Sunday, June 14, 2026

Hezbollah Ambushes Israeli Forces in Majdal Zoun, Kfar Tebnit

By Al Mayadeen English

The Lebanese Resistance announced successful ambushes against Israeli occupation forces in Majdal Zoun and Kfar Tebnit.

The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon - Hezbollah announced on Saturday that its fighters confronted Israeli occupation forces attempting to infiltrate areas in southern Lebanon, targeting troop and vehicle concentrations with rocket barrages and attack drones in response to ongoing Israeli violations of the ceasefire.

In a series of statements, the Resistance said its fighters detected an Israeli force that had advanced into the southern town of Majdal Zoun in the Tyre district. Resistance fighters subsequently launched an ambush, engaging the force with light and medium weapons as well as rocket-propelled munitions for approximately two hours.

According to the Resistance, several accompanying Israeli military vehicles were destroyed and caught fire during the confrontation. Simultaneously, Resistance fighters targeted Israeli troop concentrations on the southern and southeastern outskirts of Majdal Zoun with three successive rocket barrages.

The clashes continued into the night, with residents sharing images showing plumes of smoke rising from what appeared to be Israeli military vehicles struck during attempts to advance into the town.

Resistance lures Israeli force into ambush in Kfar Tebnit

In a separate operation, the Resistance reported detecting an Israeli infantry unit attempting to infiltrate the southern town of Kfar Tebnit shortly after midnight under artillery, fire, and smoke cover along the Arnoun-Zaffata road.

The fighters said they drew the force into a pre-prepared kill zone, where explosive devices were detonated before direct engagements took place. The operation reportedly forced the Israeli unit to withdraw from the area.

The Resistance added that it carried out concentrated artillery strikes on the ambush zone and launched a rocket barrage against a gathering of Israeli military vehicles on the outskirts of Kfar Tebnit.

Escalation near Nabatieh and Tyre

The latest operations come as Israeli occupation forces have intensified attempts to establish positions on elevated terrain across southern Lebanon, particularly in areas surrounding Nabatieh and Tyre.

The escalation coincides with reports of accelerated diplomatic efforts surrounding a potential memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, with discussions reportedly addressing the implementation of a ceasefire in Lebanon and the future status of occupying forces in the region.

The renewed Israeli military activity is being viewed by observers as an effort to alter facts on the ground after months of confrontations failed to secure lasting Israeli control over strategic areas in southern Lebanon.

Ebola Cases in DR Congo Rise to 689, Death Toll Reaches 139

Source: Xinhua| 2026-06-13 03:39:00|Editor: huaxia

KINSHASA, June 12 (Xinhua) -- The number of confirmed Ebola cases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has risen to 689, including 139 deaths, according to the latest situation report released on Friday by the country's health authorities.

A total of 17 new confirmed cases, including five deaths, were reported on Thursday, all in the eastern province of Ituri, the report said. The outbreak, caused by the Bundibugyo strain of the Ebola virus, has affected 29 health zones across three eastern provinces, namely Ituri, North Kivu and South Kivu.

A total of 168 suspected cases, including 64 deaths, had been reported as of Thursday.

The report also highlighted several operational challenges, including reluctance to undergo post-mortem swabbing, insufficient capacity in Ebola treatment centers, shortages of infection prevention and control materials in North Kivu, weak alert reporting across the three provinces, and a funding gap of 21.5 million U.S. dollars.

Two Ebola-related deaths have been reported in a camp for internally displaced people in Ituri, according to a report released on Thursday by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The current outbreak, officially declared on May 15 by the DRC's health ministry, is the country's 17th Ebola outbreak since the virus was identified in 1976. 

Saturday, June 13, 2026

AIDC Statement on the Rising Tide of Afrophobia and Xenophobia in South Africa

2026-06-11 

by AIDC

The Alternative Information and Development Centre (AIDC) is gravely concerned at the spread of Afrophobic and xenophobic sentiment gripping large parts of South African society.

Opportunistic organisations such as “March and March” and Operation Dudula have mobilised communities across the country in ways that deepen dangerous divisions, not only between South Africans and foreign nationals living among us, but within our communities themselves. These are not spontaneous eruptions of popular anger. They are organised, directed, and deliberately stoked. But they have found a receptive audience: people so worn down by poverty that they needed only a spark to set them alight.

Let us be very clear: AIDC rejects March and March, its leadership, and everything they represent. We will give no quarter to their reactionary politics. No softening of language is appropriate here, no “engaging with their concerns” that is not, in the end, a legitimisation of hatred. They are doing the work of reaction, and we name them as such.

We must ask who is funding, supporting and organising these mobilisations. They are not simply spontaneous expressions of working-class frustration, but carefully built campaigns linked to wider right-wing networks.

In South Africa, as in many other countries, sections of big business and wealthy, politically connected individuals help drive these campaigns. Figures such as Elon Musk and Donald Trump in the United States, and Nigel Farage in Britain, understand that when people are encouraged to fear and blame migrants, they are less likely to question the economic system that creates inequality and concentrates wealth and power.

Anti-immigrant politics is often promoted not by ordinary people alone, but by politicians, media commentators, influential sections of the press and even academics who give credibility to the idea of the “dangerous migrant”. When a person’s nationality is repeatedly highlighted in stories about crime or social problems, a powerful message is reinforced: migrant equals criminal; foreigner equals threat.

We urge journalists, civil society organisations and the public to look closely at who is promoting these narratives, who benefits from them, and whose interests they ultimately serve.

International experience teaches us that divisions sown today do not simply dissolve once the immediate crisis passes. They become embedded in the social and political fabric, serving as the foundation on which reactionary and right-wing politics are built over the long term. We are already witnessing this trajectory in South Africa. Parties such as Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe Party, the Patriotic Alliance, and ActionSA increasingly give organised political expression to these sentiments, normalising hostility toward African migrants and positioning xenophobic nationalism as a legitimate electoral platform. The ANC, too, is following suit; many of its officials, including the President, now speak the same language, conveniently blaming foreign nationals for the ills of our society.

We must also confront, directly and without equivocation, a troubling development within our own movement. There are progressive leaders in trade unions and other mass organisations, people who should know better,  who have succumbed to the idea that foreign nationals and undocumented migrants are the main perpetrators of crime, violence, drug trafficking, and the sexual exploitation of young women and girls. This is not merely mistaken. It is false and dangerous.

The facts do not support it. The evidence on those convicted of violent crime, rape, drug trafficking, and the trafficking of young women overwhelmingly shows these crimes to be committed by South African citizens, people themselves brutalised and discarded by this society and this economy. For example, the Institute for Security Studies notes that only 7,5% of people in South African prisons were foreign nationals. To point this out is not to deny anyone’s suffering or to pretend that crime is somehow not real. It is to insist that we follow the evidence rather than the scapegoat.

For scapegoating is precisely what this is. When we blame foreign nationals, and now, increasingly, “undocumented migrants” for crime and for every social ill, we forget the real architecture of our suffering. We forget the crimes of transnational capital and imperialism, which loot our resources in partnership with local elites, such as mining companies that misdeclare their exports to avoid taxes, or tech companies like Uber that replace decent work with casual gig-economy labour. We forget the policies of liberalisation and privatisation pursued by every party that has held power, from the ANC to the DA to the IFP, without exception, that made this looting possible. And we let the scapegoaters train their fire on the small shopkeeper in the township while the big supermarket chains, which exploit workers through casualisation, price fixing and profiteering, escape all scrutiny.

We should be honest, too, about how that “illegality” is manufactured in the first place: many migrants entered the country legally and were rendered undocumented by the dysfunction and hostility of Home Affairs, applications lost, permits delayed, people made “illegal” by bureaucratic exclusion rather than by any act of their own. Progressive leaders who repeat these myths, however unwittingly, provide cover for a reactionary mobilisation that will ultimately be turned against the very communities and movements they claim to serve. We urge them, in the strongest possible terms, to come to their senses.

Let us be clear about where this road leads. The focus on “illegal immigrants” and the “undocumented” is the thin edge of the wedge. It begins with papers and ends with skin: today’s target is the migrant without documents, tomorrow’s is every African and every dark-skinned foreign national in the country, papers or none. We are almost there already.

