Former Congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew his 2024 bid to lead the Justice Department following similar allegations
Two women have filed a federal lawsuit accusing former US Representative Matt Gaetz, President Donald Trump’s first pick for attorney general, of participating in a sex trafficking ring while serving in Congress. Gaetz has faced similar allegations for years, and has denied any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit, filed in Florida on Thursday, alleges that Gaetz and several other men, including former Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg and former Florida legislator Christopher Dorworth, sexually exploited the plaintiffs between 2017 and 2019.
The women, identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, are seeking unspecified damages under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Greenberg recruited financially vulnerable young women through the dating website SeekingArrangement.com and introduced them to Gaetz.
The lawsuit alleges that Gaetz had sex with Jane Doe 1 and a 17-year-old girl at a July 2017 party where narcotics were distributed. He allegedly paid the minor $400 in cash and transferred $500 to Jane Doe 1 three days later.
Gaetz and Greenberg subsequently made at least 19 payments to Jane Doe 1, ranging from $150 to $1,000, the complaint claims. Jane Doe 2 alleged that she first had sex with Gaetz in exchange for money in October 2017.
The plaintiffs also accused the defendants of providing drugs and financing trips to Miami, Las Vegas, the Bahamas and other destinations in exchange for sex.
The men allegedly used “their public office, power, and wealth to prey on the economic vulnerability of Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. Both women were in their early twenties when they met Gaetz.
Greenberg pleaded guilty to federal charges, including sex trafficking of a minor, in 2021 and was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Responding on X on Thursday, Gaetz appeared to mock the lawsuit, posting a photo of three women in swimsuits overlooking the ocean in the Bahamas.
“Jane Doe Strikes Again!” he wrote, sarcastically questioning why nobody had responded to the women’s supposed cries for help on Instagram. He later told reporters he looked forward to disproving the allegations.
Jane Doe Strikes Again! Two adult women sued me today alleging they were sex trafficked to the Bahamas. I’m shocked nobody responded to their repeated cries for help, posted to instagram. https://t.co/HPvX2xypzs
In December 2024, the House Ethics Committee reported finding “substantial evidence” that Gaetz had paid women for sex, including a 17-year-old girl, and used illegal drugs while in office.
A separate Justice Department investigation ended in 2023 without charges.
Gaetz withdrew from consideration to be Trump’s attorney general in November 2024 after several Republican senators signaled opposition to his nomination over the allegations.
The Houthis are turning cheap strikes into expensive problems for Riyadh, targeting the infrastructure that keeps its economy running
The Houthis continue to strike Saudi Arabia despite Riyadh’s threats of a forceful response and promises to enlist outside partners to defend the kingdom.
By targeting airports and oil infrastructure, Ansar Allah is seeking to raise the cost of Saudi involvement in Yemen’s conflict and force the kingdom’s leadership to reconsider the terms of a settlement.
The latest wave of Houthi attacks has targeted facilities of particular importance to Saudi Arabia. On the evening of October 13, a strike hit Saudi Aramco’s headquarters in Dhahran, home to the company’s key management operations. The Saudi Energy Ministry reported a fire, though miraculously no one was killed.
Ansar Allah also claimed strikes on an oil refinery in Riyadh and King Khalid International Airport. The choice of targets suggests the Houthis want to put virtually all of the kingdom’s oil revenue at risk and disrupt its international air connections.
These targets also suggest that the movement is trying to influence Saudi leaders’ decisions directly. Oil infrastructure generates government revenue, airports connect the country to the outside world, and confidence in the kingdom depends on the security of both. Even limited damage can therefore produce an impact far greater than the cost of the weapons used.
The Houthis have their own history of confrontation with Saudi Arabia. The movement emerged in northern Yemen, fought a series of wars against the central government between 2004 and 2010, and seized the capital, Sanaa, in 2014. Its rise was rooted in Yemen’s political system, local conflicts, and the collapse of state institutions. Iranian support strengthened an already established force with its own social base and political objectives.
The Saudi intervention in 2015 cemented Riyadh’s position as the movement’s principal foreign adversary. For the kingdom, the aim was to prevent a hostile force from consolidating power along its southern border and to support Yemen’s internationally recognized government. For the Houthi leadership, the war became both a threat to its survival and a rallying cause. Invoking foreign aggression allowed the movement to portray its struggle for domestic supremacy as a defense of national sovereignty.
That logic remains relevant to the current escalation. Saudi support for an offensive by Yemeni government forces threatens the Houthis’ territorial gains and bargaining position. Striking deep inside the kingdom allows them to raise the price of that support. Their apparent calculation is to make continued Saudi involvement in the war carry a recurring cost on Saudi soil.
The movement’s demands are concrete: an end to strikes, limits on assistance to its Yemeni adversaries, the lifting of transportation and trade restrictions, and agreements on revenues and payments. These issues were under discussion long before the latest escalation. The framework for a roadmap presented by the UN in December 2023 included a nationwide ceasefire, payment of public-sector salaries, the resumption of oil exports, and an easing of restrictions on Sanaa airport and the port of Hodeidah.
By increasing Riyadh’s costs, Ansar Allah hopes to extract concessions and retain control of the territory it has seized. A ceasefire on those terms, however, would consolidate the movement’s position without resolving how power should be shared in Yemen.
Attacks on Saudi Arabia also serve Ansar Allah’s domestic political interests. The movement uses its ability to strike deep inside the kingdom to bolster its standing among supporters. Confrontation with Riyadh also allows the Houthis to cast themselves as Yemen’s defenders against foreign intervention and use that claim to justify their bid for power.
Iranian military and technological assistance has undoubtedly expanded Houthi capabilities considerably. But the relationship with Tehran does not erase Ansar Allah’s own interests in Yemen’s power struggle or its confrontation with Saudi Arabia. Reducing the movement’s actions to the execution of Iranian orders fails to explain either the conflict’s local roots or the Houthi leadership’s objectives.
A more accurate description would be a partnership with unequal resources in which the Yemeni side retains substantial autonomy. Weakening Saudi Arabia may serve both partners’ interests, but their preferred terms for ending the war may differ. Ansar Allah must consider conditions on Yemen’s battlefields and the survival of its own rule. Agreements between Iran and outside powers therefore do not guarantee an automatic halt to Houthi operations.
The economics of war
The development of domestic missile production and an expanding network for procuring components make it harder for Riyadh to bring Houthi attacks to an end. If the movement can replenish its arsenal from several sources, restricting Iranian supplies will have only a partial effect. An agreement with Tehran alone would therefore be insufficient to secure Saudi facilities. Much will depend on whether the Houthis themselves believe continued strikes serve their interests.
Nor do the Houthis need to match Saudi Arabia in the quantity or quality of their weapons. They can choose their targets and pause between attacks, while the kingdom must continuously defend airports, oil facilities, and cities across a vast territory. Even a single hit can disrupt a facility’s operations, trigger flight cancellations, or bring business activity to a halt. Purchases of American air defense systems reduce that threat but do not eliminate it. Riyadh’s problem is that military superiority has yet to deprive its adversary of the ability to inflict economically painful blows. That is precisely the capability the Houthis are trying to turn into negotiating leverage.
Saudi military spending exceeds $82 billion per year, yet the kingdom still struggles to protect its infrastructure from Houthi attacks. This exposes the gap between the cost of the weapons it has purchased and their effectiveness in this particular war. Advanced fighter jets and missile defense systems give Riyadh a considerable advantage, but detecting small drones and low-flying cruise missiles requires extensive radar coverage and rapid information sharing between units. Without those capabilities, expensive equipment cannot reliably detect and engage targets in time.
In a prolonged confrontation, the disparity in weapons costs also becomes significant. According to cited estimates, a Patriot interceptor costs more than $3 million, while some Houthi drones cost just $15,000–25,000. Defenders have to use such interceptors against cheap aircraft to protect far more valuable assets. But sustained defensive operations deplete stocks that cannot be replenished quickly, particularly amid strong global demand for air defense systems. This gives the Houthis an opportunity to wear down the kingdom’s defenses even when most of the aircraft they launch fail to reach their targets.
Technical difficulties are compounded by the structure of the Saudi armed forces. The separation of the regular military and the National Guard has historically served, in part, to protect the monarchy against a coup. But separate chains of command and highly centralized decision-making can hinder coordination and limit commanders’ initiative. Another weapons purchase, then, will not solve the problem on its own. Even additional detection and interception systems will deliver limited results if information arrives late and coordinating a response takes too long.
The Houthis can reasonably expect these shortcomings to take time to address, leaving them able to continue inflicting painful blows in the meantime. Domestic production and broader supply networks help sustain that campaign. The movement does not need to destroy major industrial facilities or shut down air travel altogether; a recurring threat is enough to make airlines reconsider routes, investors postpone decisions, and Saudi leaders spend more on protecting infrastructure.
Statements by Türkiye and Pakistan expressing their readiness to defend Saudi Arabia do not yet provide grounds to expect either country to enter the war fully, much less fight the Houthis inside Yemen. At an October 5 meeting, the parties to the Mecca Agreement announced that they would provide forces and equipment for the kingdom’s defense. The political weight of those promises, however, will depend on whether the allies can actually reduce the number of attacks and the damage they cause. As long as the strikes continue, Houthi leaders may view such declarations as rhetoric unlikely to be followed by a dangerous expansion of the war.
Ankara’s position reinforces that calculation. Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Hakan Fidan outlined possible assistance with air defense, electronic warfare, and technical support, while explicitly ruling out Turkish troops taking part in offensive operations on foreign soil. Türkiye has thus set clear limits on its role from the outset.
Pakistan also has reasons to avoid direct intervention. Joining the war in Yemen would mean additional military spending and the risk of worsening relations with neighboring Iran. It would therefore be premature to expect Islamabad to take on the task of defeating the Houthis on Riyadh’s behalf. Its commitments to the kingdom leave room for a role limited to defending specific facilities and providing military assistance.
A similar distinction applies to the American position. Intelligence sharing and targeting assistance support Saudi operations, but they do not mean Washington is willing to stop the attacks at any cost. The Houthis appear to be counting on precisely these limits to outside involvement. Their bet is that the kingdom’s allies will help it defend itself but will be reluctant to become embroiled in a prolonged war to achieve Saudi objectives in Yemen.
Until that support produces a substantial reduction in attacks, threats to bring in allies may carry little weight with Ansar Allah.
***
The Houthis are seeking to demonstrate that continued Saudi intervention will bring losses that neither a vast defense budget nor foreign partners can prevent. If that pressure prompts Riyadh to scale back assistance to their adversaries or accept settlement terms favorable to them, the movement will have an opportunity to translate its battlefield gains into lasting political advantages.
Such an outcome would also benefit Iran by weakening Saudi Arabia’s position. Its most immediate consequence, however, would be to strengthen Ansar Allah itself in the struggle for power in Yemen.
Washington is shifting toward pragmatic cooperation with Moscow while the EU remains driven by ideology, Karin Kneissl has said
Washington’s diesel deal with Moscow has exposed divisions within the West over its anti-Russian stance, as the US shifts toward a more pragmatic approach, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl has said.
US President Donald Trump announced the agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, easing sanctions on Russian diesel imports until April 2027 in an effort to bring down soaring fuel prices. The move marks a departure from the Western sanctions policy imposed on Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.
Speaking to TASS on Friday, Kneissl described the agreement as more than a “symbolic breakthrough,” pointing to the 300,000 tons of Russian diesel expected to reach the US and global markets by November.
“The EU says that this undermines the West’s united position. However, one could also say that this marks a shift by the US toward a more pragmatic approach, while the EU continues to pursue a purely ideological line,” she stated.
The agreement has drawn criticism from European leaders attending a two-day EU summit in Brussels this week. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis accused Trump of sidelining the bloc, telling reporters that “Trump, by doing that business with Putin, stabbed us in the back. We have to do something.”
Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev, however, welcomed the agreement, arguing that lower fuel prices were essential to Europe’s economic competitiveness. “Any step in reducing fuel prices and to guarantee our competitiveness, we appreciate,” he said.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described the agreement as a “gift to Putin,” while defending Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed on Friday that the bloc would maintain its sanctions against Moscow despite Washington’s decision to ease restrictions on Russian diesel.
Brussels’ hardline stance contrasts with that of EU member Slovakia, which remains heavily dependent on Russian energy and has sought to maintain economic ties with Moscow. Prime Minister Robert Fico has repeatedly called for diplomacy rather than continued military support for Kiev.
The dispute has also strained relations between Washington and Kiev. Trump has repeatedly urged Vladimir Zelensky to halt Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries, blaming the attacks for pushing up global fuel prices.
Zelensky criticized the diesel agreement as a “weak decision” and accused Trump of “betrayal.” Ukraine continued targeting Russian energy facilities, including a refinery in Ryazan Region on Thursday, prompting Trump to condemn the attacks as a “disgrace.” At Friday’s summit, Zelensky sought additional financial and military assistance from European leaders but left empty-handed, with only renewed promises of support.
The confrontation comes as global diesel supplies remain under pressure from the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has severely disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
The International Energy Agency agreed on Thursday to accelerate the release of emergency oil reserves, including more than 20 million barrels of diesel, in an effort to ease shortages and bring down prices.
President Donald Trump’s peace push has ignited a bitter feud with Vladimir Zelensky
The administration of US President Donald Trump has ramped up pressure on Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries while pursuing landmark diplomacy with Moscow in a bid to bring down soaring fuel prices at home and revive stalled peace negotiations.
The overtures have left Vladimir Zelensky fuming, reigniting the bitterest public confrontation between the two since their explosive Oval Office showdown in 2025. Zelensky has fiercely criticized Trump’s Russian diesel deal and defied his demands to stop attacking Russian refineries, saying he feels “betrayed” by Washington.
In response, the US president branded the Ukrainian leader “not a good guy for us to deal with,” while suggesting that Ukraine needs a “new president,” referring to Zelensky’s long-expired presidential term.
As the dispute escalated, American officials reportedly threatened to restrict intelligence sharing and weapons supplies to Kiev, while Ukrainian commanders sounded the alarm about serious disruptions to the Starlink network, which the military heavily relies on for logistics, reconnaissance, and drone control.
Trump’s peace push has also put him on a collision course with Zelensky’s EU backers. US negotiators reportedly proposed unfreezing some Russian sovereign assets – an idea categorically rebuffed in Brussels. Zelensky then attempted to drum up support at a slightly farcical summit in Brussels where he demanded EU and NATO membership; both of which have been rejected outright in Brussels.
Moscow has welcomed Trump’s diplomatic offensive while opposing any temporary truce with Kiev, arguing that the pause will only allow Ukraine to recuperate its battered forces.
Here is how Washington is using its pressure tools and economic incentives to mediate the Ukraine conflict and meet domestic interests.
Russian diesel to the rescue
The state of US-Russia relations took a sharp turn on October 9, when Trump struck a surprise diesel deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to allow additional Russian supplies onto American and global markets. The arrangement – announced just weeks before the US midterm elections – envisaged the release of more than 300,000 tons of Russian diesel, followed by larger shipments in the coming months. Trump pitched the deal as a way to rein in soaring fuel costs for American consumers, truckers and farmers.
According to a Reuters report, Trump’s envoys also told their Ukrainian counterparts that the US hoped that the deal could help soften Russia’s position on the peace talks.
Zelensky erupted, accusing Washington of making a “weak decision” and using Kiev’s delegation as “a front” for the agreement. Trump brushed aside the criticism, telling Zelensky to “focus on making a deal, not talking about that.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the arrangement as “mutually beneficial” and serving the interests of the global market while denouncing “the destructive position” of European countries on the matter.
Zelensky tramples over Trump’s red lines
The diesel deal came after weeks of increasingly forceful demands from Trump that Kiev halt strikes on Russian oil refineries.
Since September, Trump has publicly – and in an increasingly sharp tone – urged Zelensky to stop his attacks, saying on Thursday that “all he’s doing is making the world oil price higher” while denouncing the Ukrainian leader’s approach as “a disgrace.”
According to Axios, Zelensky ignored at least half a dozen American requests to stop attacking Russian refineries before Washington did the deal with Moscow, and Zelensky threw his toys out of the pram.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak confirmed on Wednesday that Ukrainian drones had targeted two Russian oil refineries: in Ryazan and Saratov Regions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described Zelensky’s behavior as “a direct and blatant challenge to President Trump.”
The Russian Defense Ministry issued its own warning, vowing to step up strikes on Ukraine’s military-related targets in response to Zelensky’s threats to attack oil facilities.
The Trump-Zelensky clash went beyond angry exchanges, with the apparent fracture having dire implications for Ukrainian troops on the ground, according to multiple media reports. The Financial Times reported that US officials had warned Ukrainian and European counterparts that continued refinery strikes could result in the suspension of intelligence sharing and the NATO-managed PURL mechanism, through which European countries purchase American weapons for Ukraine.
Zelensky subsequently confirmed that Ukrainian commanders had received warnings about a possible intelligence cutoff, although he acknowledged that cooperation had not stopped. Trump also denied suspending intelligence sharing, insisting that “we are helping them, and we are sharing intel.”
Yet on Tuesday, Zelensky complained that Kiev had received no advance warning from its partners about a Russian ballistic missile attack. He did not identify which countries had failed to provide the alerts.
At the same time, Ukrainian commanders reported serious disruptions to Starshield, the military-grade version of Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service. As a result, Ukrainian drones could not operate at speeds exceeding 160 km/h in many cases, making them more vulnerable to Russian air defenses and derailing some missions altogether.
While some Ukrainian officials already suspected that the disruptions were linked to the Trump-Zelensky feud, Reuters reported on Thursday, citing sources, that the order to restrict Starshield had originated inside the White House. A senior US official, however, denied that Trump personally ordered the restrictions. Later, Ukrainian officials reported that some Starshield connections had been restored.
Elon Musk – who has also been critical of Zelensky – confirmed that major decisions on Starshield rest with the American military or the president.
As the feud escalated, Trump turned his ire on Zelensky’s leadership, accusing him of squandering repeated opportunities to end the conflict. “I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal,” Trump told reporters on Saturday, adding that “it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president.”
Trump’s jabs at Zelensky’s dubious legal status hark back to February 2025 when the US president branded the Ukrainian leader “a dictator without elections.”
Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, and he has refused to hold new elections, citing martial law. Russia has since declared him “illegitimate,” saying that his status is a major obstacle to signing a binding agreement.
In response to Trump’s criticism, Zelensky said that Kiev was ready to hold elections if Moscow agreed to a comprehensive 60-day ceasefire. Russia, however, offered a truce only on the day of any vote, arguing that Kiev would use a longer pause to recuperate its battered forces and receive more weapons from the West.
Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner proposed unfreezing some of the €300 billion in sovereign Russian funds held in Euroclear in Belgium, and transferring them to a financial vehicle overseen by Washington, according to the Financial Times.
The EU has sought to seize the funds outright, but has faced strong resistance, particularly from Belgium, over fears of costly litigation, Russian retaliation, and damage to Europe’s financial reputation.
While US officials reportedly see the issue of Russian sovereign assets as part of a comprehensive peace agreement, the proposal “startled” Kiev’s intransigent European backers, who flatly rejected the initiative, and refused to relinquish control over the assets.
In addition, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing a US official, that the Trump administration was weighing sanctions relief for vessels belonging to the so-called “shadow fleet” used to transport oil from Russia, which would allow it to bring down fuel prices.
Begging in Brussels: the €27 billion hole
With his relations with Trump in tatters, Zelensky traveled to Brussels on Friday to seek financial and military backing from the EU. In a not-so-veiled swipe at the US president, he thanked unelected EU officials as “real leaders” upon his arrival.
However, Kiev’s demands for more money have already met resistance from the EU. After announcing an unexpected $27 billion defense budget hole in August, Zelensky requested the EU front load part of the €90 billion loan meant for 2027 already this year.
Brussels declined to endorse Kiev’s deficit figures while pressing it to hurry up with stalled reforms – including those tackling rampant corruption – to unlock the funds already available.
Zelensky’s bickering with Trump is forcing the EU to take an increasingly adversarial stance towards the US. According to the Financial Times, EU officials planned to urge the Ukrainian leader behind the summit scenes to tone down his public criticism of Washington.
“It might be true, but it doesn’t always need to be said out loud,” one person familiar with the discussions told the newspaper.
Barely recovering from his Oval Office clash with Trump last year, Zelensky has once again gone against Ukraine’s most important backer by repeatedly ignoring American warnings over refinery strikes and challenging Washington’s diesel deal with Moscow.
As Ukraine struggles to contain Russia’s advances on the battlefield and prop up a collapsing economy while turning to the reluctant EU for help, Trump refused to cut Zelensky any slack and step back from his demands when America’s interests are at stake – and now Ukraine is facing the threat of a complete Starlink cut-off and a halt to crucial intelligence sharing.
The Ukrainian leader has reportedly agreed to a proposed 100-day pause in attacks in exchange for satellite coverage extending deeper into Russia
Vladimir Zelensky is open to stopping attacks on Russian oil refineries for 100 days in exchange for a 300 km extension of Starlink satellite internet service coverage for the Ukrainian military, the Wall Street Journal has said.
The report comes as US President Donald Trump has ramped pressure on Zelensky to end the strikes, which he blames for surging global energy prices. In his interview with Newsmax on Thursday, Trump called Ukraine’s actions “a disgrace.”
In an article published the same day, the WSJ said that Republican Senators Roger Wicker and Kevin Cramer brought the deal to the Ukrainian leader during their visit to Kiev last Friday. The outlet claimed that it was told by unnamed sources that Zelensky had agreed to the proposal.
The extended Starlink coverage should help Ukraine target missile launchers inside Russia, according to the report.
Kiev, which is experiencing an acute shortage of US-supplied Patriot air defense missiles, has been struggling to contain Russia’s large-scale missile and drone strikes against military-related infrastructure across Ukraine. Moscow says the raids are being carried out in response to Ukrainian terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Russia, including energy facilities.
The Ukrainians, who have relied heavily on Starlink during the conflict with Russia for battlefield communications and controlling drones, have been “terrified” by the slowdown of satellite internet provided by Elon Musk’s SpaceX company this week, the WSJ said.
On Wednesday, Ukrainian officials and frontline commanders complained that Starlink terminals had suddenly stopped working when UAVs flew faster than 100 mph, disrupting some combat missions. According to Reuters, the order to slow down the service came directly from the White House. Zelensky said on Friday that Starlink’s speed has increased over the last couple of days, but the restrictions haven’t been fully lifted yet.
Earlier this week, Zelensky confirmed reports that the US had threatened to stop sharing intelligence with Kiev if it kept ignoring Trump’s demands to cease energy strikes inside Russia. Officials in Kiev also complained about receiving no advance warning from the Americans before Russian missile strikes.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Russia was unaware of the Starlink slowdown for the Ukrainians, noting that “overall, of course, it would be better if such amazing technology… was not used for military purposes at all.”
Last month, Peskov warned that allowing Starlink to be used to facilitate strikes deep into Russian territory would be “a very harmful, potentially dangerous and misconceived step.”
The American authorities apparently don’t require consent from Musk to expand the coverage of Starlink’s military component, known as Starshield, for Ukraine. The SpaceX CEO said earlier this week that its systems “are owned and controlled” by the US government, with the Pentagon and the US president deciding on the limits on their speed or usage.
On Sunday, Musk backed Trump’s suggestion that “it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president.” In a comment to a White House video with the US president’s criticism of the Ukrainian leader, the entrepreneur said that “Zelensky has gone too far.”
Zelensky reportedly wanted to personally discuss the expansion of Starlink coverage with Musk during his US visit to Washington in July, but the SpaceX CEO turned down the meeting.
A courtroom gave the defeated Reich’s leaders a chance to defend themselves – and the world a record of crimes they could no longer conceal
On the night of October 16, 1946, 10 individuals were hanged in the Nuremberg prison. These were the main Nazi criminals who had been captured and brought to trial.
Despite the horrifying scale and brutality of the crimes, the Nuremberg Trials remain one of the most controversial proceedings in world history.
Justice instead of revenge
The idea of an international tribunal to address Nazi atrocities had been considered for some time. In 1942, the Soviet Union established a special Extraordinary Commission that gathered information about these crimes. Tragically, it had a lot of work to do. The USSR became the primary battleground for the bloodiest and most brutal war in Europe.
