• Sam Bankman-Fried's Anthropic stake was liquidated in bankruptcy court two years ago.
• The feds seized shares belonging to two co-conspirators, Caroline Ellison and Nishad Singh.
• The government quietly sold those Anthropic shares last year. It's unclear where the money will go.

A little over a year ago, the federal government acquired a stake in Anthropic without paying a penny.

The shares were seized from associates of the crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried. From there, they disappeared into a legal black hole.

As Anthropic rockets toward what could be the biggest IPO in history, those shares could now be worth billions of dollars.

Bankman-Fried's own Anthropic stake was liquidated in the bankruptcy of his failed cryptocurrency exchange. The Anthropic equity owned by Caroline Ellison and Nishad Singh, two associates who invested alongside him, took a different path. The government seized those shares and sold them to existing Anthropic shareholders, according to a person familiar with the sale.

It's still unclear whether the proceeds will be paid out to victims of the $11 billion fraud case, or if the feds will just keep the money.

It also remains a mystery which investors bought Singh's and Ellison's stock and how much they paid, but Anthropic shares have been on such a dizzying climb that it's likely those investors made a killing on them.

Bankman-Fried was convicted in 2023 on fraud and money laundering charges and sentenced to 25 years in prison after the collapse of his cryptocurrency empire. Prosecutors said he used his crypto hedge fund, Alameda Research, to siphon billions of dollars from customers of FTX, his crypto exchange.

The story of the crypto criminals' Anthropic shares is a tale with extraordinary elements, including one of the biggest financial frauds in modern history, a messy bankruptcy docket, and a company that experienced one of the fastest appreciations in business history as the world suddenly realized AI's existential importance.

An intelligent investment

Bankman-Fried, Singh, and Ellison each invested in Anthropic's 2022 Series B funding round. Bankman-Fried bought $500 million worth, which according to court records represented 13.56% of Anthropic at the time. Singh acquired $40 million in shares, and Ellison acquired $10 million in shares, court records reviewed by Business Insider show.

The artificial intelligence company's valuation has soared over the past four years. On the secondary market, Anthropic has been valued at $1.5 trillion. It is the most valuable private company in the world, according to Crunchbase.

The Anthropic shares purchased by Singh and Ellison could together be worth between $4.17 billion and $5.03 billion today, based on the $965 billion valuation the company announced this May, according to Olav Sorenson, who teaches venture capital strategy at UCLA. Harrison Rolfes, an analyst at PitchBook, put the combined figure at $2.62 billion. If Anthropic went public at a $2 trillion valuation, the shares would be worth about $5.44 billion, Rolfes said.

Four of Bankman-Fried's close friends and executives at his companies pleaded guilty as co-conspirators. Three of them, including Singh and Ellison, testified against him.

Ellison was the CEO of Alameda Research, which traded and invested funds that belonged to FTX depositors. She was also Bankman-Fried's on-and-off romantic partner. Singh, an FTX executive and early employee, misrepresented the exchange's revenue to investors.

After the collapse of FTX, Bankman-Fried's Anthropic shares — which were owned by Clifton Bay, an entity affiliated with Alameda Research — ended up in bankruptcy court along with the other dredged-up remains of his companies. His Anthropic shares were liquidated to pay FTX's creditors.

The estate in 2024 sold Bankman-Fried's Anthropic shares to a few dozen buyers for a total of $1.3 billion, more than double what he paid. The largest stake went to an entity affiliated with a United Arab Emirates sovereign wealth fund, bankruptcy court filings show.

The feds take a stake in Anthropic

As part of their sentences, a judge required Singh and Ellison to forfeit their Anthropic shares, which prosecutors said could be considered proceeds of their crimes.

At Singh's sentencing hearing, one of his attorneys, Andrew Goldstein, said Singh purchased his shares before participating in the criminal conspiracy and "he actually may have had a legitimate legal claim" to the shares but agreed to give them up as part of his plea agreement "because it was the right thing to do."

Reached for comment for this story, Goldstein told Business Insider that Singh hopes the government is able to quickly distribute proceeds of the sale to FTX victims. An attorney for Ellison declined to comment.

A federal judge ordered Ellison's and Singh's Anthropic shares to be transferred to the federal government, which took ownership of Ellison's shares in February 2025 and Singh's in April of that year, according to previously unreported court records.

Ordinarily, victims of crimes are compensated through a restitution process, which is overseen by courts. But the number of potential FTX victims could be in the millions, prosecutors said in court filings. As a result, the judge ruled, victim compensation would be handled through a process called remission, which is overseen by the Justice Department.

During Ellison's sentencing hearing, Justice Department prosecutors told the judge that the DOJ would either set up its own claims administration process to compensate victims, or work with the FTX bankruptcy process to identify victims and provide forfeited funds to them.

At the time, FTX's bankruptcy process was in full swing. A Delaware court appointed Sullivan & Cromwell, the elite Wall Street law firm, to untangle the company's assets, figure out who was owed money, and pay them.

The creditors in the FTX bankruptcy, prosecutors noted, largely overlapped with FTX's victims. They were generally depositors, lenders, and investors who were defrauded by Bankman-Fried and other executives. Prosecutors said the Justice Department could work with the bankruptcy estate's lawyers to get money back to them, as it had in previous large-scale financial frauds such as Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

There was an unusual twist that set the FTX bankruptcy apart. Bankman-Fried's investments — especially the Anthropic shares, along with some cryptocurrency — had grown substantially in value since FTX's collapse. Earlier in 2024, the Sullivan & Cromwell lawyers who'd taken over FTX projected that all the creditors would be repaid in full, with interest.

The Marshals take control

While prosecutors said they intended to use Singh's and Ellison's Anthropic shares for remission, the Justice Department could technically do whatever it wanted with them, according to Duncan Levin, a white-collar defense attorney who teaches a course on forfeiture at Harvard Law School.

"It's a very opaque process," he said. "It's completely at the discretion, by law, of the attorney general of the United States."

Typically, when the feds seize shares of private companies through criminal asset forfeiture, they send the shares to the US Marshals Service Complex Assets Unit for liquidation. The unit tries to value the shares as any other investor would, said Michael Bachner, a white-collar criminal and securities litigation attorney.

"They may look to: What would an institutional purchaser pay for these securities?" Bachner said. "Are there funds that are valuing the securities? Is there a secondary market already out there?"

For the sale of the Anthropic shares, timing was crucial. The Marshals Service is supposed to preserve as much value as possible, Bachner said. By the time the feds got hold of the shares, Anthropic had become an economy-shifting AI giant. In its March 2025 Series E fundraising round, Anthropic was worth $61.5 billion. By its Series G round at the start of 2026, it was worth $380 billion.

At the same time, each fundraising round diluted the Series B shares. The FTX estate told the bankruptcy court that Bankman-Fried's shares, which in 2022 represented 13.56% of Anthropic, represented 7.84% of the AI company in January 2024.

The Marshals Service sold Singh's and Ellison's shares to existing Anthropic investors sometime last year, according to the person with knowledge of the sale.

It's not clear when exactly the agency sold the shares, to which investors, how those investors were chosen, at what price the shares were sold, or how much money the government made in the sale. Depending on when they were sold in 2025, the combined shares could have been worth between $300 million and $1.1 billion, according to Sorenson, the UCLA professor. Rolfes, the PitchBook analyst, estimated a range between $250 million and $630 million, depending on the timing.

The Marshals Service declined to comment. A representative for the Justice Department said information about asset sales and victim compensation is confidential.

The revenue from the sale of Singh's and Ellison's Anthropic shares doesn't appear to have been transferred to the FTX estate as of the end of June this year, according to bankruptcy court filings from the estate, which continues to compensate victims and creditors.

The FTX estate received $638 million last year from assets seized by the Justice Department, according to the estate's annual report for 2025. It's not clear from the filings where those funds came from. The estate expects to receive about $400 million more from the government at some point in the future, according to the annual report. That would include proceeds from cryptocurrency and other investments made by Bankman-Fried.

One of Bankman-Fried's victims, Sunil Kavuri, told Business Insider that the Justice Department should use the proceeds of Ellison's and Singh's Anthropic shares to compensate victims. It would be "diabolical" for the government to hold onto the proceeds, he said.

Victims haven't actually been made whole, he said, because the bankruptcy court calculated the losses of FTX depositors using the time of FTX's bankruptcy declaration, when crypto prices were at a low ebb. Kavuri previously argued in bankruptcy court that the FTX estate should have held on to its Anthropic shares for longer to take advantage of the company's swift growth.

Representatives for the FTX estate declined to comment. The Justice Department spokesperson said the matter was ongoing, and that the DOJ "prioritizes victim compensation from forfeiture and takes all steps to ensure forfeited funds are provided to victims."

The government could end up just keeping the money, Bachner said.

"They've invested millions and millions and millions of dollars in prosecuting Bankman-Fried. And they want to get at least reimbursed for their costs, so sometimes they'll do that," he said. "It's really a unilateral government decision."

Jack Newsham and Katie Roof contributed reporting for this story.

Correction: August 31, 2026 — An earlier version of this story misstated the number of co-conspirators who testified against Sam Bankman-Fried. It was three.

Update: August 31, 2026 — This story has been updated to reflect Singh's role in the FTX fraud case.

Correction: October 27, 2026 — FTX bankruptcy court filings don't make clear where the Justice Department obtained the $638 million it transferred to the estate. A previous version of this story mischaracterized the filings.

• People magazine has awarded 38 men the coveted title of Sexiest Man Alive.
• Mel Gibson was the first to receive the title in 1985. Noah Wyle currently holds the crown.
• Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Johnny Depp, and Richard Gere have each been selected twice.

Noah Wyle has been named the Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine.

People published its inaugural Sexiest Man Alive issue in 1985. Since then, 38 different men have received the title, with four of them being named Sexiest Man Alive twice.

The vast majority of the men on this list are white actors; only five men of color have been selected for People's famous cover. They're joined by a few musicians, one star athlete, and one Kennedy.

Continue reading for a list of every man who's received the title, listed in reverse chronological order.

2026: Noah Wyle

Noah Wyle rose to fame as Dr. John Carter in NBC's medical drama "ER," alongside former Sexiest Man Alive cover star George Clooney.

Wyle was nominated for outstanding supporting actor in a drama series at the Emmys several times in the 1990s, though he never won.

Two decades later, Wyle returned to the world of medical dramas as Dr. Michael "Robby" Robinavitch in HBO Max's "The Pitt" — and finally won his first Emmy for outstanding lead actor in 2025. He also won for outstanding drama series as an executive producer.

Wyle, 55, continued his winning streak into 2026, taking home a second consecutive best actor Emmy and the title of Sexiest Man Alive.

"You get into this because you are a natural observer. Then that privacy is immediately taken from you if you get any notoriety," Wyle told People of his acting career. "It could be a hard thing to reconcile. It took me a long time. 'The Pitt' gives me the opportunity to do it differently than I did the first time — with a little bit more presence and a little bit more composure."

2025: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey was an award-winning theater actor when he rose to global stardom as Lord Anthony in Netflix's Regency romance series "Bridgerton."

Bailey has since received an Emmy nomination for his role in the Showtime series "Fellow Travelers," made his big-screen debut in the 2024 musical hit "Wicked," and landed a leading role in the 2025 summer blockbuster "Jurassic World: Rebirth."

Bailey received the Sexiest Man Alive title ahead of the premiere of "Wicked: For Good," in which he reprises his role as Prince Fiyero. He is the first out gay man to grace People's most famous cover.

"It's a huge honor. Obviously, I'm incredibly flattered. And it's completely absurd," Bailey told People.