And we must notice precisely which “foreign national” is being targeted through these orchestrated campaigns. It is not the rich, white foreigner who buys up property along the Atlantic Seaboard, rendering Cape Town a playground for the rich and the elite. No march descends on Clifton or Camps Bay to demand that they “go home”. The targets are the poor and the Black, the Zimbabwean vendor, the Malawian gardener, and the Somali trader. That selectivity tells us everything: this was never about foreignness as such. It is about race and class.

The logic of the purge does not stop at the border of legality, because it was never really about legality. And the same poison does not stop at the national border either. The xenophobia being stoked today is already emboldening a narrower tribalism within South Africa itself, a rising Zulu nationalism that will, if left unchallenged, find its mirror in Xhosa and other ethnic mobilisations. The hatred that begins by dividing South Africans from foreigners will not hesitate to divide South Africans from South Africans. Soon, half of the population will be accused of staying in the wrong place and intimidated by a mob to “go home”. The current campaign against foreigners is the road to communal fracture, and we have seen on this continent and beyond where it ends: civil war.

This is the tragedy of how far we have travelled. There was a time when our movements spoke the language of Pan-African unity, when South Africa’s freedom was understood as bound up with the freedom of the whole continent, and the peoples who sheltered our exiles and bled for our liberation were our comrades, not our competitors. What has become of that vision in the face of neocolonialism? What has become of our solidarity with the peoples of this continent ravaged by global capital, by debt and extraction, and now by a climate emergency they did not cause and cannot escape? The Zimbabwean street vendor, the Ethiopian shopkeeper, the Somali trader fleeing collapse and persecution, these are not the authors of our misery. They are, like us, its victims, displaced by the very forces that impoverish us all.

There is a deeper hypocrisy here that we must name. Across Africa, governments rush to sign the African Continental Free Trade Area, opening the borders wide for the free movement of capital and goods, yet they refuse to ratify the protocols that would guarantee the free movement of African people. Capital may cross every border at will; the worker and the poor are criminalised for doing the same. The struggle against Afrophobia is therefore also a struggle for the free movement of people across Southern Africa and the continent, and against the hardening of the colonial borders that were drawn to divide us in the first place.

AIDC fully recognises the conditions that have made ordinary people susceptible to this politics of division. Mass unemployment, extreme poverty, collapsing public services, and savage inequality have shredded the social fabric of poor and working-class communities across this country. Land and wealth remain concentrated in the hands of a small minority more than three decades after apartheid’s formal end. The suffering is real, the frustration legitimate, the resentment deep. We do not dismiss or minimise these conditions for a single moment. We recognise, too, the emotional wound of a failed national project, the unfulfilled aspiration of a South African nationhood that might have filled our people with pride and dignity. But attacking and scapegoating others is no road to building a united nation.

We must name what is happening: this suffering is being weaponised. The anger that belongs at the door of neoliberal capitalism and the politicians who have failed the people is being deliberately redirected toward foreign nationals, people who themselves are fleeing poverty, persecution, and precarity, and who share the very hardships of the South African poor.

We need to remember that the very people who claim – sometimes apologetically – that “we” cannot afford a living wage and that there is no money for the health, housing, transport and education consistent with the guarantees of our Constitution are amongst the 1% of our population – 647,000 people out of a population of 64.7 million – who own 54.9% of all household wealth. Members of our government belong to this 1%.

Yet, despite the hardship of life in the world’s most unequal society, the daily life of our communities is richer and more hopeful than the headlines admit. Migrant-owned spaza shops survive precisely because they serve needs the big chains ignore: affordable goods close to home, credit extended to families in hard months, relationships of trust built over years. And against every wave of violence, there have been acts of profound solidarity: South Africans who have sheltered and disguised their migrant neighbours, protected them from the mob, organised alongside them for housing and services. This solidarity is not an abstraction. It grows from shared struggle, mutual care, and the ordinary human bonds of people who survive together. It is the ground on which we must build.

AIDC will do everything in its power to support the struggle against Afrophobia and xenophobia. We will help organise and mobilise in communities, in workplaces, and in alliance with progressive formations across the country around the real causes of the suffering working people endure: a capitalist system and a neoliberal policy framework that, since 1994, have entrenched inequality, hollowed out the state, and denied millions the means of a dignified life. We will not do this by lecturing communities abstractly about Pan-Africanism, but by fusing struggles, making the fight against evictions, unemployment, and austerity one that consciously includes migrants rather than setting them apart as a separate humanitarian category.

We urge progressive organisations, trade unions, faith communities, and civil society formations and individuals to:

Actively resist Afrophobic and xenophobic mobilisation in their communities and workplaces;

Reject without compromise the framing that attributes crime and social breakdown to foreign nationals, and reject equally the tribalist mobilisations this politics breeds among South Africans themselves;

Fight the super-exploitation and poverty wages of all workers, documented or undocumented;

Build unity across nationality and ethnic lines among working-class and poor communities, and fuse the struggles of migrants and locals around their shared conditions;

Expose and challenge the political and business interests driving these divisions;

Reclaim the vision of Pan-African solidarity, demanding the free movement of people across the continent, and building cross-border alliances against the capital that already moves freely across every border;

Invest in political education and cultural work, especially among the youth, so that solidarity is taught as deliberately as division is.

Faisal Garba, in a recent Amandla article, argues that the key issue is not whether migrants should be allowed in South Africa, but whether we will allow elites and political opportunists to create divisions among ordinary people while the systems that keep us in poverty remain unaddressed. We agree with him that the solution to Afrophobia does not lie in stricter borders or harsher exclusion. Instead, it lies in fostering solidarity, justice, and a genuinely liberating Pan-African political approach.

UN in South Africa Calls for Calm Amid Xenophobic Attacks

Source: Xinhua| 2026-06-13 02:37:45|Editor: huaxia

JOHANNESBURG, June 12 (Xinhua) -- The United Nations in South Africa on Friday called for calm, restraint and respect for the rule of law amid rising anti-immigration tensions in parts of the country.

In a statement, the UN in South Africa expressed concern over reports of threats and violence affecting migrants, including deaths, assaults, property damage, intimidation, hate speech and other criminal acts.

"The UN expresses condolences for the lives lost and strongly condemns all forms of violence, vigilantism and incitement to hatred, as they are contrary to national and international human rights standards. These issues must be addressed through the de-escalation of tensions, protection, accountability, respect for the rule of law and effective law enforcement," the statement said.

It welcomed remarks by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa calling on citizens to respect the rule of law and not take the law into their own hands.

While acknowledging the impact of socio-economic challenges on social cohesion, the UN stressed that such challenges should be addressed through lawful means and in a manner that respects human rights.

It added that it was engaging with government authorities, law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders to help address xenophobia and related tensions.

The statement also called for efforts to counter misinformation and prevent the spread of harmful narratives.

Recent weeks have seen a rise in anti-immigration incidents in parts of South Africa. Two Mozambican nationals were reportedly killed in Mossel Bay in the Western Cape Province, while some foreign-owned businesses have also been targeted during protests and unrest.

Morocco Kills 3 Polisario Front Members, Including Son of Former President Abdelaziz

June 11, 2026 

Flags of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). Photo: Europa Press.

At least three members of the Polisario Front have been killed in an attack launched by Morocco near the separation wall in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR, Western Sahara) according to confirmation from the Sahrawi Presidency. Among those killed were Lehbib Mohamed Abdelaziz, a member of the group’s National Secretariat and son of former Sahrawi president Mohamed Abdelaziz. As a result, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has declared three days of national mourning.

The Presidency indicated that Abdelaziz and two other Polisario Front members died during a military action in the area, as reported by the Sahrawi news agency SPS. Abdelaziz, 37, was the son of former Sahrawi president Mohamed Abdelaziz, who held the position from 1992 until his death in 2016.

Born in 1989 in the Sahrawi displaced persons camps in Algeria, Abdelaziz studied in Algeria before enlisting in the Polisario Front forces in 2011. He was appointed a member of the National Secretariat in 2024.

Moroccan authorities have not yet made any official statement on what occurred, though outlet Le Desk reports, citing “concordant sources,” that he died in a drone strike by the Moroccan Armed Forces.

The deceased was the son of the historic Polisario Front leader who served as the group’s secretary general from 1976 and as president of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) for 24 years until his death, when he was succeeded by Brahim Ghali. Lehbib was considered a potential successor to the current leader.

Visit by the UN envoy

The death of Abdelaziz was confirmed during a new visit by the personal envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Western Sahara, Staffan de Mistura, who arrived on Sunday at the refugee camps as part of a new diplomatic tour, according to SPS.

De Mistura subsequently met with Foreign Minister and chief negotiator Mohamed Yislem Beisat, UN representative Sidi Mohamed Omar, and the director of the cabinet of the Republic’s Presidency, Mohamed Molud Mohamed.

The Sahrawi minister explained that he discussed with the UN envoy the organization’s efforts toward finding a just, impartial and transparent solution that guarantees the inalienable right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination and independence, SPS reports.

In May, Ghali sent a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres defending the Polisario Front’s attacks against Moroccan bases in occupied Western Sahara as an act of legitimate self-defense against Rabat after declaring the 1991 ceasefire broken in November 2020.

The Polisario Front has suffered several diplomatic setbacks in recent years, as international support has grown for the autonomy plan put forward by Morocco—including backing from Spain and France. This proposal was flatly rejected by the SADR, which notes that Madrid remains the de jure administering power of the territory, pending decolonization.

The former Spanish colony of Western Sahara was occupied by Morocco in 1975 despite Polisario Front resistance, with whom it remained at war until 1991, when both parties signed a ceasefire with a view to holding a self-determination referendum. Disagreements over the drawing up of the electoral roll and whether or not to include Moroccan settlers have prevented it from being called to this day.

‘Many Africans Supported Mexico’ — South Africa Captain Reacts to World Cup Defeat

Nigeria Vanguard

South Africa captain Ronwen Williams has voiced his disappointment over what he described as limited backing from fellow Africans following Bafana Bafana’s 2-0 defeat to Mexico in their opening match of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

The loss to the co-hosts on Thursday night leaves South Africa facing an uphill task in Group A as they seek qualification for the knockout stages.

Reflecting on the result, Williams said he was surprised by the level of support Mexico appeared to receive from African football fans and urged greater continental unity during major international competitions.

“Africans have always supported other African countries in every World Cup tournament, but I can’t figure out why our own case is different,” Williams said. “Many Africans supported Mexico, not us, the South Africans. We almost shed tears, but it’s truly sad. As Africans, let’s stand for each other; let’s stand together.”

The goalkeeper’s comments have generated mixed reactions across social media platforms.

While some supporters agreed with Williams, arguing that African nations should rally behind one another on the world stage regardless of national rivalries, others pointed to longstanding tensions involving South Africa’s relationship with migrants from other African countries.

Several social media users from countries including Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and Zimbabwe argued that reports of xenophobic attacks against African migrants in South Africa over the years have undermined feelings of continental solidarity. Many referenced past incidents involving foreign nationals living in the country as influencing perceptions of South Africa among other Africans.

Some users openly admitted supporting Mexico during the match, saying those tensions played a role in their decision.

The debate has added an off-field dimension to South Africa’s World Cup campaign as Bafana Bafana look to recover from their opening defeat and revive their hopes of progressing from Group A.

'Nightmare from Start to Finish' for South Africa in Opener

Referee Wilton Sampaio, wearing a black shirt and black sweatband on his wrist, holds a red card with his right hand in front of Themba Zwane, who looks uncomprehendingly at the official while wearing a yellow South Africa shirt with green trim and a green number 11 on the chest. Both men are visible from waist up. A Mexico player in a green shirt is half obscured in the background, with a crowd visible out of focus in the distance.

South Africa's Themba Zwane was sent off for violent conduct in the 84th minute of their Group A opener against Mexico following a VAR review

By Rob Stevens

BBC Sport Africa

12 June 2026

South Africa's 2026 Fifa World Cup defeat by Mexico has been described as "a nightmare from start to finish" by former captain Dean Furman.

Bafana Bafana went 1-0 down in the ninth minute after Sphephelo Sithole was caught in possession on the edge of his penalty area, and the midfielder was then sent off in the second half, with forward Themba Zwane also seeing red in Mexico City as the co-hosts strolled to a comfortable 2-0 win in the opening game at the finals.

"South Africa were just miles off it," Furman told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"There's really not one player on that pitch in a yellow shirt who can hold their hand up and say they did themself justice.

"Mexico were in total control from minute one. They looked more assured, they were calm in possession.

"It was just turnover after turnover after turnover, and when you're playing against quality opposition you get punished."

Cameroon were the last team to see red twice in the opening match of a World Cup, when they faced holders Argentina in Italy in 1990.

Incredibly, the Indomitable Lions registered a famous 1-0 victory against Diego Maradona's side, a result which South Africa never threatened to match.

Skipper Ronwen Williams admitted it had been a "tough" afternoon in the Estadio Azteca, but was pleased with how his side "kept fighting".

"Obviously the opening game of the World Cup comes with so much emotion," the 34-year-old said.

"We knew they were going to have the atmosphere, the energy behind them and we didn't want to concede in the opening few stages.

"And then that's exactly what happened. That's a lesson that we need to take out of this.

"As difficult as it was with two guys [sent off], we didn't give up. It shows the mentality that we have and the character that we kept fighting."

South African fans watching back home in Johannesburg were less impressed.

Relebogile Lairi described it as a "very disappointing start" to the World Cup, adding that supporters "expected a lot more from the boys" who she thought suffered "stage fright".

Nicholas Makomene thought the approach was overly defensive and said there was "no need to park the bus".

Mixed views on red cards

South Africa coach Hugo Broos took issue with his side's second dismissal, which came after a video assistant referee review which prompted Brazilian referee Wilton Sampaio to show Zwane a straight red.

The forward had tussled with Roberto Alvarado while trying to get past his opponent on the edge of the box, with the Mexican going to ground holding his head.

"The first red card, I don't think we have to say something about it but the second red card I think the Mexican player blocked my player," Broos said.

However, Furman felt that Zwane deserved to be sent off for violent conduct after swinging his arm into Alvarado's face.

"I know Themba well, I've played with him for years. I know it's incredibly soft but it's the modern game, you can't lash out," Furman said.

"It's going to be an interesting World Cup if that's what we're giving red cards for but that is the game today. You can't do that."

South Africa Trolled by African Fans in Wake of World Cup Loss

Wycliffe Muia

BBC

South African fans were distraught after their team's loss

The normal display of African unity in the early stages of a football World Cup was notably absent from social media as many fans from across the continent backed Mexico in the tournament's opening match against South Africa.

The memes were light-hearted - including sombreros, mariachi bands and tacos - but they pointed to a dark underbelly. The banter reflected anger over the reports of xenophobic violence in South Africa.

A poor South African performance on the pitch led to a 2-0 defeat against the World Cup co-hosts.

As the final whistle blew, social media lit up with a flood of mocking posts. But some South Africans pushed back, praising the spirit of their team, nicknamed Bafana Bafana.

South Africa is one of 10 African teams at this year's expanded World Cup, with the US and Canada co-hosting along with Mexico.

Ahead of Thursday's match, some African football fans justified their support for Mexico by linking it to the current tensions in South Africa over migration.

"You want people to cheer for you when you play soccer just because we're African?" one X user asked citing reports of mistreatment of migrants.

"We're supporting Mexico so that South Africa can go back home early to protect their jobs," another user posted, playing on the unfounded accusation that foreigners were responsible for South Africa's high unemployment rate.

"I hope South Africa is not blaming African migrants for the 2–0 defeat and two red cards in the match against Mexico," posted Ahmednasir Abdullahi, a prominent Kenyan lawyer.

Others shared memes playfully embracing Mexican culture for the day, changing their profile pictures to Mexican flags and adopting Spanish-sounding names, under the caption "Mexico versus xenophobia".

Daniel Kaniki, a Congolese football supporter who was at a fan park in the US city of Atlanta told the BBC: "Africa is like one country and if one is chasing others, we are not a family any more. That's why I'm supporting Mexico today."

Though not everyone agreed.

Ghanaian Vanlare Quist, was also at the fan park and said he was rooting for South Africa, adding that he was "a proud African" and blamed the anti-immigrant sentiment in South Africa on a few individuals.

In South Sudan, fans at public viewing centres in the the capital, Juba, were also backing Bafana Bafana. People there have a strong affinity to South Africa, linking their fight for independence from Sudan to the struggle against white-minority rule in South Africa.

"It was unfortunate that on social media we saw some African countries supporting Mexico and even wearing Mexico jerseys. As South Sudanese, we are behind South Africa and will continue to support South Africa - because they are representing Africa. So, all African countries must support South Africa during this World Cup," 23-year-old student George Kenyi Charles Rehan told the BBC in Juba.

