Berlin deports Somali criminals amid rising far-right pressure, triggering fear and fury in Europe’s largest Somali diaspora.

Germany has deported eight Somali nationals convicted of violent crimes as Berlin toughens migration policy post-election. Is this justice—or the start of a racist purge?

Eight Somali men landed in Mogadishu last week, not by choice—but by force. Deported from Germany under a hardline crackdown, they are the first wave of what could become a sweeping purge of Somali migrants across Europe’s new far-right frontier.

Their crimes were serious—attempted murder, rape, manslaughter—but the political message behind the deportations is even more brutal: Germany is shifting, and fast. With the far-right AfD surging to second place in the 2025 elections and the Christian Democrats reclaiming power under Friedrich Merz, the age of tolerance is officially over.

Bavarian officials say this is about law and order. But Somali families in Frankfurt, Berlin, and Munich are terrified. The deportation agreement signed last year between Chancellor Scholz and President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was supposed to be narrow—just 20 convicts, not a signal to demonize 65,000 Somali migrants.

But Germany’s political tide doesn’t wait. The February elections shattered the liberal consensus. Border controls are back. Deportation flights are rising. And Somalia is caught in the middle—diplomatically accepting criminals back while watching its working diaspora get scapegoated.

The real heartbreak? Many Somalis in Germany are model residents: students, engineers, nurses. But one man’s crime has now become the community’s stain. As one migrant, Baaba Jeey, put it: “We came for safety. Now we live in fear.”

And don’t expect this to stop at Germany. Across Europe, far-right parties are demanding copycat deportations. France’s National Rally is already calling for Somali repatriations. Sweden is debating migrant DNA checks. Italy wants to reroute asylum seekers to warzones.

Germany’s move may be legal. But is it just? The world will be watching the next flight to Mogadishu—and wondering who’s really on trial.

Nigeria’s ex-president dies in exile, leaving behind a broken legacy of repression, corruption, and shattered unity.

Muhammadu Buhari, Nigeria’s twice-serving president, is dead at 82. But what he leaves behind is a legacy of failure—on security, economy, unity, and democracy. Here’s a brutal autopsy of his reign.

Muhammadu Buhari is gone—but Nigeria’s wounds remain wide open. Dying in London, the city he often fled to for “rest” while millions languished in broken hospitals at home, the former general’s final act mirrors the very essence of his rule: absence, privilege, and detachment from reality.

Once heralded as a corruption-busting reformer and security hawk, Buhari’s presidency sank into chaos. His iron-fisted war on Boko Haram turned into a media charade; while he declared the terrorists “defeated,” suicide bombings and mass kidnappings intensified under his watch. Nigeria’s northeast collapsed into a humanitarian hellscape, with aid workers murdered and civilians forgotten.

His economic “vision” was equally grim. By clinging to obsolete monetary policies and defending a dying naira, Buhari drove Nigeria into recession—twice. Inflation soared, foreign reserves dried up, and foreign investors fled. All the while, the man himself remained in London, racking up secretive medical bills at taxpayer expense.

But what truly undid him was his inability—or unwillingness—to unite Nigeria’s fractured soul. From the 2020 #EndSARS bloodbath to his silence on northern banditry and ethnic massacres, Buhari appeared not as a statesman but as a sectarian relic. His authoritarian instincts returned in full force: jailing dissidents, censoring social media, and militarizing civilian protest zones.

Even his brief triumph—negotiating the return of some Chibok girls—fizzled out as hundreds more citizens vanished into jihadist captivity. The military he once commanded became a symbol of failure, not strength.

In the end, Buhari’s life is a cautionary tale: that nostalgia for military “discipline” often breeds democratic decay. He ruled Nigeria twice—once with fear, once with hope. He left both times with disappointment.

For a man who promised to fight corruption, insecurity, and disunity—his legacy is defined by all three.

The African Union (AU) has approved an additional $10 million in Peace Fund support for Somalia, doubling its 2025 allocation to $20 million as it prepares to hand over responsibilities from the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) to the newly formed African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM).

The decision was announced during the 47th Ordinary Session of the AU Executive Council held this week in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea. The funds, drawn from the AU’s Crisis Reserve Facility, are intended to close critical financial gaps and ensure continuity in operations during the sensitive mission transition period at the end of 2024.

AUSSOM, which officially launched in January 2025, is a non-combat stabilization mission designed to support Somali-led security efforts and capacity building as ATMIS draws down. AU officials say the additional funding will help prevent operational disruptions and support the new joint command structure agreed upon with the Somali government in June.

Despite the AU’s increased commitment, uncertainty clouds the financial sustainability of AUSSOM. The mission’s annual cost is projected at $166.5 million. While the United Nations has pledged to cover up to 75% of this amount, the United States—once a key donor—has declined to contribute directly, citing concerns over transparency, long-term viability, and donor burden-sharing.