"When I was really young, I was very confident about who I was, and maybe I lost that as I grew up," he continued. "We're all sort of trying to get back to the origin, aren't we? But I was swimming in the sea about an hour ago with a good gang, and I felt all right in my skin."

2024: John Krasinski

John Krasinski rose to prominence as Jim Halpert on NBC's hit sitcom "The Office," which wrapped its nine-season run in 2013.

Three years later, Krasinski transitioned from supporting roles in rom-coms like "It's Complicated" and "Something Borrowed" to the leading man in Amazon's action series "Jack Ryan."

Krasinski also made his name as a director with 2018's "A Quiet Place," in which he co-starred with his real-life wife, Emily Blunt. The horror movie's rare box-office success led to a sequel in 2020 and a prequel in 2024 starring Lupita Nyong'o.

"I had to pitch the studio like 54 times before they said yes," Krasinski told People. "I'm pretty sure someone said, 'Sorry, is Jim from 'The Office' going to direct this?' And I went, 'Oh, it's John, but we'll get there.'"

2023: Patrick Dempsey

Patrick Dempsey starred as Derek Shepherd, aka "McDreamy," for 11 seasons on "Grey's Anatomy." The role drew a passionate following, including many supporters of his character's will-they-won't-they relationship with Meredith Grey, played by Ellen Pompeo.

Although Dempsey had been featured in People's Sexiest Man Alive issue several times before, he didn't take the crown until 2023, eight years after he left the hit show.

"I'm glad it's happening at this point in my life," he told People of the honor. "It's nice to have the recognition, and certainly my ego takes a little bump, but it gives me the platform to use it for something positive."

The actor founded The Dempsey Center to make comprehensive cancer treatment more accessible. He has also starred in beloved movies like "Sweet Home Alabama," "Enchanted," and its 2022 sequel "Disenchanted."

2022: Chris Evans

Chris Evans is best known for playing Captain America in the MCU, although he officially hung up his shield following "Avengers: Endgame" in 2019.

He has also starred in celebrated films like "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," "Snowpiercer," and "Knives Out."

"This whole thing is tough to be interviewed about. It feels like a weird form of humble bragging," Evans told People of the honor.

"My mom will be so happy," he added. "She's proud of everything I do but this is something she can really brag about."

2021: Paul Rudd

Paul Rudd's breakthrough role came in 1995, starring opposite Alicia Silverstone in the popular coming-of-age drama "Clueless."

He rose through Hollywood primarily as a comedic actor, starring in films like "Wet Hot American Summer," "Knocked Up," and "Anchorman." He also portrayed prominent recurring characters in beloved TV shows "Friends" and "Parks and Recreation."

More recently, Rudd is widely known for his role as Ant-Man in the MCU, as well as the critically acclaimed Netflix original series "Living With Yourself."

The 52-year-old actor said his wife was "stupefied" when he received People's coveted crown.

"I'm hoping now that I'll finally be invited to some of those sexy dinners with Clooney and Pitt and B Jordan," he told the magazine. "And I figure I'll be on a lot more yachts. I'm excited to expand my yachting life."

He continued: "And I'll probably try to get better at brooding in really soft light. I like to ponder. I think this is going to help me become more inward and mysterious. And I'm looking forward to that."

2020: Michael B. Jordan

Michael B. Jordan is the fifth man of color to receive People's honor.

He first rose to fame playing quarterback Vince Howard on NBC's "Friday Night Lights," but his Hollywood breakthrough came in 2013, when he starred in Ryan Coogler's directorial debut, "Fruitvale Station."

That same year, at the age of 26, he was featured in People's first annual Ones to Watch portfolio. 

He has since starred in major blockbuster films, including the 2015 "Rocky" sequel "Creed" and the MCU's 2018 masterpiece "Black Panther."

Jordan has also made a name for himself as a passionate activist for racial equality, marching in Black Lives Matter protests during the summer of 2020.

At 33, he described his Sexiest Man Alive title as "a cool feeling."

"When my grandmother was alive, it was something that she collected, and then my mom naturally reads it a lot and my aunts as well," he told People. "This is one that they're definitely going to have a special place for."

2019: John Legend

John Legend is only the fourth man of color to be chosen and the third-ever musician — all three of whom have starred as coaches on NBC's "The Voice."

At the time of his crowning, the "All Of Me" singer had released five critically acclaimed R&B albums, two of which had been certified platinum. His Sexiest Man Alive title came shortly after the release of "A Legendary Christmas Deluxe," the deluxe edition of his sixth studio album and first Christmas album.

Legend's wife, Chrissy Teigen, had an extremely on-brand reaction to her husband's announcement: "all downhill from here," she tweeted.

"She's proud of me," Legend told his fellow coaches on "The Voice." "You know, she makes fun of me almost all the time, but she hasn't even been snarky about this. She's like legit proud of me. I finally impressed my wife!"

2018: Idris Elba

Idris Elba became the third man of color to be given the honor. He rose to fame for his role as Baltimore drug kingpin Stringer Bell on HBO's "The Wire" in the early 2000s.

The actor also appeared in multiple Marvel Cinematic Universe films as the keeper of the Asgardian bridge, Heimdall. There has even been a fan-fueled campaign to crown him as the next James Bond.

"I was like, 'Come on, no way. Really?'" Elba told People about being named Sexiest Man Alive. "Looked in the mirror, I checked myself out. I was like, 'Yeah, you are kind of sexy today.' But to be honest, it was just a nice feeling. It was a nice surprise — an ego boost for sure."

2017: Blake Shelton

Blake Shelton is the second musician ever to be given People's highest honor.

Shelton's selection, however, did not go over well.

One person quipped: "I don't think he's even the sexiest man named Blake Shelton."

Still, Shelton's love life hasn't seemed to suffer since he received the Sexiest Man moniker. He and singer Gwen Stefani wed in 2021.

2016: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

Former professional wrestler and current actor Dwayne Johnson became the second man of color to be named Sexiest Man Alive after his celebrated voiceover role in Disney's "Moana."

When he heard of his Sexiest Man title, he told People, "I said, 'That's awesome.' And then what went through my mind was just how cool and exciting it is. And then I thought, 'Wow, we've pretty much reached the pinnacle.' I'm not quite too sure where we go from here. I've done it all, this is it."

2015: David Beckham

Despite being the first and only athlete to be honored with the annual cover, David Beckham told People, "I never feel that I'm an attractive, sexy person."

Beckham's wife, former Spice Girl Victoria Beckham, would likely disagree. 

In 2019, the couple's son, Brooklyn Beckham, was also featured in People's Sexiest Man Alive issue. 

2014: Chris Hemsworth

Chris Hemsworth has stolen hearts as Thor throughout Marvel's "The Avengers" franchise, which made him a natural pick for 2014's Sexiest Man Alive after "Thor: The Dark World" hit theaters the year before.

2013: Adam Levine

Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine became the first musician and second non-actor — out of only five total — to grace People's Sexiest Man Alive cover.

Levine made headlines in 2022 after Instagram model Sumner Stroh came forward and said that she'd had an affair with the singer. Stroh said that Levine, in fact, had asked her if he could name his next child with wife Behati Prinsloo "Sumner." 

Levine denied having an affair with Stroh but admitted that he had "crossed the line." 

Prinsloo and Levine welcomed their third child in January 2023. 

2012: Channing Tatum

Channing Tatum nabbed the cover after his star-making turns in "Magic Mike," "The Vow," and "21 Jump Street."

2011: Bradley Cooper

"I think it's really cool that a guy who doesn't look like a model can have this," Bradley Cooper told People after being named Sexiest Man Alive.

"I think I'm a decent-looking guy. Sometimes I can look great, and other times I look horrifying," the "Hangover" star said.

2010: Ryan Reynolds

Ryan Reynolds' forthcoming role in "Green Lantern" — and his self-deprecating humor — helped him become the first Canadian Sexiest Man Alive.

"The most difficult part is going to be organically working this title into a conversation with random strangers," he told the magazine.

2009: Johnny Depp

Johnny Depp landed on his second cover on the heels of his role in "Alice in Wonderland."

He has since fallen out of favor with many fans. Depp has been repeatedly accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife, Amber Heard, a claim that she continues to maintain. He denies it.

2008: Hugh Jackman

Hugh Jackman was named Sexiest Man Alive after his turn as Wolverine in "X-Men: The Last Stand."

2007: Matt Damon

Matt Damon was given the title after his third "Bourne" movie rocked the box office.

2006: George Clooney

George Clooney became the third man, after Brad Pitt and Richard Gere, to win People's honor twice.

2005: Matthew McConaughey

Matthew McConaughey scored the cover for People's 20th anniversary of Sexiest Man Alive after he became known for starring in popular romantic comedies, like "The Wedding Planner" and "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days."

2004: Jude Law

Jude Law scored People's most famous cover in the early 2000s.

"He's the most beautiful man who ever walked the earth — an absolutely perfect oil painting," Naomi Watts told People in 2004.

2003: Johnny Depp

In 2003, Depp had charmed the world as Captain Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl."

2002: Ben Affleck

The world couldn't stop talking about Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez in 2002.

"Chicks gravitate to him," Affleck's friend Kevin Smith, a director, told People at the time. "The word on the street is that he's the ideal man, chatty, gorgeous, generous, and intelligent."

2001: Pierce Brosnan

Pierce Brosnan was known as James Bond when he landed on People's coveted cover.

2000: Brad Pitt

In 2000, Brad Pitt was already a movie star — but coming off his wedding to Jennifer Aniston and his iconic role in "Fight Club," People decided to bestow Pitt with his second Sexiest Man Alive title.

1999: Richard Gere

When Richard Gere was named the Sexiest Man Alive in 1999, his ex-girlfriend Diane Von Furstenberg spoke glowingly of the decision.

"He walked like a biker, and that attracted me," she told People. "I knew I was going to get my hands on him."

1998: Harrison Ford

Harrison Ford's 1998 cover recognized his role as a blockbuster heartthrob thanks to "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones."

1997: George Clooney

Clooney secured his first Sexiest Man title while portraying the brooding Dr. Doug Ross on "ER."

1996: Denzel Washington

Denzel Washington became the first man of color — and the first of only five total — to grace the Sexiest Man Alive cover.

1995: Brad Pitt

A long-haired Pitt made the 1995 People cover after his much-celebrated starring roles in "Legends of the Fall" and "Interview With the Vampire."

Keanu Reeves was retroactively named 1994's Sexiest Man Alive.

Technically, "John Wick" star Keanu Reeves never starred on People's cover; the magazine didn't select a Sexiest Man Alive in 1994.

But the editorial director retroactively bestowed People's honor on Reeves in 2015.

1993: Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford

In 1993, People forwent the Sexiest Man Alive cover in favor of naming a Sexiest Couple Alive. The magazine chose the newly married couple Cindy Crawford and Richard Gere, who split one year later.

1992: Nick Nolte

In 1992, People explained Nick Nolte's appeal as his being a "big-lug Adonis with the heart of gold."

1991: Patrick Swayze

In 1991, Patrick Swayze had become one of Hollywood's most popular leading men, thanks to "Dirty Dancing" and "Ghost." The actor died in 2009.

1990: Tom Cruise

By 1990, Tom Cruise had already starred in a string of blockbusters, including "Top Gun," "Risky Business," "Rain Man," "Cocktail," and "All the Right Moves."

1989: Sean Connery

Sean Connery was 59 when he scored the coveted cover, making him the oldest Sexiest Man Alive to date.

1988: John F. Kennedy Jr.

John F. Kennedy Jr. — known in 1988 as political royalty, but something of a rebel — is one of only two winners to have died in the years since his cover. Kennedy was killed in a plane crash in 1999 with his wife, Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy, and his sister-in-law, Lauren Bessette.

1987: Harry Hamlin

Harry Hamlin made the cover during his five-year stint on the NBC legal drama "L.A. Law" as attorney Michael Kuzak.

The "Clash of the Titans" actor is now married to "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" star Lisa Rinna.

1986: Mark Harmon

Mark Harmon received the second annual honor — largely thanks to his starring roles on two hit shows, "St. Elsewhere" and "Moonlighting."

1985: Mel Gibson

Mel Gibson was named People's first-ever Sexiest Man Alive after his star-making turn in the original "Mad Max" trilogy.

In the years since, Gibson has become a controversial figure thanks to rampant antisemitism, racist rants, and a recording of him making a death threat against his ex-girlfriend.

Ahead of his 2025 inauguration, President Donald Trump named Gibson as one of his ambassadors to Hollywood, tasking them with bringing business back to the film industry.

More than 420,000 leaked emails have reopened a controversy over illegal donations to Germany’s Alternative for Germany party, while newly examined correspondence reveals previously undisclosed disagreements within its leadership. The revelations could also influence the continuing debate over the party’s constitutional status.

Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) is facing renewed scrutiny after hackers published a substantial archive of internal correspondence, exposing details of party finances, political strategy and disputes among senior officials.

The material, released on 19 October 2026, comprises approximately 421,000 emails and nearly 50,000 accompanying documents, amounting to some 281 gigabytes of data. The files cover more than a decade of party activity, including correspondence involving co-leader Alice Weidel, former chairman Alexander Gauland and other senior figures.

The AfD confirmed that its hosting provider had suffered a cyberattack in September. According to the party, the attackers obtained information from a limited number of email accounts, many of which had not been actively used for several years.

The identity of those responsible remains unknown.

The documents are being examined by several investigative teams, including ZDF, Der Spiegel and Austria’s Der Standard, with technical assistance from the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

The Swiss donations controversy returns

The most consequential findings so far concern Weidel’s knowledge of illegal campaign donations received during Germany’s 2017 federal election.

At the time, approximately €132,000 was transferred through Swiss companies into accounts belonging to the AfD’s Bodensee district organisation. The payments were designated for Weidel’s election campaign, particularly its social media activities.

When the transactions became public in 2018, Weidel maintained that she had not known about the money until September 2017 and described the donations as unsolicited.

However, correspondence examined by German investigators and journalists raises questions about that account.

In an email dated 10 July 2017, attributed to Weidel, she told her district treasurer that campaign donations had been promised and requested that the party’s bank account be checked twice weekly.

She also asked to receive confirmation of incoming payments so that campaign expenditure could be planned.

Four days later, the first payment arrived from Switzerland.

Further correspondence indicates that Weidel arranged a separate campaign account and obtained authority to direct expenditure from donations earmarked for her election activities.

The latest investigation, published on 26 October, provides additional details about the account’s management and how the party handled the ensuing controversy.

The leaked correspondence also reportedly includes invoices relating to the purchase of approximately 25,000 Facebook followers for Weidel’s campaign. The extent to which those accounts were automated, and their influence on voters, has not been established.

The AfD was previously ordered to pay approximately €396,000 for accepting the unlawful donations. Criminal proceedings involving Weidel and other district officials were discontinued in September 2021 because prosecutors found insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Weidel’s spokesman has rejected suggestions that she misrepresented events. He maintains that she had discussed possible contributions with several potential supporters but had neither anticipated specific amounts nor expected the payments from the Swiss companies concerned.

The new material does not establish that Weidel knew the identity of the ultimate donor or participated in concealing the source of the funds.

Emails reveal divisions over the party’s radical wing

Another development concerns Weidel’s earlier relationship with Björn Höcke, the influential leader of the AfD’s Thuringia organisation.

According to correspondence examined by WELT, Weidel expressed serious reservations between 2015 and 2017 about the influence of nationalist and extremist elements within the party.

She warned colleagues that associations with the anti-Islam Pegida movement and the far-right National Democratic Party risked alienating mainstream conservative voters, particularly in western Germany.

Her private concerns contrast with her subsequent accommodation of Höcke’s influence within the AfD.

The correspondence provides evidence of the internal disagreements that accompanied the party’s transformation from an initially Eurosceptic political movement into one centred increasingly on immigration, national identity and opposition to Germany’s established parties.

The revelations are particularly relevant because Weidel now promotes proposals for substantial changes to Germany’s relationship with the European Union.

As EU Today previously reported, she has advocated withdrawing Germany from the euro and the Schengen passport-free travel area.

Could the material influence an AfD ban?

The leak arrives amid continuing legal and political arguments over whether the AfD threatens Germany’s constitutional democratic order.

In May 2025, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classified the party as a confirmed right-wing extremist organisation. However, a Cologne court issued an injunction in February 2026, preventing that classification from taking effect pending a final judicial decision.

The court acknowledged evidence of anti-constitutional tendencies within the AfD but found that the material presented was insufficient at that stage to establish that they characterised the party as a whole.

The leaked emails could potentially become relevant to future assessments.

Germany’s Interior Ministry has confirmed that domestic intelligence authorities can, in principle, consider available information when evaluating possible threats to the constitutional order.

Nevertheless, whether unlawfully obtained correspondence could be admitted as evidence, and what weight it would carry, would require separate legal examination.

A party ban can be imposed only by the Federal Constitutional Court. The present disclosures do not themselves establish the legal conditions necessary for such a decision.

Questions over authenticity and data protection

The scale of the archive introduces further complications.

The material reportedly contains bank statements, membership records, personal correspondence and other confidential information involving thousands of individuals.

Journalists have verified portions of the correspondence by comparing messages with independently retained originals. Handelsblatt’s examination, for example, identified previously exchanged emails whose contents matched records held by its own reporters.

However, verification of individual communications does not establish the authenticity of every document in the archive. Fabricated messages have also circulated online.

In an official statement on 21 October, the AfD described the breach as criminal data theft and said it would not authenticate individual documents for journalists.

The party has also reported the incident to the authorities.

For Germany’s political institutions, the affair now presents several distinct questions: whether historical campaign finance arrangements were accurately disclosed, what the correspondence reveals about the party’s internal decision-making, and whether any of the documents provide evidence relevant to ongoing constitutional scrutiny.

Those questions remain open as investigators and journalists continue examining the archive.

One of the more interesting developments at the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has been the rise of a kind of sporadic alliance in defense of civil liberties between Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch.

In 2018, for example, Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor, blasted the Supreme Court for refusing to even hear arguments in Stuart v. Alabama, an important case about forensic evidence, criminal trials, and the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine one's accusers.

Similarly, in United States v. Davis (2019), Sotomayor joined Gorsuch's majority opinion striking down a federal law that called for enhanced sentencing when a gun was used in connection with certain federal crimes because the law at issue was too imprecisely written to pass constitutional muster. "When Congress passes a vague law," Gorsuch wrote, "the role of courts under our Constitution is not to fashion a new, clearer law to take its place, but to treat the law as a nullity and invite Congress to try again."

Gorsuch and Sotomayor have also been on the same page in a number of Fourth Amendment cases, though Sotomayor's overall Fourth Amendment record is arguably stronger than Gorsuch's. In Torres v. Madrid (2021), for instance, the Supreme Court held that when the police shoot a fleeing suspect, it still counts as a "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes even if the suspect kept on the move after being shot. "The application of physical force to the body with the intent to restrain is a seizure," the Court held, "even if the person does not submit and is not subdued." Sotomayor joined that pro-civil liberties decision; Gorsuch, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, sided with the officers and voted in dissent.

Fortunately, the Gorsuch-Sotomayor band was back together last week to make some noise in support of the Bill of Rights in a dispute that pitted property rights against police powers. As Reason's Billy Binion reported, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging a lower court's "categorical rule" that "property destroyed in the exercise of [a state's] 'police power' is immune to claims under the Takings Clause, the U.S. Constitution's pledge that government cannot usurp private property without fairly compensating the owner."

Sotomayor, joined by Gorsuch, strongly implied that she thought the lower court's rule was unconstitutional, though she accepted that "further percolation" on the issue was needed before the Court should step in. "Where, as here, a person alleges a 'classic taking in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use' or to pay an outstanding debt, like a tax lien," Sotomayor wrote, "the talismanic invocation of the State's 'law enforcement authority,' may be insufficient to avoid the requirement of just compensation." (Citations omitted.) Sotomayor then urged the lower courts that are "considering this issue to take care that due deference to state police powers does not eclipse constitutional rights."

Just as Gorsuch's Fourth Amendment record has its blemishes, Sotomayor's record on property rights has also been less than impressive at times. So it is doubly welcome to see these two justices back in the trenches together on this particular civil liberties front.

Elsewhere in the Law

Writing at SCOTUSblog, Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, has an interesting article about the Supreme Court's landmark 1926 decision in Euclid v. Ambler, in which, as Boden put it, the Court ruled in favor of a town's "power to pass comprehensive zoning, and against a local developer who had argued the town's plan exceeded the city's police power and destroyed the property's value." In effect, the Court's ruling was "the birth of modern zoning."

One of the things that has long fascinated me about Euclid v. Ambler is the fact that the opinion was authored by Justice George Sutherland, who is probably best remembered today for his role as a leading judicial foe of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. In Euclid v. Ambler, however, Sutherland endorsed a view of regulatory authority that has been celebrated by liberal academics as "a model of pragmatic and well-balanced Progressive jurisprudence."

I suppose we might call it an irony of legal history: The intellectual leader of the Supreme Court's anti–New Deal bloc actually left a greater mark on the law by shoring up the immense power of city planners.

The post Gorsuch and Sotomayor Unite in Another Civil Liberties Case appeared first on Reason Magazine.

• The feds seized Anthropic shares last year from Sam Bankman-Fried's associates.
• Several months later, the government sold them for $627 million.
• If Anthropic IPO'd in November at $1.5 trillion, those shares would be worth nearly $4 billion.

Last year, the federal government made a windfall of $627 million when it sold Anthropic shares it had seized from associates of crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.

If it had held on to that stake, its windfall could have been a lot bigger.

The federal government last year sold shares of Anthropic that had belonged to Caroline Ellison and Nishad Singh, two co-conspirators in the FTX fraud case. The proceeds went to compensate victims of the fraud, a Justice Department spokesperson told Business Insider.

Anthropic's S-1 filing on Monday revealed how much the federal government made from the sale of those shares. The prospectus doesn't name Ellison and Singh specifically. It says the government in October 2025 sold 4,453,900 Series B shares of Anthropic that "had been forfeited by former holders in legal proceedings to which we were not a party."

The figure matches up exactly with the combined $50 million in shares that Singh and Ellison purchased for $11.2261 each in Anthropic's 2022 fundraising round, and later forfeited to the government.

The shares represent about a quarter of a percent of Anthropic today. But given the company's explosive growth, they are still worth a fortune.

Anthropic hasn't yet announced the stock price for its expected November initial public offering. At a $1.5 trillion valuation, the shares would be worth a total of about $3.94 billion. That would be six times as much as the government sold the shares for a year ago.

"One of the Justice Department's top priorities is returning forfeited funds to victims through the asset forfeiture program whenever the law allows," the DOJ spokesperson said.

The feds' stake in Anthropic

How the federal government came to own a chunk of Anthropic in the first place is a story involving a notorious fraudster and a complicated criminal forfeiture process.

