Connect with us

News

Bangladesh protesters back Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus for government role

Published

on

Bangladesh protesters back Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus for government role

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Student protesters in Bangladesh have called for Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus to be named chief adviser of a new interim government after Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country in the face of a popular uprising.

Sheikh Hasina, who governed the country for two decades, was ousted with startling speed on Monday after weeks of violent protests over an unpopular job quota scheme swelled into a youth-led movement that demanded she step down.

The Dhaka Tribune reported that at least 135 people died on Monday as thousands of protesters demanding Sheikh Hasina quit marched on her residence and took control of the streets of Dhaka, the capital.

Advertisement

Army chief Waker-Uz-Zaman said the military would hold talks with President Mohammed Shahabuddin and political party representatives on forming a new government. Shahabuddin also ordered the release of jailed ex-prime minister Khaleda Zia and student protesters.

“We have decided that an interim government will be formed in which internationally renowned Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus, who has wide acceptability, will be the chief adviser,” Nahid Islam, an organiser of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, said in a video statement.

“We have spoken to Dr Muhammad Yunus and, at the call of the students and to protect Bangladesh, Dr Muhammad Yunus has decided to take on the responsibility.”

An official from Yunus’s office confirmed that he had accepted the students’ request. 

Yunus, 84, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, is the founder of pioneering microlender Grameen Bank and one of the south Asian country’s most prominent figures. He has faced multiple court cases as part of what his supporters described as a politically motivated vendetta by Sheikh Hasina, who saw him as a potential rival.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, India’s government confirmed that Sheikh Hasina had arrived in Delhi on Monday evening.

“At very short notice, she requested approval to come for the moment to India,” S Jaishankar, India’s external affairs minister, told parliament. “We simultaneously received a request for flight clearance from the Bangladesh authorities. She arrived yesterday evening in Delhi.”

According to some reports, Sheikh Hasina plans to seek refuge in the UK, where her niece, Tulip Siddiq, is an MP with the ruling Labour party and serves as economic secretary to the Treasury.

However, British officials played down the prospect of Sheikh Hasina being welcomed in the UK, noting there was no provision in the country’s immigration rules allowing somebody — even a fleeing prime minister — to travel to the UK to seek asylum or temporary refuge.

Britain’s policy is to urge anyone seeking international protection to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach as the fastest route to safety, said the officials, who requested anonymity.

Advertisement

Sheikh Hasina’s ousting has thrown Bangladesh’s turbulent politics and struggling economy into further disarray. The prime minister, who claimed a fifth term in power this year after a disputed election, had ruled with an increasingly authoritarian hand.

On Monday, as news of Sheikh Hasina’s flight spread, protesters attacked and looted her former residence and other buildings, news footage showed, in scenes that recalled the 2022 uprising in Sri Lanka that overthrew Gotabaya Rajapaksa as president.

People also attacked statues of Sheikh Hasina’s father, independence hero Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was the subject of a personality cult promoted by the prime minister and her Awami League party.

The protest movement was sparked by a quota system reserving coveted civil service jobs for specific groups, including descendants of veterans who served in the country’s 1971 civil war in which it split from Pakistan. About 300 people were killed in a crackdown on the demonstrations in the weeks before Sheikh Hasina’s resignation.

“There is a lot of anger and frustration and very high expectations that all of the bad things that have been done will be addressed quickly,” said Badiul Alam Majumdar, activist and secretary of Shujan: Citizens for Good Governance, a non-governmental organisation.

Advertisement

“Violence and taking revenge is not acceptable and that needs to stop,” he added. “We have a new beginning.”

Additional reporting by Jyotsna Singh in New Delhi

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending