Former Republican Representative Matt Gaetz announced Thursday that he is withdrawing from consideration to serve as Attorney General in President-elect Donald Trump’s second administration. The decision follows mounting criticism and ongoing scrutiny of Gaetz’s alleged misconduct, which risked complicating Trump’s transition efforts.

“I had excellent meetings with Senators yesterday,” Gaetz wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. “While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition.”

Ethics Report and Controversy

Gaetz’s decision comes on the heels of a contentious meeting by the House Ethics Committee, which failed to agree on whether to release a report from its long-running investigation into Gaetz. The inquiry focused on allegations of sexual misconduct and payments to two women, reportedly totaling more than $10,000, some of which the women claimed were for sex.

Although the Justice Department previously investigated these allegations and declined to bring charges, the ethics probe remained a contentious issue. Gaetz’s resignation from Congress earlier this week, shortly after his nomination, effectively ended the committee’s jurisdiction over the matter.

The ethics investigation and Gaetz’s resignation have intensified bipartisan calls for greater transparency. Several senators demanded access to the ethics report, citing its relevance to their constitutional role in vetting Cabinet nominees.

Reactions to Gaetz’s Withdrawal

The Trump transition team defended Gaetz, accusing critics of attempting to undermine the administration’s mandate to reform the Justice Department.

“The Justice Department reviewed every financial transaction Matt Gaetz ever undertook and found no wrongdoing,” a Trump spokesperson said. “These leaks are a politically motivated effort to derail a necessary overhaul of our legal institutions.”

Despite Trump’s public support for Gaetz, the nomination faced significant opposition. Gaetz’s tumultuous tenure in Congress—marked by controversial actions, including his role in ousting then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in 2023—had alienated some Republican lawmakers.

Senate Pushback and Support

In meetings with senators on Wednesday, Gaetz encountered resistance from members of both parties. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who met with Gaetz and Vice President-elect JD Vance, emphasized a fair confirmation process but acknowledged the weight of the allegations.

“These allegations will be dealt with in committee,” Graham said. “But [Gaetz] deserves a chance to confront his accusers.”

The Senate has not formally rejected a Cabinet nominee since 1989, but Gaetz’s candidacy presented a significant test of that tradition.

What’s Next for Trump’s Attorney General Nomination?

Gaetz’s withdrawal leaves Trump without a nominee for one of the administration’s most critical roles just two months before inauguration. The position of Attorney General is particularly pivotal in light of Trump’s stated priorities to reform the Justice Department and address what he has described as political bias within the agency.

Trump’s next nominee will likely face similar scrutiny, given the heightened partisanship surrounding his return to the White House and the enduring controversies tied to his administration.

Gaetz’s withdrawal marks a rare setback in Trump’s efforts to solidify his Cabinet but underscores the complexities of navigating a politically divided and scrutinizing Senate.

Sir Gavin Williamson, a prominent British Member of Parliament and former Secretary of Defense, revealed discussions with U.S. officials close to President-elect Donald Trump about the potential recognition of Somaliland as an independent nation.

Speaking to British media, Williamson expressed optimism that Trump, known for decisive action during his first term, might champion Somaliland’s recognition when he takes office in January 2025. However, he cautioned that such a process might take longer than anticipated due to the complexities of international diplomacy.

“We had good meetings with key political figures. We understood each other,” Williamson stated, reflecting on his discussions with members of Trump’s transition team. He pointed to Trump’s history of bold decisions, including the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia in 2020, as evidence of the president-elect’s capacity to confront long-standing geopolitical challenges.

Williamson has been a vocal advocate for Somaliland’s recognition since his tenure as the UK Defense Secretary (2017–2019), during which he visited Somaliland’s capital, Hargeisa. He has since championed the cause in the British Parliament and maintained active engagement with Somaliland’s leadership.

Somaliland declared its 1960 independence back from Somalia in 1991 following the collapse of the central government in Mogadishu. Despite functioning as a independent state with its own government, currency, and military, it remains unrecognized internationally.

Williamson’s advocacy aligns with the broader aspirations of Somaliland’s leadership, which received renewed focus following the November 2024 election of Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi Irro as Somaliland’s president. Irro defeated outgoing President Muse Bihi Abdi in a landmark election lauded for its transparency.

President-elect Irro inherits a complex political landscape. Among his key priorities are addressing conflicts in the Sool region through dialogue and resolving tensions surrounding a contentious agreement with Ethiopia, which allowed access to Somaliland’s coastline. This agreement has strained relations between Ethiopia, Somalia, and other regional powers, including Egypt and Eritrea.

The prospect of U.S. recognition under Trump’s administration could have significant geopolitical ramifications, potentially bolstering Somaliland’s bid for independence but also drawing scrutiny from Somalia and its allies.

While Williamson’s optimism highlights growing momentum for Somaliland’s recognition, the path ahead remains fraught with diplomatic hurdles.

President-elect Donald Trump has named Matt Whitaker, a former acting attorney general during his first presidency, as the United States ambassador to NATO. The announcement marks another unconventional appointment in Trump’s emerging administration, underscoring his emphasis on loyalty over traditional credentials for key roles.

Whitaker, 55, lacks formal experience in foreign or military policy, but Trump lauded him as a “strong warrior and loyal patriot” who will defend U.S. interests and foster stronger ties with NATO allies. Whitaker’s selection comes as NATO continues to navigate heightened tensions with Russia and shifts in global security dynamics, including Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Critical Role Amid NATO’s Challenges

NATO, the 32-member military alliance headquartered in Brussels, has been a focal point of Trump’s rhetoric. During his first presidency, he repeatedly criticized allies for failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target of 2% of GDP. By 2021, six members had reached this benchmark. Today, 23 countries meet the goal, partly spurred by concerns over Russian aggression following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Trump’s past remarks on NATO have raised questions about U.S. commitment to the alliance’s collective defense clause. Speaking at a rally earlier this year, he recounted telling an ally that the U.S. would not defend their country unless it “paid its bills.” Such statements amplified concerns during his first term about the U.S. potentially undermining NATO’s unity.

Whitaker’s nomination signals Trump’s intent to reassert his vision for NATO’s future. Critics argue that Whitaker’s lack of direct experience in defense or diplomacy could hinder efforts to navigate the complex geopolitical challenges facing the alliance.

Who Is Matt Whitaker?

Whitaker, a former federal prosecutor from Iowa, briefly served as acting attorney general from November 2018 to February 2019, during the final stages of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Whitaker, a staunch Trump loyalist, faced criticism for his public skepticism of the investigation and his appointment, which bypassed Senate confirmation.

His close ties to Trump and previous roles in the administration appear to outweigh his lack of expertise in military or foreign policy in Trump’s calculus.

A Wave of Controversial Appointments

Whitaker’s selection is part of a broader pattern of unconventional appointments by Trump as he prepares to return to the White House.

• Pete Hoekstra, former ambassador to the Netherlands and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, was nominated as ambassador to Canada.
• Linda McMahon, former head of the Small Business Administration and co-founder of World Wrestling Entertainment, was tapped to lead the Department of Education, an agency Trump and many Republicans have sought to dismantle.
• Howard Lutnick, Wall Street financier and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, was named as the nominee for commerce secretary.
• Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity television host who unsuccessfully ran for the Senate in 2022, was selected to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The appointments highlight Trump’s prioritization of loyalty and name recognition over traditional qualifications, a hallmark of his first administration.

Whitaker’s nomination arrives at a pivotal moment for NATO. The alliance has grown more unified in response to Russia’s aggression, with Finland joining in 2023 and Sweden’s accession pending. However, internal divisions persist over defense spending, support for Ukraine, and the alliance’s future strategy.