Bankman-Fried participated in Anthropic's 2022 Series B fundraising round with Singh and Ellison. Singh purchased $40 million of the Series B shares, and Ellison acquired $10 million.

Singh and Ellison later pleaded guilty to crimes related to their work with Bankman-Fried and testified against him at his Manhattan federal criminal trial. The jury found Bankman-Fried guilty, and a judge sentenced him to 25 years in prison. The federal government took ownership of Singh's and Ellison's Anthropic shares by April 2025.

The US Marshals Service sold Singh's and Ellison's shares, rather than hold on to the red-hot Anthropic stock, Business Insider previously reported. The US Marshals Service Complex Assets Unit is typically tasked with dispensing shares of private companies acquired through criminal forfeiture.

Now we know that Anthropic purchased the stock from the feds in October 2025 at the price of $140.9676 per share, which is the same price Anthropic set for its Series F-1 stock in a fundraising round a month earlier.

Anthropic resold the shares to nine investors at the same $627 million total price it paid to purchase them from the federal government, so it didn't make a profit from the sale, according to the S-1 filing. It's not clear which nine investors purchased the shares originally owned by Singh and Ellison. Representatives for the US Marshals Service didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Anthropic shares owned by Ellison and Singh took a different path than the $500 million in Series B shares owned by Bankman-Fried himself. His shares ended up as part of FTX's bankruptcy estate, which sold them in 2024 to a few dozen buyers for a total of $1.3 billion.

The federal government sent the proceeds from the sale of Ellison's and Singh's shares to the FTX bankruptcy estate, the Justice Department spokesperson said. Bankruptcy court filings show that the Justice Department transferred $638 million to the bankruptcy estate in late 2025.

The money has gone to repaying creditors, including FTX customers and investors who were scammed by the former crypto wunderkind.

Update: October 26, 2026 — This story has been updated to include a comment from the Justice Department.

Correction: October 27, 2026 — The federal government transferred the proceeds of the sale of Caroline Ellison's and Nishad Singh's Anthropic shares to the FTX bankruptcy estate, according to a DOJ spokesperson. An earlier version of this story misstated whether the funds had been transferred.

In a historic turn of electoral tides, Brazil’s incumbent president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated far-right opponent Flávio Bolsonaro on Sunday (25 October,) alleviating fears that a Bolsonaro-dynasty comeback would topple the world’s fourth-largest democracy. 

Following a disastrous first-round election for Lula on 4 October, in which he narrowly lost a majority in Brazil’s national congress, the Workers’ party leader overturned predictions to become the first president to win the second round of voting after losing the first one.

First-round voting gave 47 percent for former president Jair Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio, and his rightwing Liberal Party, whose voters mainly represent wealthy and emerging middle classes in the south of Brazil, as well as evangelical Christians, one of the largest religious groups in the country. 

Lula’s northeastern, working class, multi-racial support base only made up 45 percent of all primary votes, but climted to 51.8 percent in Sunday’s second-round of the presidential election. 

Despite setting a record in being the first Brazilian president to win four non-consecutive terms, Lula’s triumph still leaves room for possible conflict. 

Bolsonaro, whose campaign capitalised on continuing the work of his divisive father, who is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election, refused to concede defeat – leaving an open window for history to repeat itself. 

“We’ll request the annulment of these elections,” Bolsonaro told the press after votes had been counted, accusing Brazil’s Supreme Court of having “changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game,” by ordering polls to stay open for two more hours on Sunday.

What Brazil’s nationalist candidate declared as “unacceptable” was an idea initially intended to facilitate all Brazilians’ attendance at the polls, since multiple areas were reported to have been affected by public transport problems. 

Bolsonaro’s issue with the courts is another link in the chain of power-hungry promises he had made during his campaign to “re-democratise this country”.

Without guidance on what that could mean beyond his publicised desire to extend the duration of presidential terms, many voters fearfully associated his remarks with a potential coup, or with Jair Bolsonaro’s infamous liking for authoritarian rulers – including Brazil’s own 1964-1985 dictatorship.

‘Lula’s army’

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Commanders suspected of sexual violence during the largest and fastest slaughter of civilians in more than 30 years have been subjected to travel ban and asset freeze

Senior Sudanese commanders implicated in a “campaign of rape” have been targeted by the UK on the first anniversary of a mass atrocity that saw tens of thousands of civilians killed over several days.

A year after the fall of El Fasher, the British government said it had sanctioned military leaders from both sides in the country’s ongoing conflict whom it suspected of sexual violence during the siege of the city.

• Big Law has plenty of competition for its best lawyers.
• Some of the most ambitious lawyers want to work for clients in their legal departments.
• New Pirical data shows which law firms have the most alumni working in Big Tech.

Big Law has a hard time keeping its lawyers.

It's not just rival firms dangling basketball-player salaries, extra vacation, and branded merch to lure away top talent.

Big Tech is competing for those lawyers, too.

New data shared with Business Insider reveals which firms send the most lawyers to the biggest names in tech.

Pirical, a legal people-analytics company, tracked lawyers who previously worked at the 200 largest law firms by revenue in the United States and now hold legal roles at seven tech companies: Google, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX. Pirical filtered out summer associates and interns.

Morrison Foerster and Wilson Sonsini tied for the top spot, each with 40 alumni working in legal roles across the seven companies. Both firms regularly represent tech startups and the investors backing them.

Latham & Watkins followed with 33 former lawyers. Kirkland & Ellis, the industry's revenue leader, ranked 11th with 21 former lawyers working at those companies, tied with Paul Hastings and Sidley Austin.

Pirical's analysis may have missed lawyers whose job titles fell outside its search criteria, said Craig Savitzky, its insights and content editor. He said newer companies, particularly Anthropic, are also likely undercounted because their legal teams are growing faster than public profiles are updated.

Big Law-Big Tech pipeline

For attorneys hoping to land a coveted job at a tech giant, a stint at a white-shoe law firm can be a stepping stone. They can trade billable-hour quotas for a seat closer to the business, attractive pay, and just one client to keep happy instead of dozens.

That combination makes these roles "some of the most highly desirable and sought-after positions" for law firm associates, said Casey Sullivan, a recruiter with CMW Legal Search.

There's another draw, Sullivan said. The companies at the forefront of artificial intelligence are wrestling with some of the thorniest legal questions of the day, from intellectual property to regulation.

"That's where the most interesting work is for lawyers," he said.

Not all law firms are equally effective launch pads. Pirical's Savitzky noted that the firms near the top of the list have deep ties to the tech industry, if not the deepest pockets.

Cooley brought in $2.4 billion in revenue last fiscal year, placing it 29th on The American Lawyer's ranking of top law firms by revenue. But it tied fourth on Pirical's list, with 29 alumni working at the seven tech companies, including nine at Nvidia, a longtime client.

Davis Wright Tremaine, which has represented Microsoft in antitrust and employment lawsuits, has 13 alumni working in the software giant's legal department. Fenwick, which advised Wiz and Fitbit on their sales to Google, has 13 lawyers at the search giant.

Business Insider also sliced the data another way, looking at which of the seven tech giants employ the most alumni from the top 25 firms on Pirical's list.

Big Law is effectively a feeder school for Google's legal team. The company employs 322 alumni of the top 25 law firms on Pirical's list, more than any other tech company studied.

That doesn't necessarily mean Google is the most desirable location for lawyers leaving Big Law. Savitzky said the numbers likely reflect the sheer size of Google's legal department and the decades it has had to recruit from top firms.

Members of the European Parliament are visiting Amazon logistics centres in Germany and Poland this week to investigate working conditions and the use of digital monitoring systems, reopening a dispute between the technology company, European legislators and trade unions over employee rights.

The fact-finding mission, scheduled for 26th and 27th October, will examine how Amazon organises work, measures employee productivity and uses automated systems in warehouses. MEPs will meet management, employees, works councils and trade union representatives, with particular attention to whether technological changes are affecting workers’ health and their ability to exercise employment rights.

The investigation comes as the European Commission prepares its Quality Jobs Act, which is expected to address algorithmic management, occupational safety and working conditions across the European economy. Amazon’s extensive logistics network makes the company a prominent example of the questions legislators must resolve.

MEPs enter warehouses after prolonged dispute

The delegation is led by Li Andersson, chairwoman of Parliament’s Employment and Social Affairs Committee, and includes Belgian MEPs Liesbet Sommen and Estelle Ceulemans, alongside representatives from several other political groups.

According to the European trade union federation UNI Europa, MEPs will inspect facilities in Dortmund and Mönchengladbach on Monday before travelling to Poland on Tuesday.

The German visits will cover older warehouse operations and newer facilities incorporating robotics, allowing parliamentarians to compare different approaches to handling orders and managing employees. The Polish programme includes a major returns facility in the Katowice area.

The visit follows several years of strained relations between Amazon and the European Parliament.

In February 2024, Parliament withdrew permanent access badges from Amazon representatives following disagreements over the company’s participation in hearings and requests for visits to its warehouses.

Amazon disputed suggestions that it was avoiding scrutiny, maintaining that it had offered alternative arrangements for parliamentary visits during periods when its logistics operations were particularly busy.

Company executives eventually appeared before the Employment and Social Affairs Committee in January 2026, where they defended Amazon’s employment policies and workplace practices.

The controversy over digital surveillance

At the centre of the dispute is the increasingly widespread use of electronic systems to monitor productivity.

Warehouse employees commonly use handheld scanners, while automated systems can help allocate tasks, coordinate movements and identify delays in processing orders.

These technologies allow employers to manage substantial logistics operations with considerable precision. They also make it possible to collect detailed information about individual workers’ activities throughout their shifts.

Trade unions argue that such monitoring can create unreasonable performance pressure, particularly where targets are adjusted automatically or workers cannot challenge assessments generated by software.

The concerns are not confined to Amazon.

A European Commission survey examined by EU Today earlier this month found that 42 per cent of surveyed smaller and medium-sized businesses already used artificial intelligence or algorithmic management systems.

However, 49 per cent of respondents expressed distrust of automated systems making decisions about employees, illustrating the distinction between using technology to support management and delegating consequential decisions to algorithms.

Previous regulatory action

Amazon has already faced formal European regulatory scrutiny over workplace monitoring.

France’s data protection authority imposed a €32 million fine on Amazon France Logistique in December 2023, announcing the decision in January 2024. The regulator concluded that certain employee monitoring practices were excessively intrusive and breached data-protection requirements.

The investigation examined the collection and retention of detailed information from warehouse scanners, including productivity indicators and periods of inactivity.

Amazon rejected the regulator’s conclusions and subsequently appealed the decision. The penalty therefore needs to be distinguished from any final judicial determination of the dispute.

The case nevertheless demonstrates that workplace monitoring falls within existing European privacy legislation, independently of proposals for new employment rules.

EU Today has also reported on the application of European data-protection law to automated employment decisions, including the question of whether meaningful human review is available when software affects a person’s ability to work.

Amazon disputes allegations

Amazon maintains that its warehouse technology is intended to improve operational efficiency, safety and the reliability of deliveries.

In its January parliamentary testimony, the company defended its investment in employee training and insisted that workers have the right to join trade unions.

It also pointed to engagement with works councils and employee representative bodies across its European operations.

Trade unions contest the adequacy of those arrangements, particularly in Germany, where the ver.di union has repeatedly sought a collective agreement covering Amazon employees.

These competing positions will form part of the parliamentary delegation’s assessment.

Implications for EU employment legislation

The Commission’s Quality Jobs initiative addresses several questions raised by the Amazon dispute, including algorithmic management, psychosocial risks and the effectiveness of collective bargaining.

Legislators must determine how far employers should be required to disclose the operation of automated monitoring systems, how employees can contest decisions and what safeguards should apply when performance targets are generated by software.

Rules must also accommodate legitimate requirements for stock management, security and workplace safety.

The parliamentary visit will not itself establish whether Amazon has breached employment legislation. It is a fact-finding exercise intended to inform future policy discussions.

Its importance lies in giving legislators direct access to warehouse operations and employee accounts before deciding how European labour law should respond to increasingly automated workplaces.

A student movement that emerged after a deadly railway disaster has turned nearly two years of protests into an electoral victory.

Serbia’s student-led opposition has secured a decisive parliamentary victory over Aleksandar Vučić’s ruling party, according to preliminary results, ending 14 years of political dominance by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and opening a new chapter in the country’s politics.

RELATED: Serbia’s Vucic Concedes Victory to Opposition Students Party

Vučić acknowledged the defeat on Sunday, saying initial projections indicated that the Student List would win between 135 and 140 seats, compared with about 105 for his party. The result follows nearly two years of student-led demonstrations against corruption and what protesters describe as growing authoritarianism.

The Centre for Free Elections and Democracy (CeSID), a non-governmental organization, projected that the Student List would win 139 seats after 56% of ballots had been counted, against 104 for the SNS. Unofficial estimates from polling institute Ipsos put the student movement at 140 seats and Vučić’s party at 103, down 26 seats from the 2023 parliamentary election, when it secured an absolute majority.

The setback was compounded by the failure of the Socialist Party, a longtime ally of Vučić, to clear the 3% threshold for parliamentary representation. The party previously held 18 seats. Preliminary estimates also gave three seats to Serbia’s Hungarian minority party and two to the Albanian minority list.

Turnout approached 70%, the highest since the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1992 and close to the record set in the 2000 parliamentary election.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por Al Jazeera English (@aljazeeraenglish)

The student movement grew out of protests that began in 2024, after 16 people died when a canopy collapsed at a railway station in Novi Sad. The disaster prompted mass demonstrations across Serbia, with protesters demanding accountability over the collapse and the construction work carried out by a Chinese company following a tendering process criticized for its lack of transparency.

Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, turning the demonstrations into a broader challenge to corruption and the concentration of political power. The student movement emerged as a nationwide opposition force and sustained pressure on Vučić’s government for nearly two years.

Vučić, who had led the country for 14 years, resigned as head of state in September to run for prime minister.

Celebrations and tensions in Belgrade

The preliminary results sparked celebrations across Belgrade, where thousands gathered to dance, chant slogans and set off flares and fireworks. Crowds shouted “Victory” and “Vučić is leaving” as people embraced and wept with joy.

Slavija Square, a focal point of the mass protests against the government, filled with supporters of the student movement. At Pioneers Park, between parliament and the presidential palace, hundreds of people tore down the fence surrounding the grounds and entered the public space.

The park had been closed to the public for months and periodically occupied by groups of masked Vučić supporters, who were accused of being used as a force to confront government opponents.

The celebrations underscored the scale of the political shift after more than a decade of SNS rule. Vučić had weathered previous opposition challenges, but the student movement turned sustained street protests into an electoral campaign that defeated his party.

A decentralized political movement

The Student List has presented itself as an alternative to Vučić’s centralized model of leadership. It operates through a horizontal structure and has avoided putting forward a single public face, arguing that political decisions should be made from the bottom up rather than imposed from above.

Its slate of 250 candidates includes university professors, actors and farmers, many of them little known to the wider public.

Radomir Sajcic, a University of Belgrade professor representing the movement, celebrated the result at its headquarters. “Dear Serbia, tonight the voice of the people can be heard,” he declared. “Tonight we celebrate victory; tomorrow we will build the future.”

Sajcic also described the outcome as “a victory of courage over fear, a victory of hope over indifference, a victory of faith that Serbia can and must be different.”

The movement’s platform calls for restoring the separation of powers and the autonomy of the prosecutor general’s office, as well as increasing investment in health care and education. It also pledges to tackle corruption and individual privileges to boost public revenue, while promoting technological modernization across the economy, including agriculture.

Serbia’s score in Transparency International’s corruption index has deteriorated during Vučić’s tenure. The European Union has also raised concerns about the country’s declining adherence to the rule of law.

European support and foreign policy questions

European institutions have welcomed the student movement’s victory, describing it as an opportunity to advance democratic reforms, strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption.

European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen congratulated the students and offered support for reforms and greater press freedom. Council of Europe Secretary-General Alain Berset highlighted Vučić’s acceptance of the results and his commitment to a peaceful democratic transition.

Montenegrin Prime Minister Milojko Spajić and Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar also congratulated the winners and expressed their willingness to cooperate with them.

The election could also affect Serbia’s relations with the European Union and Russia. Under Vučić, the country has pursued EU membership while maintaining close ties with the Kremlin. Serbia has been an official candidate for EU accession since 2012.

Before the vote, EU foreign policy spokesperson Christian Wigand said the bloc would monitor the election closely and stressed the need for a free, fair and transparent process.

The Student List has offered fewer details about its international priorities than about its domestic reform agenda. Available indications suggest it may maintain Serbia’s EU candidacy while continuing to oppose sanctions against Russia, although the movement has yet to clearly outline its foreign policy plans.

The student movement’s victory marks a major political turning point for Serbia after 14 years of Vučić’s dominance. Its ability to convert demands for accountability and institutional reform into a parliamentary majority has reshaped the country’s political landscape, but the incoming government’s approach to domestic reform and foreign relations remains uncertain.

A country with a population of 1.3 million announces that it can strangle the commercial lifeline of the world’s leading nuclear power in a matter of hours.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A string of provocations, but it’s all just cheap jewelry

Certain statements should be read twice – the second time aloud – to be sure you didn’t dream them. The one that Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna gave to The Times on October 7 falls into this category. Estonia, the minister informs us, would be able to assemble a force of 50,000 experienced soldiers “in a matter of hours” and, again within a few hours, block Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea, which he describes as a vital artery of the Russian economy. For Moscow, that sea is a matter of survival, he added, especially since the Black Sea, he claims, is already closed off. Then, with a sense of timing that no playwright would have dared to imagine, Tsahkna called it “absurd” to describe NATO as an offensive organization.

The minister’s outburst did not come out of the blue. It comes at the end of an autumn that Tallinn has methodically shaped. In mid-September, the government announced it was ready to seal the border if a general mobilization were declared in Russia; on October 1, it banned the transit of Russian and Belarusian wheat; around the same time, the Financial Times reported on elite units being deployed to the border and the purchase of weapons capable of striking deep into Russian territory. The defense budget for 2026 stands at 2.4 billion euros, or 5.4% of gross domestic product. We are looking at a country of 1.3 million people that has chosen to live in a state of constant readiness and to let the world know, every week, just how prepared it is to fight.

The minister was careful to specify that the blockade would be triggered only after a Russian attack capable of invoking Article 5. The clause is about as reassuring as a “friendly dog” sign hanging on the gate of a kennel. Publicly announcing a plan to choke off a nuclear power’s main energy export route remains a deliberate political act, regardless of any qualifying conditions attached to it. Under customary international law, a naval blockade is an act of war; and in the age of severed cables, stateless drones, and oil tankers in the so-called “shadow fleet,” the threshold for what constitutes an “attack” has become elastic. Who decides when it has been crossed? The very same government that denounces a new provocation every morning?

The math of fifty thousand

Let’s focus on the numbers, which are the most entertaining part. According to public data from the Estonian armed forces, the wartime strength is just over 43,000. Of these, only 4,200 are on permanent standby; the rest are reservists and volunteers from the Defense League – brave people who train in the woods on weekends. So, there are no 50,000 “experienced” soldiers in a matter of hours. Unless you count those from other countries.

And that is exactly how the figure should be interpreted. Tsahkna’s 50,000 do not speak Estonian. They are the British contingent stationed in Tapa with its French reinforcements, the navies of Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, the aircraft of a few allies on rotation, and the Americans when they have time. A dozen or so flags, each with its own chain of command, its own parliament, its own public opinion, and its own election calendar. The Estonian minister disposes of that army the way a condominium manager disposes of the residents’ savings: in words, with great nonchalance. Could some assistant please explain to him how to do his job?

Let’s try to imagine the first missile. In London, the cabinet meets and seeks a legal opinion. Paris launches a strategic review, which requires a document and a conference. Berlin awaits the Bundestag’s vote and the blessing of its less-than-convinced coalition partner. Rome seeks clarification at the Atlantic Council; Budapest puts its reservations on record; Washington is busy elsewhere. Article 5, after all, doesn’t force anyone to fire a shot: it obligates each ally to take the action it deems necessary, and “necessary” can mean anything from an aircraft carrier to a note of protest. The oldest debate in any coalition would immediately begin: who steps in first, who withdraws last, who covers whose flank, and who pays for the fuel. Meanwhile, the Estonians would be there counting down the minutes.

European history is all too familiar with this scenario. In September 1939, France and Great Britain had guaranteed Poland’s security with the same solemnity with which Tallinn is guaranteed today. They declared war, and then spent eight months behind the Maginot Line simply watching: the French called it the drôle de guerre, the “phoney war.” Warsaw, meanwhile, had long since stopped laughing.

Let’s now set aside arithmetic for geography, which isn’t swayed by interviews – someone should tell the Minister that! About eighty kilometers of sea lie between Tallinn and Helsinki: it is along this narrow passage that the minister would like to close off the Gulf of Finland. From the Estonian capital to the Russian border at Narva, there are just over two hundred kilometers. Russia’s GDP, in nominal terms, is more than fifty times that of Estonia. The Baltic Fleet is based in Kronstadt, at the far end of the Gulf, and in Baltiysk, in the Kaliningrad exclave; which means, incidentally, that a substantial portion of that fleet is already outside the “plug” that Tallinn dreams of inserting.

Strategists carefully distinguish between three things that Estonian politicians happily confuse: guarding a passage, making its use risky for the adversary, and maintaining stable control over it. The first is possible; the second is costly; the third, against Russia, has never succeeded for anyone. Those who lay mines may fall victim to them; those who deploy coastal anti-ship batteries become, in turn, fixed targets, surveyed down to the meter.

And this is where physics comes in. Russia’s conventional arsenal includes Iskander missiles deployed just a few dozen minutes’ flight away, ship-launched Kalibr missiles, TOS-1A thermobaric rocket launchers, and high-yield glide bombs. There’s no need to bring up nuclear warheads, which remain the favorite bogeyman of Western talk shows. The coastal batteries, depots, command centers, and docks from which our dear friends in Tallinn intend to block the Gulf would go from a solid to a gaseous state in the time between launch and impact. And with them, the solidity of Estonia’s political stance would evaporate, long before an agreement on the statement is reached in Brussels. We’re not writing this to be smug. We’re writing this because, in that scenario, ordinary Estonians would be the first to pay the price, used as pawns by a ruling class that’s playing with fire in its own living room.

Creative accounting for oil

There remains the issue of the “lifeline.” Tsahkna attributes about 60% of Russian oil exports by sea to the Baltic route. Estimates from the Polish think tank OSW – which cannot be suspected of sympathizing with Moscow – put the figure at about one-third of crude oil and nearly half of refined products; and Reuters data from February show that oil continued to ship out from Russian ports on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, despite the sea being “already closed.” Inflating figures is an age-old rhetorical technique: it serves to make the threat seem more deadly than it is and one’s own position stronger than it actually is.

Moreover, a blockade would not affect only Moscow. Neutral shipowners, insurance companies, freight rates, refineries, and energy prices would all suffer the consequences, and Europe – which in recent years has already paid dearly for its economic war against Russia – would once again bear the cost. There’s even a grotesque detail: in 2025, Estonia sold goods worth approximately 252 million euros to Russia. They’re threatening to cut off their neighbor’s lifeline, but in the meantime, business as usual continues.

Why, then, all the fuss? The answer lies in the role the Estonian ruling class has carved out for itself within the Alliance: that of the permanent vanguard, the most zealous member of the eastern flank, the top student who raises their hand before the teacher finishes the question. It’s a source of privilege. It guarantees attention, funds, allied troops on its territory, and invitations to summits. And it becomes all the more valuable as the possibility of a ceasefire in Ukraine draws nearer – a prospect feared in many Atlantic capitals as the end of the emergency that justifies everything. So the fever must be kept high: a statement every week, a ban every month, a threat of a blockade every fall.

In 1955, Leonard Wibberley published a satirical novel, *The Mouse That Roared*, in which the tiny Grand Duchy of Fenwick declared war on the United States with the sole purpose of losing it and collecting reconstruction aid. The difference with Tallinn lies in the ending. The Grand Duchy counted on losing to a generous power, an ocean away. Estonia is threatening a neighboring power – one that has forgotten nothing since 1991 – and is entrusting its fate to a coalition that has never fought a real war together against an opponent of equal strength.

From apotheosis to casus belli?

Let’s recap. A country with a population of 1.3 million announces that it can strangle the commercial lifeline of the world’s leading nuclear power in a matter of hours. To do so, it relies on soldiers it doesn’t have – lent by allies it hasn’t consulted – based on oil figures that Western sources themselves downplay. It ties all of this to a war that its rhetoric makes a little more likely every day, and in the same breath accuses those who see NATO as something offensive of absurdity. If there is such a thing as the apotheosis of the absurd, it can be found at the Foreign Ministry in Tallinn.

Moscow, to tell the truth, doesn’t even need to respond. Geography does it, the balance of power does it, and the history of European coalitions – which have always found it easier to make promises than to keep them – does it. Deterrence that turns into permanent provocation ceases to dissuade and begins to seek its own casus belli. The Baltic Sea deserves mature diplomacy among the coastal states that will have to share it anyway. For now, it must settle for – a minister who roars – and an audience of allies who, at the first real blow, will look around wondering who should answer the phone.

Nearly 1,000 arrests after another weekend of demonstrations expose a government squeezed between legitimate public anger and violent disorder. France requires a conservative response that defends taxpayers, businesses and the rule of law.

France’s latest weekend of protest presents Emmanuel Macron with a question that presidential speeches cannot settle: can his government protect ordinary citizens while addressing the grievances driving them onto the streets?

Nearly 1,000 arrests were reported after Saturday’s demonstrations, with clashes in Paris and other cities. Most participants protested peacefully over education and living costs. But masked groups again turned public mobilisation into confrontation, leaving police to restore order.

From a conservative perspective, this matters enormously. Peaceful assembly belongs to the democratic inheritance France should defend. Throwing projectiles at officers, intimidating businesses and destroying property belong in the criminal courts. Economic hardship explains anger; it does not confer permission to terrorise a neighbourhood.

The Interior Ministry counted 410,000 demonstrators nationwide, while the CGT union estimated nearly 800,000. Authorities deployed 70,000 officers, supported by helicopters and armoured vehicles. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said the operation helped prevent a repetition of the previous weekend’s widespread looting.

That offers some reassurance. Yet a country requiring such an extraordinary deployment to contain weekend demonstrations has a deeper problem than crowd management. Police can clear a junction. They cannot, by themselves, rebuild confidence in a political class that many citizens believe no longer understands their lives.

The most easily overlooked people are those with the least protection: independent shopkeepers, employees losing shifts, residents trapped behind barricades and taxpayers financing the response. Their interests deserve the same attention as the demands carried on banners. Keeping a business open is also a contribution to national life.

The BBC reported that shops were boarded up, cultural institutions closed and more than 20 Paris metro stations shut. These precautions may have been necessary, but they also demonstrate how disorder imposes costs far beyond those directly involved. A disrupted capital is a warning about the erosion of everyday freedom.

The government’s responsibility therefore extends beyond announcing arrest totals. Suspected offenders should face prompt, fair proceedings, with meaningful penalties where guilt is established. Where legally appropriate, those responsible for deliberate damage should contribute towards repairs. Public confidence depends on consequences that are visible, proportionate and consistently applied.

Consistency also requires rejecting violence from every political direction. Regional authorities reported that far-right extremists fought demonstrators in Nice, where 11 people were arrested. A credible conservative position cannot excuse street intimidation because its perpetrators claim patriotic motives. The law loses authority whenever political allegiance becomes an unofficial exemption.

Nevertheless, restoring order cannot substitute for governing competently. The movement grew from complaints about school staffing and resources into broader protests over household costs. Those concerns deserve answers. Parents expecting functioning classrooms and workers struggling to afford necessities are asking whether the state delivers what it promises.

The conservative answer should begin with value for money. Before reaching automatically for additional taxation or borrowing, ministers should explain where existing resources go, which programmes deliver results and which administrative burdens consume money better spent on essential services. Public expenditure should be judged by outcomes rather than the generosity of announcements.

There is an equally strong case for policies that reward employment, investment and enterprise. A government cannot sustainably improve living standards while treating the businesses creating jobs as an inexhaustible source of revenue. Nor can it promise every constituency protection from difficult choices. Credibility requires priorities, arithmetic and candour.

Macron’s political opponents will understandably seek advantage. But opposition leaders should be judged by whether they offer workable government, including a clear rejection of intimidation. Encouraging public anger is easier than reconciling demands for better services, affordable living and sound finances. France needs politicians prepared to explain those trade-offs honestly.

The immediate task is to keep streets safe. The larger task is to make democratic government effective enough that citizens trust its decisions. France needs firm policing, accountable institutions and economic realism. Unless its leaders provide all three, each weekend of unrest risks becoming another advertisement for the failure of the governing establishment.

France’s Unrest Exposes a New Front in Russia’s Information War Against Europe

The violence accompanying France’s October protests has revealed how foreign influence networks can exploit domestic grievances to undermine governments and European support for Ukraine. New evidence suggests Russian-linked operations were active before the riots, raising questions about whether information manipulation is moving beyond propaganda towards the mobilisation of political unrest.

France’s violent protests have exposed a vulnerability in European security that conventional policing cannot easily address: the ability of foreign information networks to exploit domestic political crises, amplify social divisions and transform legitimate grievances into instruments of geopolitical pressure.

President Emmanuel Macron has acknowledged foreign manipulation of information surrounding the disturbances of 17–18 October but insists there is no evidence that foreign actors organised the violence itself. His assessment reflects the evidence currently available, although new investigations indicate that Russian-linked networks were actively exploiting the protest movement weeks before the worst disorder began.

On 24 October, France deployed approximately 70,000 police officers and gendarmes to prevent further violence. Yet the security operation addresses only the physical consequences of a crisis whose online dimension extends across national borders.

Russia’s operations began before the riots

An investigation published on 22 October by Alliance4Europe provides evidence that Russian-linked information networks were exploiting French discontent well before the disturbances.

Researchers examined 547,471 posts and articles across nine languages. They identified 639 coordinated messages attributed with high confidence to Russia’s Doppelgänger operation, generating approximately 7.4 million views in the six weeks preceding 17 October.

The campaign used genuine concerns about living costs and public expenditure to promote a particular political argument: money allocated to Ukraine was being taken from European citizens.

This was not a random selection of grievances. France’s budget difficulties, public-service pressures and disagreements over defence expenditure provided material through which Moscow could seek to weaken support for Kyiv.

The researchers found that the operation targeted pro-European and pro-Ukraine politicians across the political spectrum. It praised selected proposals associated with Jean-Luc Mélenchon while also promoting nationalist narratives, illustrating a strategy driven less by ideological consistency than by opposition to existing European policies.

From manipulating opinion to encouraging mobilisation

An earlier investigation by EK Strategies, published on 8 October, identified an additional development.

Russian-linked channels were not merely commenting on existing demonstrations. They were circulating protest dates, identifying organisers and encouraging French audiences to follow the example of demonstrators in Germany.

On 28 September, the International Reporters network published an appeal urging French audiences to take to the streets. Other channels subsequently reproduced information about planned school blockades and demonstrations.

In one instance, a channel identified as Gavroche published rhetoric encouraging an attack on France’s Education Ministry.

Such activity goes beyond retrospective propaganda. It attempts to influence participation and behaviour while events are developing. Nevertheless, evidence that a network encouraged protests does not establish that it controlled the organisers or directed subsequent violence.

The original demonstrations arose from domestic grievances over schools, prices and government policy. The significance of the foreign activity lies in attempts to redirect and intensify an existing movement.

How France’s crisis was rewritten abroad

Once violence erupted, the information campaign acquired an international audience.

Alliance4Europe found that claims blaming migrants or Islam for the disturbances appeared in approximately one in 33 French-language posts, compared with nearly one in five English-language posts.

False allegations that immigrants had burned Limoges town hall circulated substantially more frequently in English than in French.

The same report identified 1,018 articles distributed through 28 websites associated with the Russian Pravda network. Their rapid republication across languages enabled a common narrative to reach audiences far beyond France.

The operation also presents a longer-term technological problem. Repeated publication of manipulated accounts can contaminate material subsequently retrieved or reproduced by artificial-intelligence systems, allowing false narratives to persist beyond the original campaign.

The political effects were visible when President Donald Trump and other foreign leaders portrayed France’s unrest principally through immigration and cultural conflict.

Speaking in Qatar on 21 October, Macron rejected these portrayals and criticised the circulation of fabricated AI-generated images. His remarks identified foreign manipulation after the riots but stopped short of alleging foreign responsibility for their organisation.

The Heritage Foundation and transatlantic networks

The transcript raises a more substantial allegation: that the American Heritage Foundation and Russia’s FSB have participated in a coordinated effort to destabilise France.

There are documented connections between the Heritage Foundation and political institutions associated with Hungary’s former prime minister Viktor Orbán.

A 2026 investigation into Hungarian-funded international influence networks established that the Danube Institute had channelled substantial public funding towards foreign researchers and commentators. The institute also maintained a formal relationship with Heritage.

Heritage has acknowledged its cooperation with Hungarian conservative institutions but denied receiving funding or direction from foreign governments.

These relationships demonstrate the development of transatlantic political networks capable of circulating common ideas about sovereignty, migration and European integration.

They do not establish operational cooperation with Russian intelligence. Nor has credible evidence emerged connecting Heritage to the organisation or financing of France’s October riots. Ideological convergence, institutional cooperation and participation in a clandestine operation require separate evidential assessments.

The implications for European security

The European Union’s response has exposed a regulatory problem.

Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, major online platforms must address systemic risks arising from their services, including the amplification of illegal content and threats to public security.

On 23 October, the French government announced enhanced cooperation with digital platforms. More than 100 priority reports had been submitted ahead of the weekend demonstrations, approximately half resulting in account suspensions.

These measures targeted unlawful online activity, particularly incitement to violence and looting. They did not constitute findings that the suspended accounts belonged to foreign intelligence networks.

The European Commission has likewise refrained from activating emergency measures under the Digital Services Act without sufficient evidence connecting foreign manipulation to the violence.

The broader security concern is that foreign operations can exploit the interval between the emergence of social unrest and the establishment of reliable information about its causes.

Russia need not organise an entire protest movement to advance its strategic interests. By amplifying domestic grievances, promoting hostility towards support for Ukraine and circulating distorted accounts internationally, it can attempt to convert France’s internal political difficulties into pressure on European policy.

With France approaching its 2027 presidential election, these operations warrant continuing scrutiny. The central investigative question is no longer simply whether foreign networks spread false information after violence occurred, but whether their activities before and during demonstrations materially influenced mobilisation, radicalisation or political responses.

The evidence currently demonstrates organised manipulation and attempts at amplification. Establishing direct responsibility for violence would require a further evidential step, involving financial records, communications, operational instructions or connections with identifiable perpetrators.

France’s experience illustrates how contemporary information warfare can operate within a democratic society without necessarily directing events on the ground. Its immediate objective may be to alter the political interpretation of a crisis; its longer-term consequence may be to influence the policies adopted in response.

En cette année 2026, véritable *annus horribilis* où l’impérialisme a fait arrêter des présidents légitimes comme Maduro au Venezuela et massacré des guides spirituels et religieux tels que Khamenei, l’Occident collectif continue de se poser en juge des « droits de l’homme ». La situation semblerait grotesque si elle n’était tragique. Toutefois, une analyse approfondie révèle toutes les ramifications de l’affaire, lesquelles s’inscrivent pleinement dans la vision colonialiste que l’Occident entretient à l’égard du reste du monde ; ce dernier est perçu comme une simple entité indistincte, vouée à être jugée, traduite en justice et soumise afin d’en extraire de la valeur. Dans cette optique suprémaciste, les peuples ne sauraient nourrir la moindre ambition de souveraineté ni prétendre à une quelconque représentation, car ils ne sont pas considérés comme des peuples capables d’accéder au statut de nations, mais simplement comme des multitudes vouées à la domination.

par Paolo HAMIDOUCHE

Peu importe que l’Occident soit en faillite face au Sud global. L’idéologie suprémaciste qui imprègne la rhétorique colonialiste des droits de l’homme continue d’agir, alimentée par de bonnes intentions. De bonnes intentions seulement, car les actes restent marqués par la violence et l’oppression. Ainsi, lors de la Troisième Commission de la 81e Assemblée générale de l’ONU, l’Occident — emmené par l’empire britannique déchu — a de nouveau attaqué la République populaire de Chine sur la question des « droits de l’homme ». Dans sa réponse, le représentant permanent adjoint de la Chine auprès des Nations unies, Sun Lei, a souligné le deux poids, deux mesures à l’œuvre, d’autant plus que ces normes — que les « maîtres » voudraient voir respectées à l’étranger — ne sont absolument pas appliquées en Occident même. Quelques jours plus tard, la porte-parole du ministère russe des Affaires étrangères, Maria Zakharova, a elle aussi remué le couteau dans la plaie en demandant à l’Élysée des nouvelles du « jardin enchanté » (référence à Josep Borrell) où les droits de l’homme sont suspendus à l’égard de « ses propres enfants » manifestant dans la rue. Enfin, l’Iran n’a évidemment pas manqué de souligner, par la voix de M. Baqaei, le changement de ton brutal opéré en quelques mois sur la question des droits de l’homme selon la zone géographique, avertissant : « Si les droits de l’homme et le droit de manifester sont des principes universels, leur définition ne devrait pas varier en fonction de la situation géographique du manifestant. »

Désormais, même la conception libérale des « droits formels » est remise en question en Europe sous prétexte de « guerre hybride » et de pressions géopolitiques. Il suffit de songer à Macron lui-même, en proie à la paranoïa face aux infiltrations prorusses, lui qui a fait part aux chefs de parti de ses craintes de déstabilisation il y a à peine quelques semaines. En Amérique, en revanche, la situation est peut-être pire encore : avec Maduro, on a agi de manière autoritaire, sans le moindre artifice rhétorique pour tenter de justifier le coup d’État. Et aujourd’hui, dix mois plus tard, on en rajoute.

Le FBI a en effet fait savoir qu’il retenait un nouveau chef d’accusation contre le prisonnier Maduro et son épouse Flores : « complot en vue de commettre des actes de torture ». Les procès politiques — lorsqu’ils ont lieu, contrairement au sort réservé à Khamenei, exterminé avec une partie de sa progéniture — visent la famille pour « complicité » et se fondent, de toute évidence, sur des chefs d’accusation variables. Le caractère personnel de la responsabilité pénale devient aléatoire, tout comme le chef d’accusation est fluctuant, lorsqu’une inculpation politique est engagée par un régime ; ainsi, le « complot en vue de commettre des actes de torture » devient une infraction où l’intention délictueuse et la faute s’étendent à tout l’entourage de l’accusé. Appelons donc les choses par leur nom : il s’agit d’un procès politique, et non judiciaire. Or, l’Occident, qui en cette année 2026 s’est adonné aux procès politiques sommaires, a l’audace de se poser en « maître » — pour ne pas dire en « juge » — et de pointer du doigt la République populaire de Chine pour son mépris de la vie humaine. C’est curieux, ne serait-ce que parce que le respect de la vie humaine exigerait la reconnaissance et le respect de la diversité des formes d’organisation des populations, de l’autodétermination des peuples et de tous ces principes dont l’Occident continue de se moquer au nom de la primauté du modèle de gouvernement libéral-démocrate. Un modèle qui, plus que jamais en 2026, s’avère n’être qu’une forme au sens littéral du terme, c’est-à-dire une simple « apparence extérieure ». En effet, cette démocratie libérale recèle en son sein des failles qui en compromettent désormais la survie même. Prenons pour exemple ce qui se passe en Roumanie où, après la victoire du candidat souverainiste indépendant C. Georgescu, les élections ont été purement et simplement annulées au motif d’une « manipulation des suffrages ». Aucun « juge » des sacro-saints « droits de l’homme » occidentaux n’a trouvé à redire au fait qu’une instance constitutionnelle puisse décréter quel suffrage est « manipulé » et lequel est « intègre ». La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a même avalisé cette décision en déclarant irrecevable le recours de Georgescu. Par ailleurs, ces « juges » qui aiment discourir sur la situation politique d’autrui n’ont rien vu des conditions liberticides — dignes d’un réfugié — imposées à Julian Assange pour le « crime » de journalisme, avant qu’il ne soit contraint de faire amende honorable et de se retirer de la vie publique. C’est ce qu’a dû faire le président Georgescu en Roumanie, mais cela n’a pas suffi dans son cas. Le délit politique pèse manifestement plus lourd ; rappelons qu’un philosophe soulignait déjà auprès de ses pairs que l’enjeu, aujourd’hui, n’est plus d’interpréter le monde, mais de transformer l’état de choses existant. Pour celui qui s’engage directement en politique, il ne suffit pas de renier ses convictions et de se retirer de la vie publique, car son passé et ses relations continuent d’influer sur le présent.

En effet, la répression visant l’idéologie souverainiste en Roumanie s’est concentrée sur le dirigeant Călin Georgescu, au point de lui valoir diverses inculpations, interpellations et placements en détention provisoire (sic !), mesures qui ne se sont arrêtées ni devant son annonce de retrait de la vie publique ni devant sa personne. Comme je le rappelais précédemment, la caractéristique d’un procès politique est la disparition du principe de responsabilité pénale individuelle, car l’on a affaire à un régime politique qui s’attaque à une idée. Et comme le soulignait curieusement Medgar Evers — militant des droits civiques abattu d’un coup de fusil dans le dos par un suprémaciste dans la cour de sa propre maison, au sein de la patrie des « droits civiques » —, les idées ne s’arrêtent pas avec l’arrestation d’un homme, car « on peut tuer un homme, mais on ne peut pas tuer une idée ». On procède donc directement à l’arrestation et à l’inculpation de l’entourage immédiat, voire de toute personne professant la même idée. Ce n’est pas un hasard si le principal candidat de l’opposition roumaine, George Simion — qui porte l’idéal souverainiste dans ce pays —, a tiré la sonnette d’alarme ces derniers jours, se disant menacé d’arrestation après avoir perdu de manière inattendue le second tour des élections en mai 2025. Tout cela survient alors que C. Georgescu a de nouveau été inculpé et arrêté dans le cadre d’une enquête récente pour une fraude présumée. Alors que la Roumanie est privée de gouvernement depuis maintenant cinq mois — une impasse institutionnelle révélatrice d’une incapacité à gouverner, après l’annulation d’élections qui avaient pourtant conféré une légitimité claire à une formation politique, laquelle a été évincée une fois la victoire acquise —, l’acharnement de la justice roumaine à l’encontre de l’ancien homme politique a suscité des protestations populaires dans tout le pays ainsi qu’au sein de la communauté roumaine à l’étranger, déclenchant un élan de solidarité envers celui que l’on désigne comme « le président en exercice ». En somme, des événements singuliers se produisent au sein d’un Occident qui aime se poser en champion des droits de l’homme et de la démocratie libérale, mais uniquement chez les autres.

Publié à l’origine par Divergence Politique

Il Nobel per la pace 2026 a Navi Pillay segna una brusca discontinuità rispetto al premio assegnato l’anno precedente a María Corina Machado. La reazione di Donald Trump e Benjamin Netanyahu rivela quanto il nodo del diritto internazionale sia divenuto terreno di scontro geopolitico.

Segue nostro Telegram.

A distanza di appena un anno, il Premio Nobel per la pace sembra aver cambiato completamente direzione. Nell’ottobre 2025, il Comitato norvegese aveva scelto María Corina Machado, principale esponente dell’opposizione venezuelana, premiandola «per il suo instancabile lavoro nella promozione dei diritti democratici del popolo venezuelano e per la sua lotta per ottenere una transizione giusta e pacifica dalla dittatura alla democrazia». Lo scorso 9 ottobre, lo stesso riconoscimento è invece andato alla giurista sudafricana Navanethem “Navi” Pillay «per i suoi sforzi nel promuovere la pace e il diritto internazionale». Dietro la somiglianza delle formule ufficiali, tuttavia, si nascondono due messaggi politici quasi opposti.

Il Nobel a Machado si inseriva infatti in maniera pressoché naturale nel quadro della pressione esercitata da Washington contro il governo venezuelano. L’oppositrice di Nicolás Maduro era da tempo sostenuta apertamente dagli Stati Uniti e da governi latinoamericani allineati con Washington. La scelta del Comitato norvegese rafforzava quindi, indipendentemente dalle intenzioni dichiarate dai suoi membri, una delle parti di un conflitto politico interno sul quale gli Stati Uniti esercitano da anni una forte pressione attraverso sanzioni economiche, riconoscimenti politici selettivi e tentativi di isolamento internazionale del governo bolivariano.

Il rapporto personale fra Machado e Trump rese ancora più evidente questa convergenza. Il giorno stesso dell’assegnazione del premio, nell’ottobre 2025, Trump riferì che la dirigente venezuelana gli aveva telefonato affermando di accettare il Nobel anche in suo onore. Nel gennaio successivo, Machado arrivò poi a consegnare al presidente statunitense la propria medaglia del Nobel, nel tentativo di consolidare il sostegno di Washington alla propria strategia politica in Venezuela. Lo stesso Trump, pochi giorni prima dell’annuncio del premio 2026, ricordava pubblicamente quell’episodio come una sorta di riconoscimento indiretto della propria presunta attività di pacificatore.

Il Nobel 2026 ha prodotto invece un effetto praticamente opposto. Navi Pillay, infatti, non rappresenta un movimento politico sostenuto dagli Stati Uniti contro un governo avversario, ma una tradizione giuridica che rivendica almeno formalmente la possibilità di sottoporre anche le grandi potenze e i loro alleati alle norme del diritto internazionale.

