Via Remix News,

Sweden has seen massive demographic changes over the last 25 years, and this is not only reflected in the demographic composition, but also the religious composition of the country. While churches continue to close their doors, the country went from approximately seven mosques in 2000 to now 300 in 2025.

The exact figures are difficult to ascertain, however, the 300 mosques refers to permanent prayer places built for Muslim worship, which often feature a minaret and a dome. If unofficial places of Muslim worship are factored in, such as converted shops or basements, the number would likely be far higher, according to Swedish newspaper Samnytt.

“If by mosque you mean a Muslim place of worship, the number may be close to 300,” said Frederic Brusi, the knowledge officer of the Swedish Agency for Support to Religious Communities.

As in other European countries, many of these mosques receive funding from abroad, and overall, the finances behind many of them remain murky.

“In several cases, Swedish mosque construction has been partially or completely financed with money from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar or Turkey. In the case of Saudi Arabia alone, there is talk of billions. There is also information in the media that every fourth Swedish mosque is financed by the Sunni Muslim and Wahhabi kingdom,” writes Samnytt.

Keeping track of the growth in mosques is very difficult due to a lack of public statistics, with the Swedish paper pointing to mosques like Masjid Aysha, which is run by the non-profit association Scandinavian Islamic Organization (SIO) based out of Stockholm. While the mosque has been operating for 20 years, it remains unclear if it is even registered as an official mosque in the country, as there is no public list of registered mosques.

More and more mosques are in the pipeline as well, with construction taking place across the country. In one city, Helsingborg, a mosque being billed as “Scandinavia’s largest mosque” has so far raised 68 million kroner (€6.3 million) for its construction.

The money has been collected through influencers and social media campaigns on TikTok and Instagram, but money is also flowing from international locations. Due to the huge sum the mosque has raised, questions are being asked about where the money is actually coming from. In one video clip posted by the mosque, recipients chant “Allahu Akbar” when their funding reached 10 million kronor.

Another mosque, which organizers are billing as the largest mosque in all of Northern Europe, is under construction in Skärholmen, a neighborhood in Stockholm. The money is not only financed by Swedish taxpayers but also foreign donors, which has sparked controversy within the country.

“According to information from the local newspaper Mitt i, the association behind the construction of the Skärholmen mosque has chosen to hire the Turkish construction company EMUG, which is linked to the Islamist movement Milli Görüs. The organization has previously been criticized for anti-democratic values ​​and anti-Semitism, as well as for working to replace the Western social model with an Islamic social order,” writes Samnytt.

Government officials also say more mosques are on the way.

“We have freedom of religion in this country, we have countless churches and not nearly as many mosques, so of course we need to build more mosques as long as it takes for people to be able to practice their religion,” said Karin Wanngård, Stockholm’s finance mayor.

Certainly, the country’s demographic picture has been radically transformed, with Muslims making up a significant voting bloc, especially in the country’s cities.

Last year, Remix News reported that Yasir Qadhi, a Pakistani-born American theologian, predicted that in just one generation, half of Malmö’s population would be Muslim.

🇸🇪❗️ SHOOTINGS IN SWEDEN: STATISTICS

Since January 2023, there have been 593 reported shootings across Sweden, resulting in 169 injuries and 91 deaths.

The vast majority occur in the main cities of Stockholm, Malmö, and Gothenburg, but shootings are now commonplace across the… pic.twitter.com/A3KqIgKYzc

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) November 18, 2024

“Walking through the streets of Malmö is like walking through Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, or Damascus, the capital of Syria,” said Yasir Qadhi, a Pakistani-born American theologian, as reported in the Swedish newspaper Samnytt.

He also shared his theory with the world that the towns he mentioned would become Muslim towns because while Swedes have few children, it is not uncommon for a Muslim family to have five or six. In a generation’s time, Malmö will not be dominated by Swedes, according to the Muslim theologian.

As Remix News previously reported, ethnic Swedish children are already a minority in the school system of Malmö, with one Swedish academic reacting to the massive demographic transformation known as the Great Replacement by claiming that schools should be taught in Arabic, as Swedish is now a minority language.

Conservatives in Sweden have long pointed to Malmö as a picture of the future that the majority of Swedes remain opposed to, as the city has completely transformed from nearly all ethnic Swedes into a multicultural area marked by urban decay, no-go zones controlled by migrant clans, and a city unsafe for women in many areas.