The range and nature of the crimes committed on Soviet soil were staggering: genocide against multiple peoples, mass killings on various grounds, all sorts of war crimes, deliberate attacks on medical facilities and civilian infrastructure, arbitrary executions, economic exploitation, and sexual violence. Essentially, every town liberated from the Nazis had enough evidence to warrant its own tribunal. When the concentration camps were liberated, it became clear that Allied propaganda had not exaggerated but rather understated the extent of Nazi atrocities.
In addition to the Soviet government, the exiled governments of occupied countries – Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Norway, France, and Yugoslavia – also wanted to hold the Nazis legally accountable for their crimes.
The outlines of the future tribunal began to take shape in the fall of 1943 during a conference in Moscow attended by the foreign ministers of the ‘Big Three’ – the USSR, the UK, and the US. The three powers agreed that Nazi leaders who committed crimes across multiple nations should be tried by an international court.
At that time, even the idea of lynching Nazi leaders seemed valid. Benito Mussolini was executed along with his mistress by Italian partisans on April 28, 1945, without any trial. Their mutilated bodies were publicly displayed. No one mourned Mussolini; similarly, no one would have objected if a Red Army soldier had shot Hitler.
Sporadic acts of vigilante justice also occurred as the war neared its end. A well-known incident involved American soldiers executing the staff of the Dachau concentration camp. Polish troops beat to death Oscar Dirlewanger, the commander of a punitive brigade responsible for countless deaths in Belarus and Poland.
Yet vigilante justice was not what the Allied leaders envisioned.
It became clear that the crimes committed were not only widespread but complex. Determining individual responsibility was not always an easy task. The Nazis had taken measures to conceal their atrocities whenever possible; for example, they buried the remains of over 100,000 people, mostly Jews, after executing them at Babi Yar ravine near Kiev. Furthermore, once the Reich collapsed and arrests began, everyone began shifting blame onto one another, particularly onto those who had already died.
By April and May of 1945, most of the individuals who would eventually be tried at Nuremberg had been apprehended. Of course, many key figures were never tried.
For obvious reasons, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels and Hitler himself were absent from the trial: both had committed suicide before they could face justice. Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, was captured by two freed Soviet prisoners, yet during a medical examination, he swallowed a poison capsule and died. Heinrich Müller, the leader of the Gestapo, likely shot himself in late April or early May 1945. His body was discovered months later in a temporary grave.
The fate of Martin Bormann, Hitler’s private secretary and head of the party chancellery, was unknown for many years. He went missing, which in 1945 could imply that he had fled under an assumed identity. However, today we can say with certainty that Bormann was killed in the final hours of the defense of Berlin, while attempting to break out of the encircled city alongside a column of German troops.
Twenty-four people were tried in Nuremberg. The most prominent among them was Hermann Göring, the commander of the Luftwaffe, who held numerous official and unofficial positions, served as Hitler’s close associate, and was considered the second most powerful man in the Reich.
Other figures included the Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories and the Nazis’ chief ideologist Alfred Rosenberg; Chief of the Armed Forces Command Wilhelm Keitel; Minister of Foreign Affairs Joachim von Ribbentrop; and the head of the security service Ernst Kaltenbrunner.
Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice was chosen for the trials for several practical reasons. It had direct access to the prison, was in relatively good condition, and was well-equipped to accommodate large numbers of people.
The decision was made to conduct the trials according to established legal standards, allowing the defendants the right to defend themselves. The Nazis found attorneys to represent them. Admiral Karl Dönitz took an interesting approach: he secured a maritime law specialist as his lawyer, but said that if he were not allowed to work with him, he would choose the admiral of the Allied forces who commanded submarines as his lawyer.
Rosenberg pursued a different strategy by trying to recruit Hans Frank, who was also being tried for war crimes as the governor of occupied Poland, and happened to be a lawyer by training. However, this request was denied. Furthermore, since the court needed to address the criminal status of certain organizations, and Martin Bormann was absent from the trial, the court appointed its own attorneys. The judges were from the USSR, the US, the UK, and France.
A significant challenge arose from the fact that some legal norms were developed during the trial itself. As a result, defense attorneys argued that the court was fundamentally unlawful since it relied on laws that did not exist at the time the defendants committed their crimes. Certain participants stated that Nuremberg represented “victor’s justice.” This sentiment partly fueled Winston Churchill’s earlier wartime suggestion to execute the political leadership of the Reich outright. The problem was that such a trial was unprecedented – nothing similar had ever been attempted before – and required the unveiling of many layers of guilt to find the responsible persons.
For example, one of the most repugnant acts leading to the mass death of people was the so-called Barbarossa Decree issued in May 1941. This document was signed by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, chief of the German armed forces. It effectively removed accountability for crimes committed by Wehrmacht soldiers and officers against Soviet civilians. Such actions could only be punished if they harmed German interests. If a soldier looted and killed a peasant, Keitel technically bore no responsibility, as the soldier operated within the legal framework that existed at the time.
Additionally, during the trial, Keitel’s attorney attempted to shift all blame onto the dead Hitler, citing that Keitel “was just following orders.” Moreover, the fact that the USSR did not sign several international agreements designed to protect war participants, especially prisoners of war, compounded the issue. The mortality rate among Soviet POWs during WWII exceeded 50%; in absolute terms, 3.3 million out of 5.7 million documented prisoners died. And this was just a small part of the challenges faced by the judges at Nuremberg.