This shift marks a significant departure from the U.S.’s earlier support, which included more than €2 billion in funding to AU missions in Somalia from 2007 to 2020.

The AU and Somalia have consistently warned of the risks posed by erratic funding. Past delays in ATMIS troop payments—particularly affecting Ugandan forces—highlighted the fragility of relying heavily on external donors. In response, the AU restructured its Peace Fund in 2016 to increase self-reliance, with a target of $400 million in member contributions. Progress, however, remains slow.

As the end of ATMIS approaches, pressure is mounting on the AU and its partners to secure predictable and diversified funding streams. For Somalia, AUSSOM’s success is not just a matter of security—it is a test of the region’s ability to support African-led peacekeeping beyond donor dependence.

Former President Barack Obama’s return to frontline political fundraising in New Jersey represents a pivotal moment for the Democratic Party, currently reeling from significant setbacks and internal divisions after the bruising 2024 election cycle.

Obama’s participation in the Red Bank event, hosted by outgoing Governor Phil Murphy and featuring Rep. Mikie Sherrill, underscores a strategic recalibration as Democrats eye crucial upcoming elections.

Obama’s reemergence signals a deliberate effort by party leadership to leverage his enduring popularity and influence among voters. As Democrats seek to rebuild momentum and morale ahead of the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, Obama’s presence is intended not only to energize the party’s base but also to attract critical independent and swing voters disillusioned by recent GOP policies, notably Trump’s controversial “Big, Beautiful” spending bill.

The timing is crucial, as the New Jersey gubernatorial race between Mikie Sherrill and Jack Ciattarelli is widely regarded as an early referendum on voter sentiment towards both parties post-2024. Democratic strategists likely view a victory here as a vital step towards reversing the narrative of decline and setting a strong precedent for national recovery efforts.

Additionally, Obama’s active involvement highlights a broader struggle within the Democratic Party regarding generational leadership shifts. With recent high-profile deaths among aging Democratic lawmakers underscoring the party’s vulnerability, Obama’s support may implicitly advocate for renewal and transition toward younger, dynamic candidates capable of invigorating the party’s platform.

Critically, the former president’s engagement is not merely symbolic; it is an acknowledgment of Democrats’ urgent need to counteract Trump’s dominance of the political landscape. Obama’s vocal opposition to Trump’s legislative agenda, particularly the contentious spending bill potentially impacting millions of Americans’ healthcare coverage, provides Democrats with a potent narrative to mobilize opposition and regain lost ground.

In summary, Obama’s fundraising return is a calculated maneuver aiming to galvanize Democratic unity, challenge Republican momentum, and underscore the stakes in upcoming elections. His intervention could prove instrumental in reshaping Democratic fortunes, setting the stage for a robust challenge to Trump’s agenda in the crucial 2026 midterms.

Tensions in Kenya escalated on Friday as opposition leaders demanded President William Ruto’s resignation following his controversial remarks authorizing police to shoot protesters involved in looting or property destruction.

Speaking at the funeral of Boniface Kariuki—an unarmed civilian shot dead by police during a June 17 protest—opposition leader Kalonzo Musyoka called Ruto’s statement “unconstitutional” and urged for his resignation or impeachment.

President Ruto, addressing the nation earlier in the week, warned against what he called “anarchy disguised as peaceful protests” and ordered police to “shoot and break the legs” of offenders during demonstrations. Human rights groups and civil society organizations have condemned the remarks as incitement to extrajudicial killings.

The protests were sparked by the death of blogger Albert Ojwang in police custody last month and intensified following Kariuki’s killing. Footage showed Kariuki being shot in the head at close range as he walked away from police during a demonstration.

Thousands marched on June 25 to mark the anniversary of last year’s anti-tax protests, with demonstrators demanding justice and an end to police brutality. According to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, over 50 people have died in recent protest crackdowns, with more than 100 deaths linked to demonstrations since 2023.

At Kariuki’s burial in Murang’a County, mourners carried Kenyan flags and photos of his final moments. The absence of uniformed police at the venue was notable, though anti-riot units remained on standby nearby.

Murang’a Governor Irungu Kang’ata declared that “the government must take responsibility” for the killings and pledged justice for the victims.

So far, four police officers face murder charges over recent deaths, including those of Kariuki and blogger Ojwang. A fifth officer, Klinzy Barasa, has been charged with murder and is set to enter a plea on July 28.

As political pressure mounts, Kenya finds itself at a crossroads—between public outrage over state violence and a government under fire for its harsh response to dissent.

Donald Trump’s shocking revelation: He warned Putin and Xi he’d bomb Moscow and Beijing if they dared invade. The bombshell quote exposes how Trump flexed “crazy” deterrence to keep global powers in check.

