Malaysia and the GCC fail to reform Islamic home financing to make it more equitable and aligned with the principles of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, the consequences could be severe.

Public trust in Islamic finance may likely to keep eroding without concrete action. Malaysia’s goal of addressing its one-million-home deficit by 2026 — through a mix of financing instruments including Islamic options — could also be at risk.

The Conversation

Nuarrual Hilal Md Dahlan tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

ref. Justice, trust and Sharia: why Malaysia must reform its Islamic home financing – https://theconversation.com/justice-trust-and-sharia-why-malaysia-must-reform-its-islamic-home-financing-268366

Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one key phrase

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Morgan Marietta, Professor of American Civics, University of Tennessee

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause. zimmytws/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2025, agreed to review the long-simmering controversy over birthright citizenship. It will likely hand down a ruling next summer.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order removing the recognition of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of both immigrants here illegally and visitors here only temporarily. The new rule is not retroactive. This change in long-standing U.S. policy sparked a wave of litigation culminating in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by Trump to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Both sides agree that to be granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, a child must be born inside U.S. borders and the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. However, each side will give a very different interpretation of what the second requirement means. Who falls under “the jurisdiction” of the United States in this context?

As a close observer of the court, I anticipate a divided outcome grounded in strong arguments from each side.

Arguments for automatic citizenship

Simply put, the argument against the Trump administration is that the 14th Amendment’s expansion of citizenship after the eradication of slavery was meant to be broad rather than narrow, encompassing not only formerly enslaved Black people but all persons who arrived on U.S. soil under the protection of the Constitution.

The Civil War amendments – the 13th, 14th and 15th – established inherent equality as a constitutional value, which embraced all persons born in the nation without reference to race, ethnicity or origin.

One of the strongest arguments that automatic citizenship is the meaning of the Constitution is long-standing practice. Citizenship by birth regardless of parental status – with few exceptions – has been the effective rule since the time of America’s founding.

Advocates also point to precedent: the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. When an American-born descendant of resident noncitizens sued after being refused re-entry to San Francisco under the Chinese Exclusion Act, the court recognized his natural-born citizenship.

If we read the Constitution in a living fashion – emphasizing the evolution of American beliefs and values over time – the constitutional commitment to broad citizenship grounded in equality, regardless of ethnicity or economic status, seems even more clear.

However, advocates must try to convince the court’s originalists – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – who read the Constitution based on its meaning when it was adopted.

The originalist argument in favor of birthright citizenship is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” was meant to invoke only a small set of exceptions found in traditional British common law. In the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court relied on this “customary law of England, brought to America by the colonists.”

One exception to birthright citizenship covered by this line of rulings is the child of a foreign diplomat, whose parents represent the interests of another country. Another exception is the children of invading foreign armies. A third exception discussed explicitly by the framers of the 14th Amendment was Native Americans, who at the time were understood to be under the jurisdiction of their tribal government as a separate sovereign. That category of exclusion faded away after Congress recognized the citizenship of Native Americans in 1924.

The advocates of automatic birthright citizenship conclude that whether the 14th Amendment is interpreted in a living or in an original way, its small set of exceptions do not override its broad message of citizenship grounded in human equality.

Opposition to birthright citizenship

The opposing argument begins with a simple intuition: In a society defined by self-government, as America is, there is no such thing as citizenship without consent. In the same way that an American citizen cannot declare himself a French citizen and vote in French elections without consent from the French government, a foreign national cannot declare himself a U.S. citizen without consent.

This argument emphasizes that citizenship in a democracy means holding equal political power over our collective decisions. That is something only existing citizens hold the right to offer to others, something which must be decided through elections and the lawmaking process.

The court’s ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 – just 16 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment – endorses “the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” By making entry into the United States without approval a federal offense, Congress has effectively denied that consent.

Scholars who support this view argue that the 14th Amendment does not provide this consent. Instead it sets a limitation. To the authors of the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” conveyed a limit to natural citizenship grounded in mutual allegiance. That means if people are free to deny their old national allegiance, and an independent nation is free to decide its own membership, the recognition of a new national identity must be mutual.