Critics worry that Whitaker’s appointment could signal a return to Trump’s transactional approach to alliances, potentially undermining the cohesion NATO has built in recent years. Advocates, however, see an opportunity for the U.S. to leverage Whitaker’s loyalty to Trump to advance a tough stance on member contributions and alliance modernization.

Whitaker’s nomination, like many of Trump’s recent picks, is expected to face scrutiny from lawmakers and foreign policy experts. Whether his appointment strengthens U.S. leadership within NATO or deepens uncertainties about America’s commitment to the alliance remains to be seen.

As Trump prepares to assume office in January, his administration’s approach to NATO will be closely watched, particularly in light of growing global instability and shifting power dynamics. Whitaker’s ability to navigate these complexities will likely shape perceptions of both his role and Trump’s broader foreign policy agenda.

Finland has announced a halt to its bilateral development aid to Somalia, citing the latter’s refusal to accept the deportation of its citizens living illegally in Finland. Minister of Trade and Development Ville Tavio, representing the Party of Finland, delivered the decision during a press conference, outlining that the suspension will affect Finland’s aid program to Somalia for the next four years.

The decision marks a significant shift in relations between the two nations, as Finland has been a long-standing supporter of Somali development efforts in education, health, and infrastructure.

The Core Dispute

According to Minister Tavio, Finland has engaged in multiple discussions with Somali leaders to resolve the issue of deportations, but no agreement has been reached.

For Somalia, this could be a good deal, so that they can get support from us for the development of their society to get their citizens back, Tavio said, framing the potential return of deportees as mutually beneficial.

Tavio emphasized that the deportation of Somali nationals was feasible, but Somalia’s refusal to cooperate has prompted Finland to reconsider its financial support.

The minister also dismissed concerns that cutting development aid might exacerbate migration to Somalia or create new challenges for Finnish migration policies.

It is often used as an argument that the number of migrants can be controlled with development aid. I don’t see it that way myself. Our money for development cooperation is very small; it has no direct impact on migration, Tavio argued, suggesting instead that broader European migration frameworks shape these trends.

Somali Diaspora in Finland

Finland’s Bold Move: New Law to Halt Migrants From Somalia

Finland is home to more than 20,000 Somali-origin residents, making the Somali community one of the largest immigrant groups in the country. While many hold Finnish citizenship or legal residency, the Finnish government has identified cases of individuals residing illegally.

The deportation debate has been a point of tension, with Finland insisting on compliance with its immigration policies while Somalia has declined to facilitate the return of these individuals.

Impact on Development Programs

For decades, Finland has been a key contributor to Somalia’s development, funding initiatives in education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This decision to suspend aid raises questions about the future of these programs, which have been integral to Somalia’s reconstruction efforts.

Tavio left the door open for future cooperation, stating that Finland would consider resuming aid if Somalia agreed to accept the deportations.

This decision reflects growing tensions in Europe over migration policies and the responsibility of countries of origin to facilitate the return of their citizens. Finland’s move could set a precedent for other nations facing similar challenges with deportations and international aid.

However, critics might question whether withholding aid will pressure Somalia into compliance or simply strain relations further, potentially undermining long-term development goals.

For now, the suspension underscores the increasingly transactional nature of migration and development policies, with nations linking cooperation on migration to foreign aid contributions.

The United States wielded its veto power on Wednesday to block a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza and the immediate release of Israeli hostages. U.S. Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood defended the decision, stating the resolution’s language risked emboldening Hamas while failing to secure the hostages’ freedom.

A durable end to the war must come with the release of the hostages,” Wood emphasized. These two urgent goals are inextricably linked.

This marks the U.S.’s fourth veto on Gaza-related measures since the onset of the Israel-Hamas war 14 months ago.

The Resolution and Its Controversy

The resolution, drafted by the 10 elected members of the Security Council, called for:

• An immediate, unconditional, and permanent cease-fire.
• The unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas.