South Africa still has two more matches to go to prove their mettle

In a statement, the South African government commended Bafana Bafana for their "spirited performance", adding that while the final score was not what the nation had hoped for, the team "represented South Africa with unity, determination, and a sense of pride on the world's biggest stage".

South Africans on social media were robust in their response to the trolling.

"We qualified for the World Cup alone without your support and whether we win or lose we will remain South Africans who love their country. And illegal immigrants will still leave our country whether you hate us or not," one posted on social media.

Another said: "They can support Mexico all they want we are not backing down. Come to South Africa legally."

In South Africa, migrants from elsewhere in Africa have been the targets of violence and intimidation in recent weeks.

Anti-migrant groups have set a deadline of 30 June for foreign nationals living in the country illegally to leave.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has warned against people taking the law into their own hands saying that "only authorised government officials can act against violations of our law".

But he also stated that South Africans' concerns "deserve to be heard, and they deserve to be addressed".

On Wednesday, Nigeria became the latest African country to repatriate some of its citizens from South Africa.

Ghana, Zimbabwe and Malawi have already carried out evacuations, saying that they were taking the anti-migrant threats seriously.

Many people from other parts of Africa moved to South Africa around the time white-minority rule ended in 1994, hoping for a better life.

But with South Africa facing an unemployment rate of more than 30%, anti-migrant sentiments have risen, with protest marches being held in major cities and people facing xenophobic attacks.

Additional reporting by Celestine Karoney in Atlanta and Nichola Mandil in Juba

South Africa’s World Cup Loss: The Bitter Reason Why Most of Africa Wanted Mexico to Win

Chika Emmanuel

June 13, 2026

South Africa’s World Cup loss to host nation Mexico in the opening game of the 2026 World Cup gave a whole new meaning to the phrase “hate-watch.”

Back in 2010, when South Africa became the first African nation to host the FIFA World Cup, the continent rallied behind Bafana Bafana and every other African representative.

There was a strong sense of pan-African pride, with fans setting aside rivalries to support teams carrying the continent’s hopes on football’s biggest stage.

Although South Africa failed to progress beyond the group stage, the support never wavered, and the tournament remains widely regarded as one of the most memorable and celebrated World Cups in modern history.

Fast forward 16 years, and that spirit of unity appears to have faded.

Both inside stadiums and across social media, the overwhelming continental backing that once seemed unbreakable for African participants at the World Cup has largely disappeared, replaced by indifference, rivalry, and in some cases, open hostility.

No African nation has ever won the FIFA World Cup. In fact, the furthest any team from the continent has gone remains the semi-finals achieved by Morocco in 2022, and that run brought together millions of Africans behind the Atlas Lions.

Now, with 10 African nations qualifying for the expanded 2026 tournament, many expected a similar sense of continental solidarity to emerge. Instead, what was witnessed was the exact opposite.

During the highly anticipated Mexico vs South Africa clash, social media platforms – including X (formerly Twitter) – across Africa were flooded with supporters openly cheering for the hosts.

Fans from countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, and Senegal were spotted wearing the Mexican jerseys, and from the opening whistle, they were more invested in seeing Bafana Bafana lose than in backing one of Africa’s representatives.

To supporters of other nations, including Mexican fans, it seemed a bit odd and raised the question – why did Africa support Mexico in the World Cup?

South Africa’s World Cup Loss: How Xenophobia and Continental Tensions Shaped Africa’s Reaction

The decline in support for South Africa did not just happen all of a sudden. It cuts across much of the continent and can be traced to a combination of sporting rivalries and long-standing historical tensions.

However, the biggest factor undoubtedly remains the repeated xenophobic attacks that have targeted foreign African nationals living in South Africa over the years.

The attacks have been a constant occurrence, but in the months leading up to the World Cup, groups like “Operation Dudula” and various localised vigilante movements intensified their campaigns.

These groups carried out unlawful citizens’ arrests, raided informal markets, and profiled fellow Africans from countries such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ghana, and Lesotho.

Some were reportedly assaulted, while in the most extreme cases, lives were lost.

Those incidents have strained relations between South Africa and many of its neighbours, leaving deep scars that have not easily healed.

While football and politics are fundamentally separate, emotions rarely stay confined to a single arena. Those emotions are often amplified when supporters feel they are facing a nation they believe has wronged them.

The memories of violence, discrimination, and hostility experienced by fellow Africans in recent months and years have inevitably spilled over into the sporting world.

As a result, for some supporters across the continent, fixtures involving South Africa – whether in football or other sporting competitions – have become an outlet for frustrations and grievances that extend far beyond what happens on the pitch.

While the reaction of fans across other African nations is open to debate, there is little doubt that the lingering impact of xenophobia has played a significant role in shaping the response to South Africa’s participation on the global stage.

Politics in Sports: The June 30 Deadline and a Divided Continent

As well as the xenophobic attacks, the hostility aimed at Bafana Bafana also stemmed from a direct reaction to a widely publicised June 30 deadline promoted by anti-migrant groups within the country.

These groups publicly demanded that undocumented immigrants leave South Africa by that date, a claim that sparked concern across parts of the continent, although the South African government disputed the message and described it as false.

The situation became so serious that countries such as Malawi and Ghana reportedly began processing the return or evacuation of some of their nationals out of fear for their safety.

By the time South Africa took to the pitch against Mexico, the anxiety and resentment surrounding that deadline were still fresh in the minds of millions of Africans.

As a result, some did not view Bafana Bafana’s 2-0 loss as merely a sporting defeat. Instead, it felt like a symbolic rebuke of the xenophobic hostility that many believe has been simmering on South African streets.

South Africa’s World Cup Loss: How African Football Fans Used Memes to Weaponise Xenophobia

Other African nationals have long felt they have been treated unfairly in South Africa. At the same time, South Africans have frequently argued that limited job opportunities are often attributed to foreign workers, with many claiming that migrants occupy a significant share of available employment and have left them jobless.

That claim has turned out to be economically false, as data from Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), foreign nationals account for only about 3.7% to 4% of the entire working-age population.

This makes it mathematically impossible for such a small minority to capture “all” employment in a nation of over 60 million people

This tension has, in turn, caused resentment and strained relations between South Africa and several of its continental neighbours, culminating in calls such as the widely reported June 30 evacuation deadline.

Using memes to weaponise xenophobia after South Africa’s World Cup defeat was an intelligent display of strategic irony, as African fans took the exact phrases that had been used to taunt and persecute them for years and turned them into weapons to humiliate their critics on the global stage.

By the end of the match, social media users had plenty to say. One tweeted, “South Africa couldn’t attack Mexico in the World Cup match today. The only thing they can do is attack Nigerians living in South Africa.”

Another user wrote, “We’re supporting Mexico so that South Africa can go back home early to protect their jobs.”

“South Africa seems confused about how much you can hit people in a soccer game”

“South Africa didn’t give us goals but they gave us epic memes to work with”

“South Africa’s World Cup loss was poetic because they couldn’t defend cos their job was not on the pitch”

Meanwhile, another simply summed up the sentiment in two words: “Mexico vs xenophobia.”

Friday, June 12, 2026

Abayomi Azikiwe, PANW Editor, Featured on 1+1 with Youri Smouter, Discussing the History and Contemporary Affairs of the Republic of Namibia

Watch this interview with Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-African News Wire, on the history and contemporary affairs of the Republic of Namibia. 

To watch this episode in its entirety just click on the following URL: 1+1 E394 Youri speaks to Abayomi Azikiwe of Pan-African Newswire & Black Agenda Report on Namibia

The interview was conducted by Youri Smouter of 1+1. The discussion covers the early history of the country and the rise of several kingdoms. 

During the late 19th century, German imperialists seized control of the territory and carried out a series of genocidal onslaughts against the indigenous people. 

During WWI, the British based in neighboring South Africa took control. We look at the role of the Garvey Movement during the 1920s and the later rise of the South-West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) during the 1960s-1980s. 

The domestic, regional, continental and international character of the struggle led to independence in 1990. 

The country has remained stable for the last 36 years. This episode was recorded on Fri. June 12, 2026.

FM Outlines Contours of Proposed MoU, Says Diplomacy’s Role is to Consolidate Battlefield Gains

Saturday, 13 June 2026 12:43 AM

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has outlined the structure of a potential memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, while highlighting that diplomacy is intended to consolidate the gains achieved by the Islamic Republic on the battlefield.