The prosecution comprised four categories of crimes: crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, war crimes, and general conspiracy crimes. There was a significant challenge in aligning the legal positions of the USSR, the UK, and the US. Soviet law existed as an independent branch but was rooted in continental legal principles; meanwhile, the British and Americans relied on their own legal frameworks; for instance, the concept of ‘conspiracy’ was unique to these countries and was not typical in Soviet or German law.
Additionally, the Allies often favored a compromise stance whenever they could have been held accountable for similar actions themselves. This enabled Admiral Dönitz to mitigate his own sentence: although German submarine forces under his command fought ruthlessly, British and American submarine forces could have been accused of similar conduct.
Witnesses, evidence and Göring’s defiance
In some cases, the Allies had to make real compromises with their conscience. One such case involved Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, who participated in the proceedings as a witness. This man had directly overseen mass killings during counter-partisan operations in Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and Poland.
A horrifying tactic employed by his subordinates involved rounding up villagers in partisan areas into one building, which was then set ablaze. The mass slaughter of Poles during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 is another example of his policy – about 15 civilians were killed for every lost insurgent.
Zelewski understood that his survival depended on betraying others, so he turned on everyone, revealing their darkest secrets. Hermann Göring shouted from the defendant’s stand, “You disgusting traitor, swine!” but there was nothing he could do. Ultimately, a German court sentenced him to life in prison, not only for his wartime actions but also for murders committed during the power struggles in Germany in the 1930s.
The tribunal had volumes of documents to examine. American judge Robert Jackson later recalled that he had approached stories of Nazi atrocities with skepticism before the trial, but was horrified by the reality that unfolded before him. He was particularly struck by an SS report detailing the destruction of ghettos – Jews leapt from burning buildings, and some attempted to crawl away on broken legs; they were hunted down like game.
While most defendants tried to speak evasively, Hermann Göring stood his ground until the very end. He was informally dubbed ‘Fuhrer of the Defendants’. Göring urged his co-defendants to remain defiant and not to confess. He showcased his skills as an orator, made sarcastic remarks, and effortlessly parried the initial accusations.
According to him, Gestapo actions and concentration camps were just a response to the terrorist actions of the communists; and the extermination of Jews was merely harsh rhetoric, there were no actual plans for their annihilation. He claimed to have had no hand in any acts of aggression, insisting he was always taken by surprise by such acts. He also maintained that the Reich had to strike preemptively against the USSR to defend itself from potential Soviet aggression. As for the humanitarian catastrophe in occupied territories – that was the fault of the Soviet authorities and their scorched-earth tactics; and any crimes committed by German soldiers were merely isolated incidents.
Göring steamrolled over Justice Robert Jackson with his shameless demagoguery. However, the Allies had seized enough documents to bring down the Reichsmarschall. Soviet prosecutor Roman Rudenko and British prosecutor David Maxwell-Fyfe hammered Göring with his own orders that led to mass starvation. Göring knew that he intended to starve millions and openly discussed it in his circles.
In contrast, Albert Speer, the Minister of Armaments, didn’t plead for mercy; he acknowledged his guilt and presented himself as a humble technocrat, successfully avoiding the gallows.
The defense generally argued that the Nuremberg Tribunal established no new legal norms, yet the entire legal framework had been crafted specifically for this trial. Moreover, the conspiracy concept (one of the four main charges) allowed individuals to be condemned for being affiliated with criminal organizations. This was an unprecedented model in continental European law, including German law, and many lawyers deemed it inapplicable.
Even the term ‘genocide’ was used retroactively, having only emerged during the trial itself. Additionally, the defense reduced the discourse to the notion that the defendants were either uninformed or inadequately aware of the crimes being committed, while the actual perpetrators were presumably already in their graves.
The verdicts and the gallows
Out of 24 defendants, only 12, including Göring and Keitel, received death sentences. In reality, there were only 11, as the fate of Bormann remained unknown. Three others received life sentences – including naval commander Erich Raeder and Minister of Economics Walther Funk – but both were released in the 1950s. Rudolf Hess, one of Hitler’s associates, was sentenced to life in prison and committed suicide in 1987 at age 93. Albert Speer and the leader of the Hitler Youth organization Baldur von Schirach both received 20-year sentences. Interestingly, three people were acquitted: propagandist Hans Fritzsche, diplomat Franz von Papen, and financier Hjalmar Schacht.
Two others managed to evade justice altogether. Party official Robert Ley committed suicide before the trial even began, while Göring somehow obtained poison and took it just hours before his execution.
On the evening of October 15th, three gallows were erected in the prison gymnasium. Before midnight, the condemned were roused from their cells and led out. Execution began just after one o’clock, and by 2:45 AM, it was all over. The bodies were transported to Munich for cremation, and their ashes were scattered.