Donald Trump isn’t mincing words in his post-victory glow. A new book reveals the former—and now re-elected—President told Vladimir Putin outright: invade Ukraine, and Moscow gets bombed to rubble. “I told him, ‘Vladimir, if you do it, we’re going to bomb the s— out of Moscow,’” Trump reportedly said during a 2024 donor dinner, according to leaked audio.

Trump didn’t stop there. He said he gave China’s Xi Jinping the same ultimatum over Taiwan—total annihilation. “He thought I was crazy,” Trump said. “But 10 percent belief is all you need.” It’s classic Trump: deterrence through fear, chaos as leverage.

The Biden White House was quick to distance the timeline, noting Putin only invaded Ukraine after Trump left office. But Trump’s team flipped the script, claiming his strongman rhetoric kept global tyrants in check—until Biden showed weakness. Now, with war still raging and Trump back in command, he’s doubling down on sanctions and saber-rattling.

This isn’t diplomacy. It’s shock-and-awe politics, and Trump wants the world to know that under him, American threats are not metaphors—they’re missile codes. Whether bluff or doctrine, one thing is clear: Trump’s foreign policy is back, and it’s locked and loaded.

Isra Hirsi, suspended for anti-Israel protest at Columbia, now unemployed and reselling used outfits as elite-degree fallout grows.

Isra Hirsi, daughter of Rep. Ilhan Omar and once a fiery campus activist, has entered the real world—and it hit back hard. Fifteen months after her headline-grabbing arrest at Columbia’s anti-Israel encampment, Hirsi now finds herself unemployed, peddling used cardigans and boots on Depop to stay afloat.

The keffiyeh-wearing Barnard graduate, who once led chants against the Jewish state and decried genocide, now sells striped sweaters to pay bills.

The irony is suffocating. The same hyper-woke crowd that staged their “resistance” in ivy-covered courtyards is now learning that the job market isn’t impressed by performance activism. With major law firms and CEOs blacklisting protest-linked graduates, Hirsi’s descent into online resale hustle might be less about fashion and more about consequences.

Despite her mother’s public pride and lofty praise—painting Hirsi as a brave justice warrior—America’s employers are sending a clear message: you can’t build a career on slogans and sit-ins.

The escalating feud between tech billionaire Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump has Senate Republicans increasingly anxious about its potential fallout on the 2026 midterm elections. Musk’s threat to launch an “America Party” has sent shockwaves through GOP ranks, raising legitimate fears that a well-funded third-party initiative could fracture the Republican vote, ultimately benefiting Democrats.

Historically, third-party candidacies have proven to be potent spoilers rather than serious contenders for majority control. From Ross Perot in 1992 to Libertarians impacting Senate races in Montana and Wisconsin, these candidates typically siphon votes predominantly from Republicans. Musk’s intentions appear to echo this historical pattern, with his outspoken criticism of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” resonating deeply with conservative fiscal hawks who feel betrayed by recent Republican spending decisions.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has bluntly warned his colleagues that Musk’s new party could seriously undermine Republican electoral prospects by splitting conservative votes. Johnson’s caution is supported by polling data indicating Musk’s significantly higher popularity among Republicans (62%) compared to independents (29%) and Democrats (3%), underscoring the real threat Musk poses in peeling away conservative support.

Adding to GOP anxieties is Musk’s immense financial clout. Having spent over $290 million during the 2024 election cycle, Musk’s potential to bankroll candidates capable of mounting formidable challenges is undeniable. Strategists suggest Musk’s deep pockets and widespread public influence mean his third-party contenders could become instantly competitive, even decisive, in pivotal races.

Senators such as Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) express cautious concern about Musk’s impact, recognizing that even a modest voter shift could swing tightly contested elections. Musk’s aggressive stance, including threats to primary GOP lawmakers who supported Trump’s controversial legislation, illustrates a deeper rift within the party that Democrats could readily exploit.

Yet, Republicans hold out hope that Musk’s third-party ambitions might also appeal to disenchanted moderate Democrats unhappy with their party’s progressive tilt. Senate Majority Leader Thune notes a potential silver lining, suggesting Musk could attract votes across the political spectrum, although history suggests otherwise.

Ultimately, Musk’s “America Party” threatens to become the wild-card Republicans dread, capable of reshaping the political landscape simply through targeted spending in key battlegrounds. Democrats, recognizing an opportunity, watch with cautious optimism, prepared to capitalize on any GOP disarray.

In the highly polarized climate leading up to the 2026 midterms, Musk’s gamble could become a defining factor in determining whether Republicans maintain unified control or surrender their fragile Senate majority—shaking the foundations of American politics in the process.