In a televised interview on Friday, the top diplomat identified the Islamic Republic as the sole party to come out victorious in the face of the latest bout of unprovoked American-Israeli aggression against the country, saying the outcome reflected a "major strategic achievement."

"Iran has been the winner of this war, and the people of Iran are the true winners of this arena," he stated.

'Any understanding meant to seal battlefield victory'

Araghchi reminded that the victory came about, although, both the aggressors were equipped with advanced weapons, including nuclear capabilities, but were prevented by Iran from achieving their objectives.

"Naturally, after such a victory, it is necessary to consolidate it through an agreement or understanding."

Diplomatic efforts aimed at reinforcing the triumph, he added, were now in their final stages and were based on a 14-point memorandum of understanding that has been discussed in the media. He stressed that the document was still subject to change until final approval and that its details would be announced after completion.

Araghchi described the 14 provisions as interconnected, saying they formed a single package.

Two-phase negotiation framework

The foreign minister explained that multiple drafts of the memorandum had been reviewed within Iran’s decision-making institutions, including the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC).

According to the official, the process is divided into two stages, namely realization of an initial memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, and a second phase that is expected to feature negotiations leading to a potential final agreement.

He added that Iran’s frozen assets would be released upon signing of the memorandum of understanding, adding that the signing process might take place in a digital format in a day or two.

The second phase is expected to last around 60 days, Araghchi noted.

Nuclear issue, sanctions postponed to second phase

The foreign minister stated that sensitive topics, including the nuclear issue featuring uranium enrichment and highly-enriched uranium, have been postponed to the second stage.

He also stated that Iran’s position on the highly-enriched materials is that it should exclusively be diluted inside the Islamic Republic as the only viable option.

In the second phase, negotiations would also focus on removal of the US's illegal sanctions, the official added.

Lebanon, regional ceasefire framework

Araghchi noted that Lebanon has never been excluded from Iran’s strategic considerations. "We never forgot Lebanon in this war."

The official cited Iran's proactive manner of responding to the Israeli regime's violations of its ceasefire with Lebanon as "another strategic achievement."

The Iranian response, he added, showed that "it (Iran) is not joking, and that, if necessary, it is not only unafraid of war, but will also employ it wherever it is needed."

According to the official, a definitive conclusion of the war must feature the Israeli regime's withdrawal from the areas it has occupied in Lebanon.

Under the proposed framework, hostilities would end across all fronts, including Lebanon, and neither side would initiate war or use force, Araghchi went on.

Any potential agreement, therefore, features mutual respect for sovereignty, the foreign minister said, adding that such an agreement would, accordingly, bear witness to the first instance, where the United States would explicitly recognize and document respect for Iran’s sovereignty.

Removal of US blockade, reconstruction plan

The foreign minister said the first clause of the proposed agreement concerns the lifting of the illegal naval blockade imposed by the United States against the Islamic Republic.

The foreign minister said the potential agreement would additionally include an economic reconstruction plan to address war-related damages.

He said the plan would be discussed in detail after finalization, adding that it includes provisions related to compensation for damages, and would be designed to channel significant financial resources into Iran’s economy.

Timeline, extension, fallback mechanism

Araghchi said the second phase of negotiations is expected to last 60 days, but might be extended if both sides were satisfied with progress.

However, if sufficient progress was not achieved, the process would not lead to a final agreement, the official noted.

In that case, he said, the situation would return to its previous state before the memorandum.

'Iran wary of adversaries' non-commitment'

The official reminded the successive previous instances of the adversaries' non-commitment to former arrangements.

"We are not dealing with parties that are fully committed to their obligations. They take advantage of every opportunity to break their promises," he said.

"It is we who must close off the avenues for reneging on commitments, and we must have the capability, by relying on our own strength, not to allow such breaches of commitments to occur."

Araghchi noted that there were parties, who opposed realization of an agreement between Iran and the United States, identifying the Israeli regime as the most prominent enemy of such an agreement.

'New joint management framework for Strait of Hormuz in offing'

Araghchi said Iran and Oman were in the process of finalizing a joint legal and operational framework for managing transit through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The mechanism is expected to be announced within 60 days, he noted, adding that Iran’s armed forces would continue to ensure security in the waterway.

Araghchi pointed to the American aggression that has been targeting the chokepoint, saying threats only delay negotiations and must stop. Iran has never yielded under pressure and remains fully prepared to respond to any aggression, he stated.

Diplomacy-battlefield correlation

The foreign minister, meanwhile, reminded that the Islamic Republic's diplomatic apparatus and armed forces worked in tandem to secure the nation's interests.

"There is no duality between them… They must be one and the same. These two move in the same direction, towards the same goal."

The official identified the lively public demonstrations that had taken place nationwide throughout the country's retaliatory operations in the face of the unprovoked aggression as well as the national media's informative campaigns in the face of the aggressors, as the other two dimensions of the nation's defensive strategy.

Warning Shot in Strait of Hormuz; US Claims Downing of Iranian Drones

By Al Mayadeen English

Iran says a warning shot was fired toward the Strait of Hormuz amid rising tensions with the US, while CENTCOM claims it downed multiple Iranian drones.

An explosion in southern Iran was a warning shot fired toward the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian state broadcaster IRIB said on Friday, citing a local authority source.

The broadcaster said the reason for the warning shots was not immediately specified, but noted that they could be linked to vessels violating transit regulations in the strategic waterway. It added that Iran has previously announced the closure of vessel passage through the Strait of Hormuz until further notice, including ships holding permits, following recent US strikes on Iranian territory.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, has been at the center of rising tensions in recent weeks amid military escalation and competing claims over maritime security and navigation rights.

US says it downed Iranian drones targeting commercial ships

In a separate development, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said American forces “downed” several Iranian drones that were targeting vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

“Iran launched multiple one-way attack drones in an attempt to strike commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” CENTCOM wrote in a post on X, adding that the waterway “remains open for transit.”

The US statement did not provide further details on the number of drones intercepted.

On Friday, both the Iranian armed forces and CENTCOM reported confrontations in the Strait of Hormuz, as the United States continues to attempt to override the established maritime regime in the strategic waterway. Meanwhile, Iran stressed its control over the strait, stating that passage through it can only occur under its jurisdiction.

Maritime tensions amid regional escalation

The incidents come amid negotiations and ceasefire-related discussions involving Iran, the United States, and regional actors.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has recently stated that a memorandum of understanding under negotiation would “declare an end to the war, including in Lebanon,” while stressing that no final agreement has yet been signed and that key issues remain unresolved.

He said negotiations are proceeding in two phases, with the nuclear file deferred to a final agreement, and warned that US demands at this stage were “entirely unacceptable.” Araghchi also reiterated that Iran would not proceed to a second phase if initial understandings are not implemented.

Hormuz governance and maritime dispute

Araghchi has previously outlined Iran’s position on the Strait of Hormuz, stating that it falls under the sovereignty of Iran and Oman and is not an international waterway.

He said the future administration of the strait would involve new mechanisms, including service fees for maritime passage, and that no party would be allowed to infringe on Iranian and Omani sovereignty.

The developments come as discussions continue over sanctions relief, frozen assets, and reconstruction frameworks reportedly linked to the broader Iran-US understanding under negotiation, alongside competing claims regarding maritime security and freedom of navigation.

UK Jails Four Palestine Action Activists Over Israeli Elbit Protest

By Al Mayadeen English

A UK court sentenced four Palestine Action activists to prison over a 2024 raid on an Elbit Systems facility, as a legal battle over the group's ban continues.

A British court has sentenced four activists from the Palestine Action group to prison terms for protesting Israeli arms company Elbit Systems, at its facilities in Bristol, where equipment worth more than £1 million was damaged.

Elbit Systems is a major Israeli arms manufacturer and its weapons faciliate the Israeli genocide in Gaza, as well as war crimes and massacres throughout the broader region. Elbit supplies up to 85% of the Israeli military's land-based equipment and drones, while providing the core network infrastructure that digitizes and connects ground forces.

The activists, Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, and Fatema Rajwani, were convicted last month of destroying property at the site using sledgehammers and crowbars during an August 2024 action aimed at disrupting the production of military equipment.

According to court proceedings, the activists damaged computers, drones, and other equipment before confrontations broke out with security personnel and police officers at the facility.