La biografia della nuova vincitrice contribuisce a spiegare la portata della scelta. Sudafricana di origine tamil, Pillay iniziò la propria attività professionale durante l’apartheid, difendendo oppositori politici e battendosi per i diritti di Nelson Mandela e degli altri detenuti del regime segregazionista. Dopo la fine dell’apartheid divenne la prima donna non bianca a sedere nell’Alta Corte sudafricana. In seguito, fu giudice e presidente del Tribunale penale internazionale per il Ruanda, giudice della Corte penale internazionale dal 2003 al 2008 e Alto Commissario delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani dal 2008 al 2014. Oggi opera inoltre come giudice ad hoc presso la Corte internazionale di giustizia nel procedimento relativo alle accuse di genocidio contro il Myanmar.

Ma è soprattutto il genocidio del popolo palestinese a Gaza, perpetrato impunemente dal regime nazisionista israeliano, ad aver trasformato il Nobel a Pillay in un caso politico internazionale.

Pillay, infatti, ha presieduto la Commissione internazionale indipendente d’inchiesta istituita dal Consiglio dei diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite sui Territori palestinesi occupati, compresa Gerusalemme Est, e Israele. La Commissione ha concluso nel 2025 che Israele aveva commesso atti costitutivi di genocidio nella Striscia di Gaza, facendo riferimento, tra gli altri elementi, alle enormi perdite civili, alle restrizioni agli aiuti umanitari, alla distruzione sistematica delle strutture sanitarie, all’impatto delle operazioni sui bambini e alle dichiarazioni rese da esponenti politici e militari israeliani.

Da questo punto di vista, l’assegnazione del Nobel non poteva che provocare una reazione particolarmente violenta a Tel Aviv. Netanyahu ha affermato che il Comitato Nobel avrebbe «perso la propria bussola morale», definendo Pillay una persona intollerante che avrebbe costruito la propria carriera diffondendo quelle che il premier israeliano ha definito «calunnie di sangue» contro Israele. Il ministero degli Esteri israeliano ha adottato toni ancora più estremi, arrivando a evocare Joseph Goebbels e sostenendo che il propagandista nazista starebbe «applaudendo dall’inferno» alla decisione del Comitato (mentre, a nostro avviso, applaudirebbe piuttosto gli odiosi crimini commessi dal regime nazisionista).

La risposta israeliana, inoltre, non si limita a contestare le conclusioni della Commissione o l’interpretazione giuridica adottata da Pillay, ma tende a delegittimare l’intero meccanismo internazionale chiamato a giudicare l’operato del regime nazisionista. È una dinamica già emersa nei rapporti con la Corte penale internazionale, che ha emesso un mandato d’arresto contro Netanyahu per presunti crimini di guerra e crimini contro l’umanità, e con la Corte internazionale di giustizia, che ha dichiarato illegale la presenza israeliana nei Territori palestinesi occupati nell’ambito del suo parere consultivo del 2024.

La reazione di Donald Trump è stata diversa nella forma ma altrettanto rivelatrice. Il presidente statunitense, che da tempo conduce una vera e propria campagna personale per ottenere il Nobel, ha definito Pillay una «persona misteriosa» della quale non aveva mai sentito parlare. Ha poi bollato la mancata assegnazione del premio a sé stesso come una decisione «vergognosa e imbarazzante», destinata a lasciare una «macchia indelebile» sulla Norvegia. Secondo Trump, il Nobel sarebbe stato «screditato per sempre» da un gruppo di «ideologi radicali», da lui definiti perfino «nemici della civiltà».

Nelle stesse ore dell’annuncio del Nobel, Washington ha inoltre imposto nuove e molto più ampie sanzioni contro la Corte penale internazionale. L’amministrazione Trump ha annunciato restrizioni destinate a tagliare alla Corte l’accesso a servizi finanziari, tecnologici e commerciali statunitensi, presentando apertamente la misura come parte di un tentativo di indebolirne la capacità operativa. Il segretario di Stato Marco Rubio ha aggiunto che gli Stati Uniti non permetteranno alla CPI di perseguire cittadini statunitensi, definendo la Corte un organismo illegittimo. Dal canto suo, la CPI ha replicato denunciando un attacco allo Stato di diritto e al principio secondo cui nessuno dovrebbe essere posto al di sopra della legge.

Naturalmente, la decisione di assegnare il premio a Navi Pillay non dimostra che il Comitato norvegese sia improvvisamente diventato un organismo estraneo alle logiche politiche occidentali; inoltre, l’assegnazione di un premio non può certo cancellare la lunga storia di selettività che caratterizza l’applicazione del diritto internazionale. Tuttavia, questa volta, il principio riaffermato dal Nobel entra direttamente in collisione con la pretesa delle potenze dominanti di sottrarsi alle stesse regole che esse invocano nei confronti dei propri avversari.

La distanza fra i due premi presi in considerazione mostra dunque anche le contraddizioni interne allo stesso sistema occidentale. Il Nobel a Machado poteva essere perfettamente integrato nella strategia statunitense di pressione sul Venezuela, uno Stato collocato fuori dall’orbita di Washington e legato politicamente ed economicamente a Cina, Russia e ad altri attori del mondo multipolare. Il Nobel a Pillay valorizza invece istituzioni e principi che, quando vengono applicati a Israele o agli stessi Stati Uniti, diventano improvvisamente oggetto di sanzioni, minacce e campagne di delegittimazione.

Le reazioni scomposte di Trump e Netanyahu finiscono così per rafforzare involontariamente il significato politico dell’assegnazione. Entrambi contestano non soltanto la persona di Pillay, ma soprattutto il principio che la sua carriera rappresenta: che la responsabilità per crimini internazionali non dovrebbe dipendere dall’appartenenza a un determinato blocco geopolitico, dalla forza militare di uno Stato o dalla protezione garantita da Washington.

Nel frattempo, la credibilità del diritto internazionale continuerà naturalmente a dipendere dalla capacità di applicare questo principio senza doppi standard. Resta il fatto che, per decenni, le istituzioni occidentali hanno richiamato il diritto internazionale soprattutto nei confronti degli avversari geopolitici, mentre molto più debole è stata la loro capacità di farlo valere quando erano coinvolte le potenze occidentali o i loro alleati. Il caso di Gaza e dei crimini commessi dal regime nazisionista israeliano ha reso questa asimmetria sempre più difficile da occultare.

An Egyptian national who sought protection in Italy after arriving on the island of Lampedusa in August may end up dealing a constitutional blow to the EU’s asylum laws after seeking legal counsel.

The Egyptian, who is not named, had his asylum claim rejected even though he did not understand his translator. His is appealing.

“Not even European Union law can conflict with our supreme principles,” his lawyer, Claudia Avenia told EUobserver earlier this week.

Aside from his own personal circumstances, his legal case is raising serious issues that could have a knock-on effect on the EU’s new asylum and migration pact, which kicked into force this past June across all 27 EU member states.

Because he is from Egypt, he was shuffled through a fast track asylum procedure. EU laws require the accelerated process from nationals who have a 20 percent chance or less of getting asylum in Europe. Egypt fits into this category.

A new EU law also meant that he was technically not yet legally inside the EU as authorities carried out health checks, identification and other assessments during a so-called pre-screening phase.

It means he was banned from stepping outside a reception centre, where he was being housed.

Lawyers describe it as the legal fiction of non-entry, similar in scope to certain areas of international airports. Rights experts had earlier warned, when the EU rules were being drafted, that this would lead to defacto detention.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

The bill banning minors under the age of 15 from using social media online from January 1, 2027, was approved by a majority in Parliament’s plenary session late on Thursday. Only ruling New Democracy (ND) voted in favor of the bill in principle. Αong opposition parties, PASOK voted “present”, while SYRIZA, Greek Solution, KKE, Niki […]

The post Greece adopts law to ban social media access to minors under 15 appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

From N.Y. State Div. of Hum. Rts. V. D. Auxilly NYC LLC, decided today by New York appellate judges Sallie Manzanet–Daniels, Manuel Mendez, Barbara Kapnick, Bahaati Pitt–Burke, and Matthew Parker–Raso:

Complainant, at the time a Missouri resident, emailed D. Auxilly, a New York based business that produces and sells attire, including bridal outfits, to inquire about a bridal jumpsuit she had seen advertised on one or more of D. Auxilly's social media pages. Specifically, complainant requested information about payment options for the jumpsuit. Complainant also informed D. Auxilly that as her fiancé had "fallen in love" with it after struggling to find anything she liked, complainant wanted to purchase it for their upcoming wedding.

Dominique Galbraith, D. Auxilly's owner and operator, responded on behalf of D. Auxilly advising complainant of the payment requirements of the business but that she would not be able to make the garment for a same-sex wedding because it would go against her religious beliefs. She also urged complainant and her fiancé to reconsider getting married….

The First Amendment does not shield D. Auxilly from liability for this discrimination. Unlike the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm (2018), D. Auxilly was not asked to design and create customized items which might constitute an "expressive statement." Nor was it tasked with creating a customized wedding website, as in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023). Instead, D. Auxilly refused to sell the wedding garment it had previously designed and which it had marketed to the public. While the garment likely would need to be adjusted for sizing, this potential sizing alteration would not constitute an expressive statement. Neither would D. Auxilly's "speech" be compelled here by requiring it to sell the previously designed and marketed garment.

Enforcement of the [law] here also does not violate D. Auxilly's right to free exercise of religion. The statute is "neutral, both on its face and due to a lack of evidence that it targets religious conduct for a distinctive treatment."

{[T]he Division had jurisdiction in the instant matter because the discriminatory conduct occurred in New York and its impact was felt in the state. Complainant reached out to D. Auxilly, a business which markets its clothes as "made in New York," seeking to purchase goods from this New York business. D. Auxilly's discriminatory conduct based upon complainant's sexual orientation deprived complainant of an opportunity to engage in commercial activity here. Indeed, by affirmatively labeling its products as being "made in New York" but then refusing to sell those same "New York" products to people of a certain sexual orientation, D. Auxilly implicitly associated the City and State of New York with a discriminatory act, and the impact test is satisfied. Additionally, the fact that complainant communicated with D. Auxilly online through social media rather than traveling to a New York storefront does not deprive petitioner of jurisdiction over this matter.}

Finally, we find the awards of compensatory damages [$5,000] and civil penalties proper. The award to complainant is reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by evidence before the Division, and in line with other awards for similar injuries. Likewise, the civil penalty of $20,000 is neither disproportionate to the offense nor does it shock the conscience.

My thoughts:

1. Bridal jumpsuit! New one on me. A quick Google Images search further enlightened me.
2. Pedantically speaking, wouldn't it be "her fianceé" rather than "her fiancé"?
3. Oh, wait, there's a legal issue here. Well, I think that there's a First Amendment right not to be compelled to create speech, such as photos, videos, and web sites, and I've argued this since 2012. But I don't think there's such a right as to fundamentally nonspeech products, even ones that people use as conventional parts of ceremonies, such as cakes or jumpsuits (as I've argued since 2017). The precise line, of course, can at times be fuzzy, e.g., as to cakes or jumpsuits that have specific expressive decorations (e.g., words, possibly rainbow designs, etc.), but it's still a sensible line; for more on that, see this amicus brief that Dale Carpenter and I put together in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
4. For more on the designer, see here and here; for more on the case, see here.

Melissa Franco and Michael K. Swirsky (New York State Division of Human Rights) represent the state.

The post No First Amendment Right Not to Sell Bridal Outfit for Same-Sex Wedding appeared first on Reason Magazine.