Data also shows that migrants and those of a migrant background are responsible for the vast majority of murders, shootings, gang rapes, and robberies in Sweden. Unfortunately, many of these killings are perpetrated by members of the Middle Eastern community, which is predominantly Muslim.

In 2023, the leader of the right-wing Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, said many mosques need to be torn down. He says that Islamic places of worship in Sweden are a breeding ground for radicalized thought and the anti-West propaganda that is infiltrating the country’s social fabric and sowing discord in Swedish communities.

“It is not a right to come to our country and build monuments to a foreign and imperialist ideology,” Åkesson told his party’s faithful. “In the long term, we need to start confiscating and demolishing mosque buildings where anti-democratic, anti-Swedish, homophobic, or anti-Semitic propaganda or general misinformation about Swedish society is spread.”

Read more here…

UK tech firm Avantao Technologies has apologized after posting a job ad stating “only candidates who are immigrants from India will be considered”, according to the Daily Mail.

The listing, for a DevOps engineer role in Ilford, also asked visa-related questions like “What is your native country?” and “Are you seeking sponsorship for employment in the UK?”

The Daily Mail report says that the company claims the ad was a staff training “test” that was mistakenly published. Sure.

“Unfortunately, that has been published, and we are unable to retract it because it was a mistake made by the employee who posted it live and then departed on holiday,” a spokesperson told MailOnline.

“We are very sorry to hear that this has occurred… a mistake is a mistake, and we have taken action against the individual… we genuinely apologise.”

Avantao has offices in Hyderabad, Bangalore, and New Jersey. Chitra Ranjeeth serves as the director of the Ilford branch, which operates out of a shared business center in London alongside various other unrelated businesses.

No one was hired, and the advert expired on March 24.

Authored by Andrew Latham via RealClearDefense,

NATO is a corpse. All that remains is the grotesque performance art of a diplomatic zombie stumbling from summit to summit, mouthing tired clichés about “shared values” and “burden sharing,” even as its core strategic logic lies rotting beneath the surface. The Atlantic Alliance, once the steel scaffolding of Western security, has become a hollow ritual. Its military readiness is an illusion. Its political cohesion is fraying. Its future, if it has one, lies not in revival—but in reinvention or replacement.

This is not a triumphalist declaration from the Kremlin or Beijing. It is a sober diagnosis, grounded in realism and restraint. And it should be a wake-up call in Washington, Ottawa, Berlin, and beyond.

NATO’s death was not caused by Donald Trump, though he may soon become its undertaker. Nor was it caused by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, though that war has exposed the Alliance’s hollowness in ways no war game or communique ever could. The real cause lies in decades of European free-riding, American strategic drift, and a foundational lie at the heart of the Alliance: the idea that an empire can masquerade as a collective defense pact without consequences.

Let’s start with the numbers. Most NATO members still do not meet the 2 percent of GDP defense spending benchmark, despite years of promises and performative panic. Canada, which has taken freeloading to an art form, has shown no serious intention of meeting its obligations. As I’ve written elsewhere, Trudeau’s empty pledges mask a decaying defense industrial base, a stagnant recruiting system, and an Arctic strategy made of snow and sentiment.

Germany—the economic motor of Europe—still can’t field a combat-ready army for more than a few weeks at a time. The Bundeswehr is a shell. Its special fund is already mostly spent, and its political class remains addicted to strategic ambiguity and military minimalism. France wants “strategic autonomy” but lacks the scale and will to lead Europe alone. Poland, despite its impressive rearmament, cannot carry the continent’s defense burden on its shoulders—certainly not while Berlin dithers and Washington increasingly looks west, not east.

Meanwhile, the United States—still NATO’s military backbone—faces a fiscal cliff, a recruitment crisis, and an overstretched force posture. The era of limitless resources is over. American global primacy has ended. Multipolarity has arrived. The U.S. must now prioritize. And that means making hard choices about where its forces are truly needed—and where others must finally step up or face the consequences.

The war in Ukraine has laid these contradictions bare. NATO as an institution is not fighting the war. The United States is. Some European countries are helping—but most are hedging. NATO has been bypassed in favor of bilateral and ad hoc coalitions. Article 5 hasn’t been tested, and it may never be. The idea that NATO is “more united than ever” is a comforting fiction, trotted out to conceal the fact that the Alliance can no longer mount a serious, conventional defense of Europe without massive and prolonged American escalation.

Even the so-called Nordic expansion—Sweden and Finland joining NATO—has not changed the equation. It’s a strategic sideshow. Unless Europe can build up a credible, conventional deterrent in the East, without expecting Washington to always bail it out, the Alliance will remain a Potemkin village: flags, acronyms, and summits without substance.

Trump’s likely return to the White House in 2025 should not be viewed as a cataclysm but as an overdue reckoning. He will not end NATO. He will force Europe to decide whether it is willing to pay for its own defense or not. He will not blow up the Alliance. He will make it answer for its contradictions. And that, frankly, is what a serious ally should do.

Some critics will scream that this is the death knell of the “rules-based international order.” But the order they mourn was already breaking down—long before Trump, long before Ukraine, long before Brexit or Crimea. What we are witnessing is not a collapse but a transition: from the illusion of Atlanticism to the reality of multipolarity. And NATO, if it is to matter at all in this new world, must either become a true European-led military alliance with American support—or fade into history like SEATO and CENTO before it.

This doesn’t mean abandoning Europe to Russian domination. It means telling uncomfortable truths. Europe is rich. Europe is populous. Europe is not helpless. The United States can and should support its European allies—but it should not subsidize their illusions indefinitely. A more self-reliant Europe is not a threat to American interests; it is a precondition for strategic focus on the North Pacific, the Arctic, and the Western Hemisphere—where the real contests of the 21st century will be decided.

In my writing here and elsewhere, I have repeatedly argued that Canada must stop pretending it is a global power and start acting like what it is: a North Pacific, Arctic, and North Atlantic state. That means prioritizing regional defense, rebuilding naval and aerospace capabilities, and getting serious about continental defense. NATO is not the vehicle for that anymore—if it ever was. For Canada, continuing to hide behind NATO rhetoric while failing to meet even the most basic obligations is not only cowardly—it is dangerous.

A dead NATO still carries risks. Strategic ambiguity, brittle expectations, and performative deterrence are a recipe for miscalculation. The Alliance’s political leadership must either acknowledge the need for transformation or risk a future crisis that reveals, in real time and in blood, what we already know: that the emperor has no tanks.

The solution is not sentimental nostalgia. It is clear-eyed realism. NATO in its current form is not worth saving. But its core idea—collective defense among likeminded powers—still has value. What’s needed is a reset: a reimagined Euro-Atlantic security framework led by capable European states, with American support but not American dominance. A NATO that deters by capability, not by assumption. A NATO that can say no as well as yes. A NATO, in short, that lives in the real world.

The alternative is strategic decay. A slow slide into irrelevance. More summits, more selfies, more hollow communiqués. Until, one day, NATO doesn’t die with a bang—but with a bureaucratic whimper.

That future is already here. NATO is dead. The only question now is what comes next—and whether we have the courage to build it.

Andrew Latham,Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with Defense Priorities, a think tank in Washington, DC.

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

Russia and Iran are at the forefront of the multi-layered Eurasia integration process – the most crucial geopolitical development of the young 21st century. 

Both are top members of BRICS+ and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Both are seriously implicated as Global Majority leaders to build a multi-nodal, multipolar world. And both have signed, in late January in Moscow, a detailed, comprehensive strategic partnership. 

The second administration of US President Donald Trump, starting with the “maximum pressure” antics employed by the bombastic Circus Ringmaster himself, seems to ignore these imperatives.       

It was up to the Russian Foreign Ministry to re-introduce rationality in what was fast becoming an out of control shouting match: essentially Moscow, alongside its partner Tehran, simply will not accept outside threats of bombing Iran’s nuclear and energy infrastructure, while insisting on the search for viable negotiated solutions for the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. 

And then, just like lightning, the Washington narrative changed. US Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs, Steven Witkoff – not exactly a Metternich, and previously a “maximum pressure” hardliner – started talking about the need for “confidence-building” and even “resolving disagreements,” implying Washington began “seriously considering,” according to the proverbial “officials,” indirect nuclear talks.

These implications turned to reality on Monday afternoon when Trump allegedly blindsided the visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the announcement of a “very big meeting” with Iranian officials in the next few days. Tehran later confirmed the news, with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying he would engage in indirect nuclear negotiations with Witkoff in Oman on Saturday.

It’s as if Trump had at least listened to the arguments exposed by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But then again, he can change his mind in a Trump New York minute. 

The finer points of the Russia–Iran–China axis

Essential background to decipher the “Will Russia help Iran” conundrum can be found in these all-too-diplomatic exchanges at the Valdai Club in Moscow.

The key points were made by Alexander Maryasov, Russia’s ambassador to Iran from 2001 to 2005. Maryasov argues that the Russia–Iran treaty is not only a symbolic milestone, but “serves as a roadmap for advancing our cooperation across virtually all domains.” It is more of “a bilateral relations document” – not a defense treaty.  

The treaty was extensively discussed – then approved – as a counter-point to “the intensified military-political and economic pressure exerted by western nations on both Russia and Iran.”

The main rationale was how to fight against the sanctions tsunami. 

Yet even if it does not constitute a military alliance, the treaty details mutually agreed moves if there is an attack or threats to either nation’s national security – as in Trump’s careless bombing threats against Iran. The treaty also defines the vast scope of military-technical and defense cooperation, including, crucially, regular intel talk. 

Maryasov identified the key security points as the Caspian, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and last but not least, West Asia, including the breadth and reach of the Axis of Resistance.  

The official Moscow position on the Axis of Resistance is an extremely delicate affair. For instance, let’s look at Yemen. Moscow does not officially recognize the Yemeni resistance government embodied by Ansarallah and with its HQ in the capital Sanaa; rather, it recognizes, just like Washington, a puppet government in Aden, which is in fact housed in a five-star hotel in Riyadh, sponsored by Saudi Arabia. 

Last summer two different Yemeni delegations were visiting Moscow. As I witnessed it, the Sanaa delegation faced tremendous bureaucratic problems to clinch official meetings. 

There is, of course, sympathy for Ansarallah across Moscow intel and military circles. But as confirmed in Sanaa with a member of the High Political Council, these contacts occur via “privileged channels,” and not institutionally. 

The same applies to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which was a key Russian ally in routing ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups during the Syrian war. When it comes to Syria, the only thing that really matters for official Moscow, after the Al-Qaeda-linked extremists took power in Damascus last December, is to preserve the Russian bases in Tartous and Hmeimim. 

There’s no question that the Syrian debacle was an extremely serious setback for both Moscow and Tehran, further aggravated by Trump’s non-stop escalation over Iran’s nuclear program and his “maximum pressure” obsession. 

The nature of the Russia–Iran treaty differs substantially from that of Russia–China. For Beijing, the partnership with Moscow is so solid, it develops so dynamically, that they don’t even need a treaty: they have a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” 

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, in his recent visit to Russia, after coining a pearl – “those who live in the 21st century but think in Cold War blocs and zero-sum games cannot keep up with the times” – neatly summarized Sino–Russian relations in three vectors: The two Asian giants are “forever friends and never enemies;” Equality and mutually beneficial cooperation; Non-alignment with blocs; Non-confrontation, and non-targeting of third parties. So even as we have a Russia–Iran treaty, between China and Russia, and China and Iran, we have essentially close partnerships.

Witness, for instance, the fifth annual joint Russia–Iran–China naval exercises that took place in the Gulf of Oman in March. This trilateral synergy is not new; it has been under development for years.

But it’s lazy to characterize this improved RIC Primakov triangle (Russia–Iran–China instead of Russia–India–China) as an alliance. The only “alliance” that exists today on the geopolitical chessboard is NATO – a warmongering outfit composed of intimidated vassals corralled together by the Empire of Chaos. 

Cue to yet another hard-to-resist Wang Yi jade pearl: “The US is sick but forces others to take the medicine.” Takeaways: Russia is not switching sides; China won’t be encircled; and Iran will be defended. 

When the new Primakov triangle meets in Beijing 

At the Valdai discussion, Daniyal Meshkin Ranjbar, assistant professor in the Department of Theory and History of International Relations at the Moscow-based RUDN University, made a crucial point: “For the first time in history, the diplomatic outlooks of Russia and Iran converge.” He’s referring to the obvious parallels between official policies: Russia’s “pivot to the east” and Iran’s “look east” policies. 

All those interconnections plainly escape the new administration in Washington, as well as bombastic Trump–Netanyahu rhetoric that has zero basis in reality – even the US National Security Council admitted that Iran is not working on a nuclear bomb.

And that brings us to the Big Picture.  

The Circus Ringmaster – at least until he changes his mind again – is essentially working on a triangulation deal, allegedly offering Russia a transportation framework, access to grain exports in the Black Sea, and Russian banks off the sanction list of SWIFT so he may execute his “pivot” to then attack Iran (deadline to Tehran included). 

And if Russia defends Iran, no deal. 