Proponents argued it sought to save lives and de-escalate hostilities. Palestinian Deputy Ambassador Majed Bamya called the veto “a dangerous message” that would embolden Israeli military actions, accusing the U.S. of prioritizing continued conflict over humanitarian concerns.

Is this war releasing the hostages? Bamya questioned passionately during the council session.

Conversely, Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon hailed the U.S. veto as a stand for “morality and justice,” contending the resolution would have legitimized further terrorism by Hamas.

Diplomatic Fallout

The veto drew widespread criticism from other council members and international organizations:

• Algeria pledged to return with a stronger resolution, denouncing the veto as a setback to peace.
• Slovenia and Guyana, representing the Elected 10 (E10), expressed regret, emphasizing the U.N.’s responsibility to safeguard international peace and security.
• Oxfam condemned the U.S. action, accusing it of perpetuating violence through continued arms transfers to the region.

Despite the setback, the E10 vowed to persist in their efforts to achieve council unity and bring an end to the hostilities.

On the Ground: Intensifying Violence

In Gaza, the conflict showed no signs of abating. Local officials reported at least 17 Palestinians killed on Wednesday alone, including 12 in an Israeli strike on the Jabalia area. Meanwhile, the Israeli military confirmed one soldier killed and another wounded in northern Gaza during clashes with Hamas militants.

Further north, violence between Israeli forces and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon escalated, with both sides sustaining casualties. A proposed cease-fire agreement mediated by U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein remained under negotiation, though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled skepticism about Hezbollah’s adherence.

“We will be forced to ensure our security … even after a cease-fire,” Netanyahu told the Knesset.

Humanitarian Toll

The war, triggered by Hamas’s October 2023 attack on Israel, has resulted in immense casualties:

• Over 44,000 deaths reported in Gaza, according to the enclave’s health ministry.
• More than 3,500 fatalities in Lebanon since fighting began with Hezbollah, most occurring after late September.

Both Hamas and Hezbollah are designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S., U.K., and other Western nations.

The U.S. veto underscores the challenges of balancing immediate humanitarian needs with broader geopolitical and security considerations. As the international community grapples with these dilemmas, the diplomatic, human, and political costs of inaction continue to mount.

The U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Committee concluded its Wednesday meeting without resolving whether to release a nearly finished investigative report on former Representative Matt Gaetz, President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial nominee for attorney general.

Ethics Committee Stalemate

Committee Chair Michael Guest, a Republican, emerged from the closed-door session, confirming, “There was no agreement by the committee to release the report.” Neither Guest nor the other nine committee members, comprising four Republicans and five Democrats, offered further comment.

The investigation into Gaetz, 42, focused on allegations of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. Reports from ABC News and The Washington Post allege the committee obtained evidence that Gaetz paid over $10,000 to two women who testified that some of the funds were for sex. Both women were adults at the time of the alleged payments.

Trump and Gaetz Defend Against Allegations

A spokesperson for Trump’s transition team defended Gaetz, stating:

The Justice Department received access to roughly every financial transaction Matt Gaetz ever undertook and came to the conclusion that he committed no crime. These leaks are meant to undermine the mandate from the people to reform the Justice Department, with Gaetz at the head of the agency.

While Gaetz denies all allegations, the controversy surrounding his nomination has prompted bipartisan calls for transparency. Senate Democrats, joined by some Republicans, have urged the House Ethics Committee to release its findings and asked the FBI to disclose its investigative file.

Gaetz’s Resignation and Senate Confirmation Process

Hours after his nomination, Gaetz resigned from Congress despite winning reelection, a move that terminated the House Ethics Committee’s jurisdiction over him. However, the unresolved allegations have complicated his confirmation process in the Senate, where a Republican majority of 52-48 is expected next year.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who met with Gaetz and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, emphasized that the confirmation process would be thorough:

There will be no rubber stamps, no lynch mobs. These allegations will be dealt with in committee, but Gaetz deserves a chance to confront his accusers.

The last Senate rejection of a Cabinet nominee occurred in 1989, and presidents are typically afforded deference in filling high-level positions. However, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have pressed for additional evidence, including records from the Justice Department investigation, which declined to press charges against Gaetz last year.

Ethical and Political Implications

House Speaker Mike Johnson has resisted releasing the Ethics Committee report, arguing that Gaetz’s resignation from Congress nullifies the need. However, critics, including former Ethics Committee member Representative Dean Phillips, have highlighted the significance of Gaetz’s nomination for one of the most powerful legal positions in the federal government.

It would seem bizarre and incongruent with any ethical principle to not release the report, Phillips said.

Reports of misconduct involving former lawmakers have occasionally been released in the past, raising questions about precedent and accountability.

Gaetz’s Polarizing Role in GOP Politics

A staunch supporter of Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda, Gaetz has never worked for the Department of Justice or served as a prosecutor, raising further doubts about his qualifications for the role of attorney general. His leadership in the 2023 ouster of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was succeeded by Johnson, alienated some Republican colleagues and added a layer of complexity to his nomination.

Despite these controversies, Trump has stood by Gaetz, personally lobbying senators to confirm him. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of Gaetz’s nomination is expected to be a critical test of his political survival amid mounting ethical and legal scrutiny.

The decision on Gaetz’s confirmation lies with the Senate, where his fate will reflect broader political dynamics within the Republican Party and Trump’s influence as he prepares to assume office.

Somalia’s international partners have expressed growing alarm over the escalating tensions between the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) and Jubaland State, urging an immediate de-escalation and a return to dialogue. The discord deepened after Jubaland’s boycott of the recent National Consultative Council (NCC) meeting, a platform crucial to fostering collaboration among federal and state leaders.

Jubaland President Ahmed Madobe’s walkout from an NCC meeting in October underscored the widening rift between the regional administration and Mogadishu. This latest standoff threatens Somalia’s fragile state-building efforts, as disputes over governance, resource-sharing, and electoral processes intensify.

In a joint statement issued Wednesday, Somalia’s international partners, including the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and regional actors such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, emphasized the need for Jubaland to rejoin the NCC.

We urge all stakeholders to engage in constructive and inclusive discussions on the electoral process,” the statement read. “Jubaland State is urged to return to the NCC for an open discussion of all outstanding issues and to restore ties with the FGS.

The NCC, established to resolve disputes between Somalia’s federal government and its member states, plays a critical role in addressing contentious issues, including governance structures and electoral reforms. Jubaland’s absence weakens the council’s ability to function effectively, raising concerns among international observers.

Jubaland’s independent electoral process has further strained relations. Its Electoral and Boundaries Commission has announced timelines for parliamentary and presidential elections, with lawmakers set to be elected on November 18 and 19, followed by the Speaker and Deputy Speaker elections on November 21. The presidential election is scheduled for November 25.

This unilateral approach has drawn criticism from the FGS, which accuses Jubaland of undermining national unity by disregarding agreements on a unified electoral framework.

The international community underscored its support for Somalia’s democratic aspirations, particularly the transition to universal suffrage.

International partners support Somalia on advancing its state-building agenda, including the ambition of progressively moving towards one-person, one-vote elections through increasingly inclusive and participatory voting systems,” the statement read.

The coalition called for broad-based political and public support for electoral reforms, urging leaders to focus on achievable processes within a realistic timeline. They emphasized that national security and stability are foundational to Somalia’s democratic progress.

Recurring disputes between Mogadishu and regional states like Jubaland highlight the vulnerabilities of Somalia’s federal system. Analysts warn that Jubaland’s prolonged absence from the NCC could exacerbate political instability, undermining efforts to build consensus on key national issues.