Immigrants living in the United States illegally have not accepted the sovereignty of the nation’s laws. On the other side of the coin, the government has not officially accepted them as residents under its protection.

A seated man in a suit and tie signs a document.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2025.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

If mutual recognition of allegiance is the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the Trump administration has not violated it.

The opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has been misrepresented. In that case, the court only considered permanent legal residents like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily. The focus on British common law in that ruling is simply misguided because the findings of Calvin’s Case or any other precedents dealing with British subjects were voided by the American Revolution.

In this view, the Declaration of Independence replaced subjects with citizens. The power to determine national membership was taken away from kings and placed in the hands of democratic majorities.

For opponents of birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment does not take that power away from citizens but instead codifies the rule that mutual consent is the touchstone of admission. The requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction” provides the mechanism of that consent.

Congress can determine who is accepted as a member of the national community under its jurisdiction. In this view, Congress – and the American people – have spoken: Current federal laws make entry into U.S. borders without permission a crime rather than a forced acceptance of political membership.

What might happen

The court will likely announce a ruling in summer 2026 before early July, just in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The court will ultimately decide whether the Constitution endorses the declaration’s invocation of essential equality or its creation of a sovereign people empowered to determine the boundaries of national membership.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – will surely side against the Trump administration. The six Republican-appointed justices seem likely to divide, a symptom of disagreements within the originalist camp.

The liberal justices need at least two of the conservatives to join them to form a majority of five to uphold universal birthright citizenship. This will likely be some combination of Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Trump administration will prevail only if five out of the six conservatives reject the British common law foundations of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of citizenship by consent alone.

America should know by July Fourth.

The Conversation

Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one key phrase – https://theconversation.com/supreme-courts-decision-on-birthright-citizenship-will-depend-on-its-interpretation-of-one-key-phrase-271064

Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Morgan Marietta, Professor of American Civics, University of Tennessee

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause. zimmytws/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2025, agreed to review the long-simmering controversy over birthright citizenship. It will likely hand down a ruling next summer.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order removing the recognition of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of both immigrants here illegally and visitors here only temporarily. The new rule is not retroactive. This change in long-standing U.S. policy sparked a wave of litigation culminating in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by Trump to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Both sides agree that to be granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, a child must be born inside U.S. borders and the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. However, each side will give a very different interpretation of what the second requirement means. Who falls under “the jurisdiction” of the United States in this context?

As a close observer of the court, I anticipate a divided outcome grounded in strong arguments from each side.

Arguments for automatic citizenship

Simply put, the argument against the Trump administration is that the 14th Amendment’s expansion of citizenship after the eradication of slavery was meant to be broad rather than narrow, encompassing not only formerly enslaved Black people but all persons who arrived on U.S. soil under the protection of the Constitution.

The Civil War amendments – the 13th, 14th and 15th – established inherent equality as a constitutional value, which embraced all persons born in the nation without reference to race, ethnicity or origin.

One of the strongest arguments that automatic citizenship is the meaning of the Constitution is long-standing practice. Citizenship by birth regardless of parental status – with few exceptions – has been the effective rule since the time of America’s founding.

Advocates also point to precedent: the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. When an American-born descendant of resident noncitizens sued after being refused re-entry to San Francisco under the Chinese Exclusion Act, the court recognized his natural-born citizenship.

If we read the Constitution in a living fashion – emphasizing the evolution of American beliefs and values over time – the constitutional commitment to broad citizenship grounded in equality, regardless of ethnicity or economic status, seems even more clear.

However, advocates must try to convince the court’s originalists – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – who read the Constitution based on its meaning when it was adopted.

The originalist argument in favor of birthright citizenship is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” was meant to invoke only a small set of exceptions found in traditional British common law. In the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court relied on this “customary law of England, brought to America by the colonists.”

One exception to birthright citizenship covered by this line of rulings is the child of a foreign diplomat, whose parents represent the interests of another country. Another exception is the children of invading foreign armies. A third exception discussed explicitly by the framers of the 14th Amendment was Native Americans, who at the time were understood to be under the jurisdiction of their tribal government as a separate sovereign. That category of exclusion faded away after Congress recognized the citizenship of Native Americans in 1924.