That’s as mendacious as Mafia-style “offer you can’t refuse” maximum pressure can get. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov – an exceptionally able diplomat – destroyed the whole rationale: “Russia cannot accept US proposals to end the war in Ukraine in their current form because they do not solve the problems Moscow considers the cause of the conflict.” Even as Moscow “takes the models and solutions proposed by the Americans very seriously.”

As the Russian angle of Trump’s triangulation falters, Tehran is not merely watching the river flow. How Iran adapted for decades to a sanctions tsunami is now firm knowledge deeply shared with Moscow, part of their deepening cooperation enshrined in the treaty. 

For all of Trump’s volatility, non-Zionist-contaminated voices across the Beltway are slowly but surely imprinting the rational view that a war on Iran is absolutely suicidal for the Empire itself. So the odds resurface that Trump 2.0 verbal barrages may be paving the way for a temporary deal that will be spun to death – after all, this is always a battle of narratives – as a diplomatic victory.

Bets can be made that the only leader on the planet capable of making Trump understand reality is Russian President Vladimir Putin, in their next phone call.  After all, it is the Circus Ringmaster himself who created the revamped “nuclear Iran” drama. RIC – or the revamped Primakov triangle – duly addressed it, together, in a crucial, discreet, not-publicized recent meeting in Beijing, as confirmed by diplomatic sources. 

Essentially, the RIC has developed a “nuclear Iran” road map. These are the highlights: 

• Dialogue. No escalation. No “maximum pressure”. Step-by-step moves. Build mutual confidence.
• As Iran re-emphasizes its veto on developing nuclear weapons, the much-debated “international community”, actually the UN Security Council, recognizes, again, Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT.
• Back to the JCPOA – and reboot it. To get Trump back on board, the reboot will be an extremely hard sell. 

This roadmap was ratified during a second round of RIC trilateral talks in Moscow on Tuesday, where senior officials from the allied nations discussed collaborative efforts to address the challenges faced by Iran.

That summit in Moscow

As it stands, the road map is just that: a map. The breathless Zionist axis from Washington to Tel Aviv will continue to insist that Iran, if attacked, will not be supported by Russia, and extra, non-stop “maximum pressure” will force Tehran to eventually fold and abandon its support to the Axis of Resistance. 

All that, once again, eschews reality. For Moscow, Iran is an absolutely key geopolitical priority; beyond Iran, to the east, is Central Asia. The Zionist obsessive fantasy of regime change in Tehran masks NATO’s then penetrating into Central Asia, building military bases, and at the same time blocking several strategically crucial Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects. Iran is as essential to China’s long-term foreign policy as it is to Russia’s. 

It’s not by accident that Russia and China will meet at the presidential level – Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping – at a summit in Moscow around 9 May, Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War. They will be analyzing in detail the next stage of “changes that we have not seen in 100 years,” as formulated by Xi to Putin in their groundbreaking 2023 summer in Moscow. 

They, of course, will be discussing how the Circus Ringmaster dreams of closing down one Forever War just to start another: the specter of a US–Israel attack on their strategic partner Iran – complete with the counterpunch of blocking the Strait of Hormuz (transit for 24 million barrels of oil a day); a barrel of oil skyrocketing to $200 and even more; and the collapse of the humongous $730 trillion pile of derivatives in the global economy.

No, President Circus Ringmaster: You don’t have the cards.    

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Americans are losing more money to scams than ever before. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) estimates that Americans lost $12.5 billion to fraud schemes in 2024, up $2.5 billion from the previous year.

In 2023, consumers around the world lost almost half a trillion dollars to scams.

While certain scams were much more commonly reported, other types led to bigger financial losses for consumers.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, shows the 10 most common types of fraud in the U.S. by the number of reports made to the FTC in 2024, and the total dollar value lost from each type of fraud.

Data comes from the FTC and is updated as of March 2025.

What Type of Fraud is the Most Common?

Below, we show the top 10 most commonly reported fraud types to the FTC, the total dollar value lost from each type of fraud, and the median loss per incident.

Imposter scams—where fraudsters pose as government officials, friends, coworkers, or other trusted parties to steal money or personal information—were the most frequently reported type of fraud in the U.S. last year, with over 840,000 cases filed with the FTC.

This cost consumers almost $3 billion in losses last year.

However, while imposter scams were the most common, investment-related scams led to the biggest financial losses, costing Americans a total of $5.7 billion. The median loss per victim exceeded $9,000.

According to the FTC, scams through email made up the highest number of reports while scams through social media had the highest losses.

Text message scams are also common, making up 22% of all fraud reports to the FTC in 2022.

Types of Fraud

A full list of all fraud types can be found on the FTC website.

• Imposter scams: Someone pretends to be a trusted person to get consumer to send money/give personal information

• Online shopping/negative reviews: Undisclosed costs, failure to deliver on time, non-delivery, business preventing honest reviews

• Business/job opportunities: Fraudulent franchise opportunities, multi-level marketing schemes, job scams

• Investment related: Fraudulent investment opportunities in day trading, gold, art, other products

• Internet services: Problems with website content, difficulty canceling online account, issues with payment service, undisclosed charges

• Prizes, sweepstakes and lotteries: Promotions for free prizes for a fee, foreign lotteries offered through phone or e-mail

• Telephone and mobile services: Unauthorized charges, problems with mobile applications

• Health care: Fraudulent, misleading or deceptive claims for treatments or products

• Travel, vacations, timeshare plans: Deceptive offers for free or low-cost vacations, misleading time share offers

• Mortgage foreclosure relief, debt management: Lenders/brokers making false promises to save consumers’ homes from foreclosure, credit organizations charging excessive fees

To learn more about common scams, check out this graphic that visualizes companies are impersonated most often in online scams.

Authored by Nils Haug via The Gatestone Institute,

The center of world terrorist activity and violent death is no longer the Middle East. The “Sahel region of Africa is now the ‘epicentre of global terrorism,'” responsible for “over half of all terrorism-related deaths” worldwide, according to the respected Global Terrorism Index.

The sub-Saharan Sahel is largely unknown to much of the world. It can be described as the large, mostly flat, strip, nearly 600 miles wide, located between the savannahs of Sudan to the south and the Sahara desert to the north.

During the last ten years or so, according to the Royal United Services Institute, the world’s oldest defense and security think tank, headquartered in London, the Sahel has undergone a “significant surge in jihadist violence. Armed actors take advantage of porous borders, fragile states, and local grievances to extend their operational reach,”

Global Terrorism Index 2025, published by the Institute for Economics & Peace, reveals that the primary instigator of global terrorism during 2024 was the Islamic State (ISIS) and associated groups — such as al Qaeda, Jamaat Nusrat Al-Islam wal Muslimeen, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, and al- Shabaab — together responsible for more than 7,500 deaths.

Although the West is experiencing escalating terrorism in countries such as Sweden, Australia, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, the Sahel region evidently remains the “global epicentre of terrorism, accounting for over half of all terrorism-related deaths in 2024.” 

Here, conflict deaths exceeded 25,000 for the first time, of which nearly 4,000 were directly connected to terrorism.

A perturbing factor is that in Europe, “one in five persons arrested for terrorism is legally classified as a child.” This is understandable, as children in Islamist-jihadist communities are exposed to Jew-hatred and the desire for an Islamist caliphate from a very tender age. The same statistics would apply to terrorist actors in the Sahel, as the ideology of martyrdom and sacrifice is ubiquitous to jihadism.

Susceptible countries in the region include Senegal, Sudan, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali. Unsurprisingly, the region’s rich mineral resources – with Niger the world’s seventh-biggest producer of uranium — also attract attention. China and Russia are increasingly represented, while Western nations withdraw from Africa due to growing anti-Western attitudes. Specifically, the US base in Niger in August 2024 and France’s base in Chad closed in December 2024.

The consequence is, of course, that with the West’s retreat, ISIS has free rein to action their visions of global influence. 

They are present in 22 countries at present and, as the report points out: “Despite counterterrorism efforts, the group’s ability to coordinate, inspire, and execute attacks highlights its resilience and evolving operational strategies.” In the remoteness of the Sahel, ISIS finds an accommodating environment to consolidate and establish a central base.

Russia’s Wagner mercenary militia, although rebranded as an “Expeditionary Corps,” continues its predatory activities in the area, offering “governments in Africa a ‘regime survival package’ in exchange for access to strategically important natural resources.”

Covertly obtained Russian documents reveal how the group strives to “change mining laws in West Africa, with the ambition of dislodging Western companies from an area of strategic importance.” The upshot is accelerating anti-Western sentiment, resulting in the local states seeking to expel hitherto entrenched foreign interests.

A February 20, 2024, report by Jack Watling, Fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute, explains that there “was a meeting in the Kremlin in which it was decided that Wagner’s Africa operations would fall directly under the control of Russian military intelligence, the GRU.”