Chris Baryomunsi, Uganda’s information minister, noted that while diplomatic engagement remains critical, the need for mutual trust between federal and regional authorities is paramount.

The success of the NCC depends on the active participation of all federal member states,” he said. “Without Jubaland’s engagement, the council risks becoming ineffectual.

The international partners’ joint statement reflects the urgency of the situation, urging Somali leaders to prioritize dialogue over division. The coalition concluded:

We remain committed to supporting Somalia’s journey toward peace and prosperity. Now is the time for dialogue, unity, and cooperation.

As Somalia navigates a pivotal period in its state-building process, resolving the FGS-Jubaland impasse will be essential to advancing democratic reforms and ensuring long-term national stability. The stakes are high, and Jubaland’s re-engagement in the NCC will be a litmus test for Somalia’s ability to overcome internal fractures and build a cohesive federal system.

The controversial arrest and subsequent military court appearance of prominent Ugandan opposition leader Kizza Besigye have sparked outcry and demands for his release. Besigye, a vocal critic of President Yoweri Museveni, was reportedly seized in Nairobi, Kenya, and transported to Uganda under unclear circumstances.

Details of the Arrest

According to Winnie Byanyima, Besigye’s wife and executive director of UNAIDS, the opposition figure was “kidnapped” on Saturday while attending a book launch in Nairobi. Byanyima revealed on social media that Besigye was being held in a military jail in Kampala.

We, his family and his lawyers, demand to see him. He is not a soldier. Why is he being held in a military jail? Byanyima wrote.

Besigye, along with opposition ally Hajji Lutale Kamulegeya, was brought before the Makindye General Court Martial in Kampala on Wednesday. The two are accused of possessing firearms and seeking “logistical support” in Uganda and internationally to compromise national security, according to his lawyer Erias Lukwago.

Court Appearance and Charges

Besigye has denied the charges, which he and his legal team argue are politically motivated. His lawyer challenged the military court’s jurisdiction, noting that Besigye is a civilian and should not be tried by the military.

Despite these objections, the court remanded Besigye to Luzira Prison until December 2.

Kenyan and Ugandan Responses

Kenyan authorities have denied involvement in Besigye’s alleged abduction. Korir Singoei, Kenya’s principal secretary of foreign affairs, stated that the Kenyan government had no role in the incident.

Ugandan officials, meanwhile, have offered conflicting responses. Chris Baryomunsi, Uganda’s information minister, dismissed allegations of illegal abductions, asserting that any arrests made abroad would involve collaboration with the host country.

The assurance we give the country is that the [Ugandan] government does not arrest somebody and keep them incommunicado for a long time, Baryomunsi said.

However, the absence of formal communication from the Ugandan military has deepened suspicions about the legality of Besigye’s arrest and detention.

Besigye, 68, has been one of Uganda’s most enduring opposition figures, challenging Museveni’s 38-year rule through four presidential campaigns. A former personal physician to Museveni during Uganda’s civil war in the 1980s, Besigye became a fierce critic of his government, alleging widespread corruption and authoritarianism.

Over the years, Besigye has faced repeated arrests, harassment, and accusations of treason. His Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) party has similarly been targeted. In July, 36 FDC members were arrested in Kenya and deported to Uganda, where they faced terrorism charges.

International human rights organizations have often criticized Museveni’s government for its treatment of opposition leaders, citing illegal detentions, torture, and extrajudicial killings. Ugandan authorities have consistently denied these accusations, asserting that all detainees are afforded due legal process.

Besigye’s arrest has drawn condemnation from opposition leaders, human rights advocates, and his supporters. Byanyima and others have called for international attention to what they describe as a pattern of suppression and intimidation against political dissenters in Uganda.

The case raises broader questions about the rule of law in Uganda, the rights of opposition figures, and regional complicity in politically motivated arrests. Whether Besigye’s detention will lead to further scrutiny of Museveni’s administration or fade into the backdrop of Uganda’s contentious political history remains to be seen.