The advocates of automatic birthright citizenship conclude that whether the 14th Amendment is interpreted in a living or in an original way, its small set of exceptions do not override its broad message of citizenship grounded in human equality.

Opposition to birthright citizenship

The opposing argument begins with a simple intuition: In a society defined by self-government, as America is, there is no such thing as citizenship without consent. In the same way that an American citizen cannot declare himself a French citizen and vote in French elections without consent from the French government, a foreign national cannot declare himself a U.S. citizen without consent.

This argument emphasizes that citizenship in a democracy means holding equal political power over our collective decisions. That is something only existing citizens hold the right to offer to others, something which must be decided through elections and the lawmaking process.

The court’s ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 – just 16 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment – endorses “the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” By making entry into the United States without approval a federal offense, Congress has effectively denied that consent.

Scholars who support this view argue that the 14th Amendment does not provide this consent. Instead it sets a limitation. To the authors of the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” conveyed a limit to natural citizenship grounded in mutual allegiance. That means if people are free to deny their old national allegiance, and an independent nation is free to decide its own membership, the recognition of a new national identity must be mutual.

Immigrants living in the United States illegally have not accepted the sovereignty of the nation’s laws. On the other side of the coin, the government has not officially accepted them as residents under its protection.

A seated man in a suit and tie signs a document.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2025.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

If mutual recognition of allegiance is the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the Trump administration has not violated it.

The opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has been misrepresented. In that case, the court only considered permanent legal residents like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily. The focus on British common law in that ruling is simply misguided because the findings of Calvin’s Case or any other precedents dealing with British subjects were voided by the American Revolution.

In this view, the Declaration of Independence replaced subjects with citizens. The power to determine national membership was taken away from kings and placed in the hands of democratic majorities.

For opponents of birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment does not take that power away from citizens but instead codifies the rule that mutual consent is the touchstone of admission. The requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction” provides the mechanism of that consent.

Congress can determine who is accepted as a member of the national community under its jurisdiction. In this view, Congress – and the American people – have spoken: Current federal laws make entry into U.S. borders without permission a crime rather than a forced acceptance of political membership.

What might happen

The court will likely announce a ruling in summer 2026 before early July, just in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The court will ultimately decide whether the Constitution endorses the declaration’s invocation of essential equality or its creation of a sovereign people empowered to determine the boundaries of national membership.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – will surely side against the Trump administration. The six Republican-appointed justices seem likely to divide, a symptom of disagreements within the originalist camp.

The liberal justices need at least two of the conservatives to join them to form a majority of five to uphold universal birthright citizenship. This will likely be some combination of Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Trump administration will prevail only if five out of the six conservatives reject the British common law foundations of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of citizenship by consent alone.

America should know by July Fourth.

The Conversation

Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase – https://theconversation.com/supreme-courts-decision-on-birthright-citizenship-will-depend-on-its-interpretation-of-one-phrase-271064

The Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Morgan Marietta, Professor of American Civics, University of Tennessee

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause. zimmytws/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2025, agreed to review the long-simmering controversy over birthright citizenship. It will likely hand down a ruling next summer.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order removing the recognition of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of both immigrants here illegally and visitors here only temporarily. The new rule is not retroactive. This change in long-standing U.S. policy sparked a wave of litigation culminating in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by Trump to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.

When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Both sides agree that to be granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, a child must be born inside U.S. borders and the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. However, each side will give a very different interpretation of what the second requirement means. Who falls under “the jurisdiction” of the United States in this context?

As a close observer of the court, I anticipate a divided outcome grounded in strong arguments from each side.

Arguments for automatic citizenship

Simply put, the argument against the Trump administration is that the 14th Amendment’s expansion of citizenship after the eradication of slavery was meant to be broad rather than narrow, encompassing not only formerly enslaved Black people but all persons who arrived on U.S. soil under the protection of the Constitution.