Watling concludes, “This is the Russian state coming out of the shadows in its Africa policy.” Russia’s patent objective is therefore to “seize control of critical resources,” and “aggressively pursue the expansion of its partnerships in Africa, with the explicit intent to supplant Western partnerships.”

Unlike the West, Russia is not particularly interested in countering terror groups such as ISIS but, instead, focuses on its core objectives concerning “critical resources” and replacing “Western partnership” in the Sahel. With the retreat of Western anti-terror forces, ISIS and associates have freedom to expand their activities, while Russia focuses on eliminating Western influence. The result is a vacuum of experienced Western counter-terror forces, a situation in which jihadist groups thrive.

Fortunately, North African nations, such as Morocco and Algeria, realize the dangers of unchecked jihadism in the Sahel, which reaches towards their southern borders. To give effect to its objectives, Rabat implemented the Morocco Atlantic Initiative, which,

“aims to provide landlocked Sahel countries with access to vital maritime trade routes via Morocco’s Atlantic port infrastructure. The plan aims to foster economic regional integration to reduce dependence on unstable transit routes, while fostering Morocco’s ties with its southern neighbours to counter instability, terrorism and illicit trafficking in the region in the long term.”

Similarly, Algeria, with its common “borders and historical ties to Mali, has always played a pivotal role in the region.”

In addition, some Sahel states are taking it upon themselves to counter jihadists in their domain. Recently, an alliance of three prominent Sahel states — Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger — “unveiled plans for a unified military force of 5,000 soldiers.”

“Each of the three AES armies are expected to contribute troops, tasked with conducting joint operations in areas of intense jihadist activity. In their view, establishing a self-sufficient military partnership is the most dependable way to safeguard sovereignty.”

This local move came about as a lack of available Western forces to quell jihadism – an absence brought about by the Sahel nations “severing long-standing military and diplomatic ties with regional allies, France, and other Western powers.” In 2024, the three Sahel nations agreed “to tackle security threats jointly.”

Although a joint force of 5,000 soldiers is a fair starting point, it is to be noted that the region under discussion covers over 2 million square miles – a vast area. It is anticipated that Russia, China and Turkey, who already provide “bilateral military assistance and equipment” might partner, to some degree, with the Sahel forces to counter terrorism.

Meanwhile, ISIS and al-Qaeda, with associates, extend “greater influence over trans-Saharan networks which will expand their external reach and increase the threat of external plots in North Africa and potentially Europe.”

In the result, the Sahel predominantly remains the locale of non-Western actors and local states, acting together for mutual benefit, including the possible control of terrorism. Whether or not efforts by these parties, with some North African countries, will have much impact on jihadism activity in the region remains to be seen. Currently, the significant strategic, political, and economic benefits in the region are reaped by Russia, China and Turkey. The West is nowhere to be seen.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge has allowed the Trump administration to enforce identification requirements for immigrants present in the United States illegally.

In a ruling on Thursday, Judge Trevor Neil McFadden said that a rule by the Department of Homeland Security to require illegal immigrants to comply with statutory registration and fingerprinting may move forward as plaintiffs arguing against it failed to “demonstrate that they have standing to bring this suit.”

The case was filed on March 31 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, with the main plaintiff being the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, along with other immigrant advocacy groups.

On Jan. 20, when President Donald Trump took office for the second time, he issued an executive order, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” in which he stated that illegal immigrants must be identified and registered with the federal government.

Following his order, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced on Feb. 25 that the DHS would fully enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), under which illegal immigrants will be tracked and compelled to leave the country voluntarily.

Criminal penalties will be imposed on those failing to leave the country, failing to register their identities with the federal government and be fingerprinted, or failing to inform authorities of a change in address.

“An alien’s failure to register is a crime that could result in a fine, imprisonment, or both. For decades, this law has been ignored—not anymore,” said the DHS announcement, referring to the Alien Registration Act, which was first enacted by Congress in 1940.

The registration requirement is set to be effective from April 11, 2025.

According to the alien registration requirement, all illegal immigrants 14 years and older who were not registered and fingerprinted when applying for a U.S. visa, and who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer, must apply for registration and fingerprinting.

The INA requires that all “parents and legal guardians of aliens below the age of 14 must ensure that those aliens are registered.”

Registered illegal immigrants over the age of 18 must carry proof of registration with them at all times, according to the rule.

“Failure to comply may result in criminal and civil penalties, up to and including misdemeanor prosecution, the imposition of fines, and incarceration.”