Judge classifies action as 'terrorist act'

Authorities accused Corner, 23, of striking a police officer with a sledgehammer during the incident, causing serious injuries, including a fractured spine.

The group said their objective was to "dismantle drones and weaponry" that would be used in direct attacks on civilians, particularly in the Gaza Strip.

Judge Jeremy Johnson claimed the raid was "an act of terrorism" during Friday's sentencing hearing.

Corner was sentenced to seven years and eight months in prison, while Head, 30, and Kamio, 30, each received five-year prison terms. Rajwani was sentenced to four years and eight months.

The judge said Corner had used "extreme and gratuitous force" against a police officer carrying out her duties.

Protests and arrests outside court

The sentencing prompted demonstrations outside the court, where around 500 people gathered in solidarity with the activists and Palestine Action.

Police said 107 people were arrested during the protest for showing support for the group.

Palestine Action has become known for direct-action campaigns targeting facilities linked to Israeli military production and arms exports.

Legal battle over Palestine Action ban continues

The ruling comes as the UK government continues its legal effort to reinstate a ban on Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000.

The ban, which entered into force on July 5 last year, made membership in or support for the group a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Since the measure was introduced, approximately 3,000 people have reportedly been arrested at demonstrations and rallies linked to the group.

In February, the High Court in London ruled that the government's decision to ban Palestine Action was "disproportionate" and had a "very significant" impact on human rights, ordering that the ban be lifted. The government appealed the ruling, and a decision on that appeal is expected on Monday.

I Blew the Whistle on DOGE’s Dismantling of USAID. Now the Dire Consequences I Predicted Are Becoming Reality.

The Ebola Outbreak is just the most visible problem

By Nicholas Enrich

Boston Globe

June 12, 2026, 3:00 a.m.

Nicholas Enrich is the former top global health official at USAID and the author of “Into the Wood Chipper: A Whistleblower’s Account of How the Trump Administration Shredded USAID.”

Just a few weeks since it was first detected, the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is already on pace to become the deadliest Ebola outbreak ever.

It is no coincidence that we’re seeing such a calamity just a year after the United States relinquished its leadership position in global health. This is exactly the kind of public health emergency I predicted in a whistleblower memo I released last year as the Trump administration recklessly dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID). My warning was not heeded; instead, I was removed from my position as USAID’s top global health official.

This outbreak was always going to be a tough one to contain. Centered in an urban conflict zone with a large migrant community within range of the borders of three countries, the rare Bundibugyo strain is both difficult to detect and has no proven vaccine or treatment. But the retreat of the United States from the global health stage has exacerbated the challenges at every turn.

This Ebola outbreak took far longer to identify than other recent ones. The virus had circulated undetected for several weeks, maybe even months, and the shockingly high initially reported numbers — over 200 suspected cases, over 60 suspected deaths — were the first indication the outbreak was already out of control. When the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency dismantled USAID in 2025, the programs that were aimed at rapid detection of outbreaks like this one were abruptly shuttered. All the investments USAID had made in training community health workers, bolstering surveillance, and strengthening diagnostic networks to help countries identify and respond to infectious disease threats before they became international crises were undone.

Workers from the Uganda Red Cross Society evacuated the body of a suspected Ebola victim in Kampala last month. The outbreak is affecting Uganda as well as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Once the outbreak was detected, as local and regional authorities mobilized to contain the spread, international response efforts were upended by the chainsaw the Trump administration has taken to the once-unparalleled American infrastructure for global health. The US withdrawal from the World Health Organization not only fractured international coordination to respond to Ebola but resulted in the United States not even learning of the outbreak until nine days after it was reported to the WHO on May 5. By then it was already too late to interrupt transmission at its source: The outbreak had spread to multiple urban centers in the DRC, and the virus had already slipped across the border into Uganda.

Under these circumstances, an immediate influx of resources in support of local response efforts was urgently needed to make up for lost time. But again the United States failed to deliver. USAID had a playbook for such a response. But in the wake of the destruction of USAID — 170 global outbreak experts disbanded, contracts with local partners shredded, thousands of community health workers forsaken — the US government struggled to reinvent the playbook within the State Department, an agency with no experience in responding to an Ebola outbreak, resulting in confusion and delays. Decisions that need to be made in hours now take days or even weeks at a moment when losing time means losing lives and facilitating the uncontrolled spread of the virus.

A local activist, dressed in protective equipment, tried to raise awareness about Ebola in Goma last month.

Blowing the whistle

As the top global health official at USAID when the agency was shredded, I have not been surprised by the disjointed and inadequate American response to this deadly outbreak. The seeds of this catastrophe were sown in a federal office building in Washington, D.C., more than a year ago. In the first chaotic weeks of the Trump administration, I witnessed firsthand the ignorance, indifference, and cruelty of DOGE and Trump’s political appointees as they tore apart USAID’s health programs in the midst of the previous Ebola outbreak.

I watched in shock as Trump’s team scoffed at and ignored the warnings of infectious disease experts, choking off our desperate attempts to respond to that outbreak in Uganda. They prevented us from conducting screening at airports to ensure passengers did not have symptoms of Ebola before boarding international flights. They refused to deliver thousands of sets of personal protective equipment (which American taxpayers had already paid for) intended for health care workers on the front lines of the outbreak. They put Ebola experts on administrative leave, locking them out of USAID’s email server and systems. How did the administration justify its failure to respond? Tim Meisburger, Trump’s appointee in charge of humanitarian assistance, put it bluntly: “Ebola is a scam.”

A child returning from school stopped to look at Ebola awareness illustrations in Munigi this month.

At a White House Cabinet meeting in late February 2025, Elon Musk blatantly lied to the American public, stating that he had “restored Ebola prevention immediately, and there was no interruption.” As he spoke, his DOGE team was terminating the very contracts needed to respond to the outbreak. That was the last straw for me. I decided to expose, in a series of memos, what was actually happening at USAID and how the systematic destruction of our global health programs would inflict suffering around the world on a massive scale and threaten the health and safety of Americans.

The destruction at USAID was not limited to its response to Ebola. The entire agency — which is credited with saving 92 million lives over the past two decades on less than 1 percent of the federal budget — was, as Musk gloated, fed “into the wood chipper.” I watched DOGE shred all our lifesaving health programs — work that spanned HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, nutrition, family planning, and pandemic preparedness. As my final official act as a civil servant, I compiled the risks of the cuts across all our programs, and the projected cumulative devastation was overwhelming.

Reflecting modeling and analysis compiled by technical experts across USAID’s health programs, my memos predicted dire consequences. The estimates indicated that up to 2.6 million additional people could die unnecessarily each year due to the cuts to USAID. That included as many as 28,000 cases of viral hemorrhagic fever, like Ebola. But Ebola would only cause a tiny fraction of the impact. The modeling projected, for example, an additional 166,000 deaths each year from malaria and a 30 percent annual increase in tuberculosis, the world’s leading infectious disease killer, which claimed the lives of over a million people each year before the cuts. Nor would the damage be limited to infectious diseases. The cuts would have an outsize impact on maternal and child health, with 16 million pregnant women not receiving services like essential medications and services for postpartum hemorrhaging and eclampsia; 11 million newborn babies not receiving critical postnatal care within two days of their birth; nearly 15 million sick children not receiving treatment for pneumonia and diarrhea, two of the top causes of preventable death in children under age 5; 3 million people with HIV losing access to their lifesaving treatment; and 1 million children not treated for severe acute malnutrition.

One of my memos concluded that the cuts to USAID “will lead to increased death and disability, accelerate global disease spread, contribute to destabilizing fragile regions, and heightened security risks — directly endangering American national security, economic stability, and public health.” Issuing the warning cost me my job — the same day I published the memo, I was pushed to administrative leave, ending my 15-year career in federal service.

Ebola is just the tip of the iceberg

Now, a year later, the devastation has unfolded largely as I predicted. Today the horrors of Ebola capture global health headlines. But the ongoing outbreak in the DRC is unfortunately only the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface lies far broader, though less reported, wreckage caused by the dismantling of USAID in combination with the US withdrawal from the WHO, the gutting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — including the decimation of the Vaccine Research Center responsible for discovering Ebola vaccines — and deep cuts to health research at leading American scientific institutions.

The impacts of the cuts were immediate and tragic. Health clinics and emergency ambulance services shuttered overnight. Clinical trials were deserted. Thousands of health care workers lost their jobs. Lifesaving food and medicine was left to expire in warehouses. According to conservative estimates, in the year since USAID was dismantled, 750,000 people have died as a result of the cuts. For the first time in a generation, more children died in one year — 2025 — than in the previous year.