The Civil War amendments – the 13th, 14th and 15th – established inherent equality as a constitutional value, which embraced all persons born in the nation without reference to race, ethnicity or origin.

One of the strongest arguments that automatic citizenship is the meaning of the Constitution is long-standing practice. Citizenship by birth regardless of parental status – with few exceptions – has been the effective rule since the time of America’s founding.

Advocates also point to precedent: the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. When an American-born descendant of resident noncitizens sued after being refused re-entry to San Francisco under the Chinese Exclusion Act, the court recognized his natural-born citizenship.

If we read the Constitution in a living fashion – emphasizing the evolution of American beliefs and values over time – the constitutional commitment to broad citizenship grounded in equality, regardless of ethnicity or economic status, seems even more clear.

However, advocates must try to convince the court’s originalists – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – who read the Constitution based on its meaning when it was adopted.

The originalist argument in favor of birthright citizenship is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” was meant to invoke only a small set of exceptions found in traditional British common law. In the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court relied on this “customary law of England, brought to America by the colonists.”

One exception to birthright citizenship covered by this line of rulings is the child of a foreign diplomat, whose parents represent the interests of another country. Another exception is the children of invading foreign armies. A third exception discussed explicitly by the framers of the 14th Amendment was Native Americans, who at the time were understood to be under the jurisdiction of their tribal government as a separate sovereign. That category of exclusion faded away after Congress recognized the citizenship of Native Americans in 1924.

The advocates of automatic birthright citizenship conclude that whether the 14th Amendment is interpreted in a living or in an original way, its small set of exceptions do not override its broad message of citizenship grounded in human equality.

Opposition to birthright citizenship

The opposing argument begins with a simple intuition: In a society defined by self-government, as America is, there is no such thing as citizenship without consent. In the same way that an American citizen cannot declare himself a French citizen and vote in French elections without consent from the French government, a foreign national cannot declare himself a U.S. citizen without consent.

This argument emphasizes that citizenship in a democracy means holding equal political power over our collective decisions. That is something only existing citizens hold the right to offer to others, something which must be decided through elections and the lawmaking process.

The court’s ruling in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 – just 16 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment – endorses “the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” By making entry into the United States without approval a federal offense, Congress has effectively denied that consent.

Scholars who support this view argue that the 14th Amendment does not provide this consent. Instead it sets a limitation. To the authors of the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” conveyed a limit to natural citizenship grounded in mutual allegiance. That means if people are free to deny their old national allegiance, and an independent nation is free to decide its own membership, the recognition of a new national identity must be mutual.

Immigrants living in the United States illegally have not accepted the sovereignty of the nation’s laws. On the other side of the coin, the government has not officially accepted them as residents under its protection.

A seated man in a suit and tie signs a document.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2025.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

If mutual recognition of allegiance is the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the Trump administration has not violated it.

The opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has been misrepresented. In that case, the court only considered permanent legal residents like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, but not residents here illegally or temporarily. The focus on British common law in that ruling is simply misguided because the findings of Calvin’s Case or any other precedents dealing with British subjects were voided by the American Revolution.

In this view, the Declaration of Independence replaced subjects with citizens. The power to determine national membership was taken away from kings and placed in the hands of democratic majorities.

For opponents of birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment does not take that power away from citizens but instead codifies the rule that mutual consent is the touchstone of admission. The requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction” provides the mechanism of that consent.

Congress can determine who is accepted as a member of the national community under its jurisdiction. In this view, Congress – and the American people – have spoken: Current federal laws make entry into U.S. borders without permission a crime rather than a forced acceptance of political membership.

What might happen

The court will likely announce a ruling in summer 2026 before early July, just in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The court will ultimately decide whether the Constitution endorses the declaration’s invocation of essential equality or its creation of a sovereign people empowered to determine the boundaries of national membership.

The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – will surely side against the Trump administration. The six Republican-appointed justices seem likely to divide, a symptom of disagreements within the originalist camp.

The liberal justices need at least two of the conservatives to join them to form a majority of five to uphold universal birthright citizenship. This will likely be some combination of Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Trump administration will prevail only if five out of the six conservatives reject the British common law foundations of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of citizenship by consent alone.