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website states that, as part of enabling the requirement, the government has established a new form—G-325R, Biometric Information (Registration)—and an online process “by which unregistered aliens may register and comply with the law.”

In its lawsuit, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights argued that the DHS rule “reverses the government’s long-standing approach to registration … in a manner that will cause confusion, fear, and significant economic disruption.

“Defendants attempt to rush through these sweeping changes without any meaningful explanation for the change in policy and without the notice, public comment, and careful consideration that Congress requires to avoid exactly these types of harms.”

The plaintiffs requested a stay of the rule.

McFadden ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing on an organizational level and on behalf of the organization’s members.

The coalition’s “injuries are highly speculative, sounding in prospective fears about what might happen when the rule takes effect,” he said.

The organization has also failed to demonstrate how a “mere requirement to abide by the law” constitutes a concrete injury.

The plaintiffs argued that this “compelled admission” regarding their members’ immigration status violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In response, McFadden said that the coalition had failed to “demonstrate that any of their members would actually be subject to criminal prosecution based on their answers to Form G-325R.”

Meanwhile, according to the DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement made 32,809 arrests in the first 50 days of the Trump administration, a number that almost equaled the total arrests made in fiscal year 2024.

The DHS said in a post on social media platform X on April 9: “Illegal aliens should use the CBP Home app to self-deport and leave the country now. If they don’t, they will face the consequences. This includes a fine of $998 per day for every day that the illegal alien overstayed their final deportation order.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights for comment.

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration announced on April 11 that it has reached agreements with five law firms to represent causes they both support, such as helping veterans.

These law firms are the latest to offer pro bono services to the White House. The administration has gone after law firms it says have taken stances at odds with Trump’s policies, such as practices relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

None of the law firms were targeted by the administration but reached these agreements with the White House, which has issued executive orders going after a handful of others.

A group of four law firms agreed to each provide at least $125 million, or $500 million altogether, in pro bono services: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and Latham & Watkins LLP.

The firms agreed to be counsel to help veterans, law enforcement, and first responders; combat anti-Semitism; and ensure “fairness in the justice system.”

They “will take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full political spectrum, including conservative ideals,” President Donald Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

The law firms agreed to end the use of DEI in hiring personnel and “affirm that it is their policy to give fair and equal consideration to job candidates, irrespective of their political beliefs, including candidates who have served in the Trump administration, and any other Republican or Democrat administration,” according to Trump. They will also advise other law firms regarding employment practices.

The four firms said they will not refuse to represent those who have not been clients of prominent nationwide law firms due to holding political beliefs that contrast those of their firm’s lawyers.

The White House celebrated the agreement.

“President Trump and his administration have entered into an agreement with these long established firms, which have affirmed their strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession. The President continues to fulfill his promise to the American people that the age of partisan lawfare in America is over,” the White House said, according to Trump’s post.

In a joint statement, which Trump shared on Truth Social, the law firms said they “look forward to a continued constructive and productive relationship with President Trump and his team.”

A fifth law firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP, agreed to provide at least $100 million in pro bono counseling, also in helping veterans; combating anti-Semitism; assisting law enforcement, military personnel, and first responders; and “ensuring fairness in our justice system.”

The law firm agreed to hire personnel based on merit and not on DEI.

Like with the four other firms, this includes not discriminating based on political beliefs. They will also assist other law firms on hiring practices and not refuse representation to those whose political beliefs do not align with the firm’s attorneys.

Cadwalader said it worked with Trump and his team to reach the agreement.

“The substance of our agreement is consistent with the principles that have guided Cadwalader for over 230 years: We always put our client’s interests first; we believe that Justice should be available to everyone; and we are committed to attracting, retaining and nurturing the very best talent from all backgrounds,” it said in a statement, according to Trump’s post.

Other law firms that have come to agreements with the White House include Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie Farr and Gallagher, which each will provide at least $100 million in pro bono representation.

Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million in free counseling in areas such as combating anti-Semitism and assisting veterans.

With these arrangements so far, the law firms have agreed to provide at least $940 million in pro bono representation to some of the causes supported by the president.

Meanwhile, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale have taken legal action against the administration, seeking to reverse the executive orders against them.

Trump signed an executive order on April 9 to effectively blacklist Susman Godfrey from engaging with the U.S. government. The law firm represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against former Trump lawyer and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The president said on April 10 that the law firms may help the administration with negotiating trade deals with countries.