Catastrophic though the last year has been for global health, the longer term outlook is even worse. Destroying USAID ended its unprecedented global immunization campaign that protected millions of children from some of the world’s deadliest preventable diseases. Testing and diagnosis rates for HIV and tuberculosis are plummeting as decades of progress toward controlling the world’s top infectious disease killers is erased. Independent researchers estimate that up to an additional 14 million people may perish over the next five years, people who would have survived if USAID programs remained.

Americans should be particularly concerned by how much ground has been lost on pandemic preparedness in the past year. Over the past decade, and especially since the Covid pandemic, the United States invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing a global early warning system to ensure that countries are prepared to detect and respond to emerging disease outbreaks before they can spread into more serious crises. And then the Trump administration abruptly abandoned these efforts — in an instant setting us back years in pandemic preparedness. Today, despite all our investments, we are now less prepared for the next pandemic threat than we were before Covid.

Not too late

Despite all the setbacks, it is not too late to act. The immediate need is to commit the personnel and resources to forcefully respond to the current Ebola outbreak. That means reengaging with the local, regional, and international partners we ghosted last year and reestablishing American leadership and coordination in the international outbreak response. The administration should immediately reverse course on the State Department’s ineffective policy of banning travel to the United States from affected countries (including even travel by American citizens exposed to Ebola) — a shortsighted attempt to keep the virus outside our borders. The moves are counterproductive — complicating delivery logistics for critical supplies, dissuading experts from joining the response, and discouraging the reporting of cases in new areas — and only serve to stoke division at a time when global coordination is critical.

Ultimately, this Ebola outbreak should serve as a wake-up call for the administration to begin reinvesting in the systems and expertise required to advance global health and effectively detect and respond to the next pandemic threat. That means filling key government positions that currently sit unoccupied — the US ambassador to the DRC and the directors of the CDC, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Global Health Security and Biodefense in the National Security Council, to name just a few. It means recognizing that global coordination is critical to preparedness and reengaging with the WHO. And it means collecting and analyzing data on the effects of the global health cuts to understand the full extent of the destruction — informing evidence-based assessments of what needs to be prioritized for reinvestment.

The Trump administration has backtracked on bad policy before, and faced with sharp enough opposition, it can be forced to reverse course again.

The Ebola outbreak may be the most vivid reminder of the consequences of America’s having walked away from its longstanding role as a leader in global health. But it is only the most easily recognizable symptom of the damage the administration’s cuts have wrought on global health. The broader deadly impacts — increases in maternal and child mortality, backsliding on decades of progress combating HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, and renewed vulnerability to emerging pandemic threats — are already occurring, even as the public remains largely unaware.

Ebola Outbreak Map: Cases Hit 600 in Africa, Drawing US Attention

USA TODAY

June 11, 2026, 10:50 a.m. ET

What is the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola?

What challenges do healthcare workers face in treating the 2026 Ebola outbreak?

How did the U.S. respond to the 2026 Ebola quarantine controversy in Kenya?

Full Summary

The 2026 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, caused by the Bundibugyo strain, has exceeded 600 confirmed cases and prompted a large international response, while U.S. officials say the risk of widespread transmission in the United States remains low.

Africa's Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda has reached more than 600 reported cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to the Ministries of Health in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there have been 598 confirmed cases and 115 deaths as of June 8, the CDC reported. There have also been 19 confirmed cases of Ebola in Uganda, including two deaths.

For most people in the United States, it is very unlikely that a virus such as Ebola could become widespread, according to the CDC. The U.S. Department of State has outlined specific precautions and response strategies, while stating that there is still little chance of an Ebola outbreak in the United States.

Where the 2026 Ebola outbreak is centered

The first suspected case in 2026 of the new strain of Ebola, called Bundibugyo strain, was reported in late April in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and was officially investigated in early May, according to the World Health Organization. Testing shows that, unlike earlier strains, there is currently no approved vaccine or targeted treatment for the virus strain.

Where Americans abroad will receive Ebola care

Americans who contract Ebola abroad are now typically treated at specialized centers in Europe, including facilities in Berlin, Germany. The U.S. government has also set up a dedicated quarantine and treatment site in Kenya for Americans in Central Africa who have been exposed to the virus or are showing early symptoms, the Wall Street Journal reported.

An American missionary who contracted the disease on May 17 and was evacuated to Charité Hospital in Berlin has since been treated, released and is now in good health, according to reports from University of Minnesota.

Where Ebola outbreaks have previously hit in Africa

More than 28,600 people were infected during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the largest outbreak since the virus was first identified in 1976, according to WHO.

Ebola health care workers grapple with supply shortages

In the outbreak, 34 health care workers across the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda have been infected and five have died.

Lack of personal protective equipment, hygiene supplies and diagnostic instruments is making it more difficult for health care workers to respond safely, which raises their risk of infection, according to Reuters.

The rare Bundibugyo strain of Ebola circulated for weeks undetected in Congo's remote northeast before the first samples tested positive in mid-May, according to WHO. Aid groups are now scrambling to rush in supplies to the Ituri Province, the conflict-hit region where the outbreak originated.

Major donors have been scaling up support. The U.S. has delivered 150 tons of medical supplies and pledged over $200 million directly to the affected countries, a State Department spokesperson said, making it the largest financial contributor to the Ebola ‌response.

How contagious is Ebola virus?

Every virus has an R₀ factor (or reproduction number), which estimates the number of individuals one infected person is likely to infect others in the absence of interventions such as vaccination and infection control.

Compared to other infectious diseases, Ebola has a Ro factor of about 2, which is relatively low number compared to COVID-19 or measles, but it has a much higher fatality rate, according to the National Library of Medicine.

How does Ebola start?

Ebola is introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected animals. In Africa, infection has been documented through the handling of infected fruit bats, monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, forest antelope and porcupines found ill or dead in the rainforest.

What are the symptoms of the Bundibugyo Ebola strain?

The symptoms are generally similar to those of other Ebola viruses, though experts cannot be entirely sure because only a limited number of cases of this particular strain had been observed before the most recent outbreak. They typically begin abruptly, appearing anywhere from two to 21 days after infection.

Can Ebola be cured and is there a vaccine?

Certain strains of Ebola, especially the Zaire strain – which has caused significant outbreaks in the past, including the largest outbreak on record in 2014 – have vaccines. However, the Bundibugyo strain causing the current outbreak has no licensed vaccine available, according to the International Medical Corps.

Potential vaccines are being developed and tested by researchers and global health partners. In the meantime, public health measures,  including surveillance, infection prevention and community awareness, are crucial for controlling outbreaks.

Ebola Outbreak, DRC and Region, Situation Report #6, June 11, 2026

Format Situation Report

11 Jun 2026

FAST FACTS

On May 15, the DRC officially declared an outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD).

As of June 10, 635 confirmed EVD cases and 127 confirmed EVD deaths had been reported in the DRC, with 19 confirmed cases and two confirmed deaths in Uganda.

In the DRC, the outbreak remains centered in Ituri province, but cases have also been confirmed in North Kivu and South Kivu.

In Uganda, reported cases remain linked to transmission originating in the DRC, including imported cases and secondary infections among contacts and healthcare workers.

In South Sudan, no EVD cases have been confirmed, but risk of an outbreak remains high.

OUR RESPONSE

Across the region, our teams are providing case management, infection prevention and control, screening and triage, risk communication and community engagement (RCCE), training and preparedness planning.

We are supporting 51 facilities in the screening, identification and treatment of EVD.

Our supported sites have conducted 8,278 EVD screenings and provided treatment to 59 patients.

We have so far trained 255 people on EVD case management, response and transmission prevention.

Our RCCE efforts have reached 27,357 people.

With the support of the US Department of State and other donors, International Medical Corps rapid-response teams are actively responding to the outbreak and engaging with ministries of health, key actors and response partners in 30 health zones across the DRC, Uganda and South Sudan. International Medical Corps, which is active in 51 health facilities across the region, has used a hub-and-spoke model since the outbreak was declared to provide case-management support at designated treatment and transit facilities, strengthen infection prevention and control in referring health facilities, conduct screening and triage, support RCCE in surrounding communities and train health workers on EVD response protocols. We are operating three Ebola Treatment Centers in the DRC, responding in Uganda through a local partner and helping the Ministry of Health in South Sudan (where we currently are the only implementing partner with active capacity for Ebola case management) prepare for a potential outbreak there.