America should know by July Fourth.

The Conversation

Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase – https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-courts-decision-on-birthright-citizenship-will-depend-on-its-interpretation-of-one-phrase-271064

The world is facing a cancer crisis that’s hitting the most vulnerable hardest

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vikram Niranjan, Assistant Professor in Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Limerick

Antonio Marca/Shutterstock

When I worked on the latest Global Burden of Disease cancer study, a global project that tracks cancer patterns and deaths across countries, I found myself pausing as the numbers loaded on the screen. Even as a scientist used to large datasets, the scale was hard to process.

Behind every line of code was a family who might lose a parent or child to a cancer that could have been prevented or treated earlier. The projections for South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa were especially stark.

It was clear that millions of people would be living and dying with avoidable cancers in the decades ahead unless something changed.

Infectious outbreaks or antimicrobial resistance are often labelled as global health crises. Yet a quieter crisis has been gathering force for decades. Cancer is rising across every region of the world, and the steepest increases are now occurring in countries with the fewest resources.

As part of the Global Burden of Disease 2023 Cancer collaboration, a worldwide partnership of scientists who produce comprehensive estimates of disease and mortality, I co-authored a large study tracking cancer trends from 1990 to 2023 and projecting what the world could face by 2050.

For many years, cancer was widely viewed as a disease of affluence, concentrated in high income countries. Scientists now know that it affects all regions and that an increasing proportion of the burden falls on low and middle income countries.

Many of these countries are now experiencing rapid lifestyle and environmental changes along with ageing populations, but without the parallel development of screening, diagnostic or treatment capacity. Our analysis highlights how quickly this transition is unfolding.

In 2023, our analysis estimated 18.5 million new cancer cases and 10.4 million deaths across 204 countries. Nearly one in six global deaths was caused by cancer. More than two-thirds of these deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries, reflecting the scale of the challenge in regions where access to screening, pathology and treatment remains limited.

In our study, 41.7% of cancer deaths in 2023 were attributable to modifiable risks. Tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy diets, high body mass index, air pollution and harmful workplace or environmental exposures all contributed.

Millions of cancers could be prevented each year if governments strengthened public health policies and made healthier choices easier. Prevention is not only about people’s actions. It is shaped by political decisions about what people can afford, breathe, eat and encounter in their environments.

Using more than three decades of data, we modelled future cancer trends. By 2050, the world could be facing 30.5 million new cancer diagnoses every year and 18.6 million annual deaths, almost double today’s figures.

Population growth and ageing play a part, but broader shifts in lifestyle, urbanisation, air quality and economic development are also increasing exposure to cancer risks. Without major interventions, these trends will continue.




Read more:
Fine particle air pollution is a public health emergency hiding in plain sight


Addressing this crisis requires more than isolated initiatives. By investing in early diagnosis, governments can proactively offer screening for cancers such as breast, cervical and colorectal cancer saves lives but remains rare in much of the world. Prevention must be treated as a global priority.

Tobacco control, air-quality regulation, obesity prevention and workplace protections are well evidenced and urgently need strengthening. Health systems also require significant expansion, from pathology labs and trained oncology staff to reliable access to affordable treatments. High-quality data is essential too. Countries cannot plan or measure progress without robust cancer registries.

Cancer is no longer a condition that mainly affects older adults. In many regions, younger people are increasingly diagnosed with cancers historically seen later in life. For them, the consequences ripple far beyond health.

Education, employment, relationships and financial stability can all be disrupted overnight. Cancer becomes a societal issue as well as a medical one. It already touches many families and, without action, will affect many more in the coming decades.

The future is not fixed. Our projections are warnings rather than certainties. Policymakers, communities and people still have the chance to influence what the world will face in 2050. The next 25 years are critical. We have the knowledge to change course. What we need now is the collective will to act.

The Conversation

Vikram Niranjan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The world is facing a cancer crisis that’s hitting the most vulnerable hardest – https://theconversation.com/the-world-is-facing-a-cancer-crisis-thats-hitting-the-most-vulnerable-hardest-270862