Scientists Race to Test Treatments as Ebola Outbreak Widens

Trials are beginning on several drugs that have shown promise in preliminary studies against the virus that is causing the current outbreak.

By Carl Zimmer and Stephanie Nolen

June 12, 2026

9:26 p.m. ET

In a hastily assembled Ebola treatment center in Rwampara, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dr. Papys Lame and his colleagues rehydrate patients who arrive in paroxysms of diarrhea and vomiting, transfuse those who bleed uncontrollably from their noses and mouths, and provide oxygen for those in respiratory distress. They monitor patients’ hearts and blood pressure, and treat their intense pain.

It’s a significant improvement from outbreaks that Dr. Lame, the Ebola response coordinator in Congo for the Alliance for International Medical Action, worked on even five years ago. “Today we have more options, and more people survive,” he said.

But they are still missing something crucial: a treatment that specifically targets Bundibugyo virus, the species that has caused the current outbreak in East Africa. At least 695 people have been infected so far, and 138 have died. Scientists are searching intensely to find drugs that might work.

Why are there no treatments for Bundibugyo virus?

Over the past 50 years, most outbreaks of Ebola disease were caused by a different species of virus, known as Ebola virus. Based on clinical trials, the World Health Organization recommends two drugs as treatments for Ebola virus.

But just because scientists know that a drug works against one virus doesn’t mean that it works against the other. Their evolutionary differences are just too great.

After Bundibugyo virus emerged in 2007, scientists ran preliminary experiments with cells and animals to see if any drugs could stop it. Some of those studies yielded promising results. But scientists did not push the research further, because before now there had only been two small outbreaks of Bundibugyo virus. With limited funds to perform the expensive research, they had to choose their battles.

“If you were a betting person, you would not have bet on Bundibugyo to cause something large,” said Thomas Geisbert, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. “And, of course, we’re all wrong now.”

Now scientists are rushing to pinpoint drugs to test in clinical trials against Bundibugyo virus. The W.H.O. has put together a list of candidates for immediate trials. Scientists are also hunting for other compounds that might be worth testing.

What would a drug need to do to work?

One type of drug that works against viruses is known as a monoclonal antibody. This molecule locks onto the surface of a virus and prevents it from getting into cells.

Other drugs, known as antivirals, stop viruses from replicating once they have gotten inside cells. Some grab onto viral proteins, causing them to shut down. The disabled proteins can no longer do essential jobs like making new virus genes.

A monoclonal antibody called MBP-134 has proved effective at stopping Bundibugyo infections in monkeys, and in early clinical trials for Ebola virus, it has also proved safe for people to take.

In a few cases, doctors are already using MBP-134 to treat Bundibugyo infections. An American physician, Dr. Peter Stafford, received it after he became infected in Congo and was flown to Europe for treatment last month. He also received remdesivir, an antiviral drug that’s been used in the past for other diseases, including Covid. It has shown promise in early studies on Bundibugyo virus.

Dr. Stafford was discharged from Charité Hospital in Berlin on June 6. It’s impossible to know for certain if MBP-134 or remdesivir helped save his life. The only way to gain that kind of knowledge is through carefully designed clinical trials, comparing people who get experimental drugs with those who get only supportive care.

Clinical trials may start soon.

To prioritize which drugs to test in trials, the W.H.O. brought together experts to review preliminary studies. On May 28, they recommended moving MBP-134 and remdesivir into clinical trials, along with another monoclonal antibody, maftivimab, and another antiviral, obeldesivir.

An ordinary clinical trial can take many months or even years. It takes time to get regulatory approval, organize the logistics and find enough patients to treat. Many past Ebola outbreaks ended before clinical trials could even begin.

The Bundibugyo outbreak could be different, said Dr. Amanda Rojek, an associate professor of health emergencies at the University of Oxford and a veteran of Ebola response. She and other researchers have been developing a new kind of clinical trial that makes it possible to test a single drug in multiple outbreaks caused by different viruses.

Dr. Rojek and her colleagues began a trial of remdesivir in Rwanda in 2024, during an outbreak of Marburg, another species of virus that causes a lethal disease much like Ebola. Dr. Rojek plans to combine these results with a new trial in which remdesivir will be tested against Bundibugyo virus.

While the trial design may speed up results, the current outbreak presents a host of challenges, she warned. It is taking place in an active conflict zone, and treatment centers are only now getting set up. And there is limited infrastructure to support clinical trials.

What treatments will be tested?

Given the scope of the need for treatments, there are frustratingly few good candidates for scientists to test.

“There are only a limited number of candidates available for clinical trials, meaning that if these fail, there are no ready alternatives in the pipeline,” said Carmen Pérez Casas, the head of pandemic preparedness at the global health agency Unitaid, which is trying to arrange funds for early clinical testing of possible therapeutics.

Dr. Rojek’s trial will test two of the treatments on the W.H.O. priority list. Some patients will receive MBP-134, while others will receive MBP-134 plus remdesivir. “We think there might be a combination effect between some of these agents,” she said.

The trial is in the final stages of regulatory approval, she said.

“I’m pretty optimistic that remdesivir may work,” said Dr. Salim Abdool Karim, who is in Congo and leads the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention experts group on the outbreak. “It will be quite quick to show efficacy, because we have the patients there in the hospital. And if remdesivir does work, it’s quite a cheap drug, and generics are widely available.”

Are there drugs that can prevent people from getting sick in the first place?

Possibly.

Public health workers in Congo and Uganda are tracking down people who have had contact with patients and could be infected. For now, the contacts have to wait in isolation to see if they develop symptoms.

Researchers hope to test an antiviral that may lower the risk that contacts develop Ebola disease — a strategy known as post-exposure prophylaxis.

The trial will test a 10-day course of obeldesivir. The drug is essentially a cheap, oral form of remdesivir.

“This is the potential game-changer,” said Dr. Armand Sprecher, an epidemiologist and emergency physician with Doctors Without Borders who has worked on half a dozen Ebola outbreaks. “In somebody who is incubating illness, you could effectively cure them before they become sick. And it also means that they are not in the community shedding virus.”

Promising hints of obeldesivir’s effectiveness emerged from a study published last year by Dr. Geisbert and his colleagues. They gave monkeys obeldesivir starting just 24 hours after infection with Ebola virus — long before they would normally start showing symptoms.

“They were completely protected,” Dr. Geisbert said. “I mean, they didn’t even get sick.”

They also tested the drug against another species of virus that causes Ebola disease, called Sudan virus, and against Marburg. In all three cases, obeldesivir protected the animals.

But before the current outbreak, the scientists had not yet tested it on monkeys infected with Bundibugyo virus.

For pre-exposure prophylaxis to work, a health system has to be effectively tracing contacts. An effective drug would give those directing the outbreak response something to offer people, an incentive for sick people to go into isolation wards, if they know the family members who were caring for them could receive the protective pills.

If any of these drugs work, will East Africans get them?

The family members of Dr. Stafford, the American physician treated for the virus, were given MBP-134 in Berlin as post-exposure prophylaxis. None developed Ebola disease. As they were leaving the hospital, Dr. Stafford expressed his gratitude but added that he hoped all patients in Congo could receive the same level of care he and his family did.

Questions of access have haunted treatments tested in previous Ebola outbreaks. Dr. Rojek called post-trial access a critical issue and said it was “being worked through at the moment” for the therapeutics that might be tested in this outbreak.

In 2019, during an Ebola outbreak in Congo, a trial funded largely by the U.S. National Institutes of Health tested four monoclonal antibodies treatments. Two of the drugs cut deaths in patients by as much as 50 percent. One of them was developed from the blood of a Congolese Ebola survivor.

And yet, despite the public funding and the local origin of the treatments, there was no guarantee that the promising drugs would be supplied in Congo. Two companies, Regeneron and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, ended up holding the intellectual property. Neither has yet registered either drug in any of the countries where Ebola outbreaks occur.

Ridegeback says it has provided, one of the drugs, ansuvimab, free in four Ebola outbreaks in D.R.C.  under a special access protocol, though declined to say how many patients had received it. But most of the supply of both drugs is held in the United States’ national security stockpile.

Carl Zimmer covers news about science for The Times and writes the Origins column.