But that wasn’t the end of it. Following the main trial, there were 12 ‘mini-trials’ which focused on Nazi doctors, judges, and the case of the Einsatzgruppen (paramilitary death squads), among others. In total, 142 more individuals were found guilty, with 13 sentenced to execution. Many of these defendants were just as monstrous as those hanged in the primary trial. For instance, doctors were accused of a range of inhumane experiments on human subjects, including frostbite experiments, the deliberate poisoning of victims, and intentional infection with deadly diseases, among other atrocities.
Among those hanged was Waldemar Hoven, the chief physician at the Buchenwald concentration camp, who conducted gas poisoning experiments on inmates. A whole team of SS officers was convicted in connection to the Einsatzgruppen case. For unclear reasons, out of 24 individuals, only a few were actually executed, despite all being directly responsible for the murders. Among those executed was Paul Blobel, who organized the mass killings at Babi Yar. Additionally, separate trials occurred in various countries under their national laws. In Norway, 12 Germans and 25 collaborators were executed. In Poland, Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, was hanged following a separate trial.
***
The Nuremberg Tribunal was an impressive judicial process, and the Allies’ decision to hold it deserves commendation. The trial wasn’t perfect and it’s true that it departed from traditional methods of justice. Many legal norms were established retroactively; moreover, in the subsequent trials, many Nazi criminals managed to escape justice. However, Nuremberg wasn’t merely about ‘victor’s justice’. No one would dare say that those horrific criminals were hanged unjustly. Most importantly, while the principles of justice established in Nuremberg may have been imperfect, they are still effective in situations reminiscent of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis.
The Ukrainian leader turned to Brussels following a bitter public falling-out with US President Donald Trump
Vladimir Zelensky has emerged from the EU summit in Brussels with fresh promises of support but no deal on the additional €70 billion ($79 billion) he is demanding for Ukraine. Instead, European leaders tasked the European Commission with finding ways to meet Kiev’s growing financial needs, leaving the question of who will foot the bill unanswered.
The Ukrainian leader arrived in Brussels following a bitter public falling-out with US President Donald Trump over Washington’s decision to ease sanctions on Russian diesel supplies. His demands have put further pressure on Kiev’s European backers, who are already struggling with soaring energy costs, strained budgets and the prospect of a difficult winter.
Zelensky rejected the arrangement, saying he felt “betrayed” by Trump and called the US president’s decision “weak.”
Trump then called for Ukraine to get a “new president,” and questioned Zelensky’s willingness to reach a settlement with Moscow.
Zelensky announced continued refinery attacks and complained of restrictions on American intelligence support and Starlink services.
On Thursday, Kiev hit a refinery in Russia’s Ryazan Region, despite Washington’s clearly expressed expectations and objections.
Trump called the attacks a “disgrace” and accused Zelensky of “driving up fuel prices for everyone.”
On Thursday night, after Zelensky arrived in Brussels, Trump went hard in an interview with Newsmax. “He says he wants to settle, but he doesn’t,” Trump said, adding that Zelensky was harder to deal with than Putin. He also alleged that US missiles supplied to Kiev had been sold on the “open market.”
Washington also announced it would prioritize its own munitions stocks over others. “Once we are really stocked, we will start letting our allies buy them from us,” Trump said.
The summit also failed to break the deadlock over frozen Russian sovereign assets held in Belgium. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz continued to push for the funds to be used to support Kiev, despite his unpopularity at home, while flatly rejecting a US proposal to include them in a peace settlement. After the talks, Merz acknowledged that “there were no decisions, but there was an exchange of views,” warning that the €90 billion loan already agreed for Ukraine “will not be enough.”
The International Criminal Court shields Western powers while ignoring crimes by Ukraine, Alexandre Guerreiro has told RT
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has become a tool of Western influence that selectively targets countries of the Global South while shielding European interests and ignoring crimes in Ukraine, international legal analyst and academic Alexandre Guerreiro has said. He accused the tribunal of applying double standards rather than delivering universal justice.
Criticism of the ICC has intensified in recent months amid growing accusations of political bias and selective justice. Venezuela, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have moved to withdraw, accusing the court of serving Western interests and engaging in “neocolonial repression.”
In an interview with RT on Thursday, Guerreiro argued that the court had abandoned its original purpose as an independent institution capable of holding perpetrators accountable regardless of nationality, and has become increasingly politicized and dominated by European powers.
“In practice, what we have is a court that serves European interests, colonialist interests,” he said, arguing that the tribunal is used to pressure Global South nations while avoiding similar scrutiny of European countries.
Guerreiro pointed to the court’s handling of cases involving Afghanistan, Iraq and Kenya, arguing that political interference had repeatedly undermined the principles of impartial justice.
He also accused the ICC of ignoring alleged crimes in Ukraine, including the deadly May 2014 Odessa clashes between Ukrainian nationalists and opponents of the Western-backed coup in Kiev, as well as the sniper shootings during the preceding Maidan unrest.
“This is not justice,” he said, arguing that the court only pursues cases that serve the interests of the current Ukrainian authorities and the Western bloc as a whole.
The remarks come days after Washington imposed sweeping new sanctions on the ICC, accusing it of overstepping its jurisdiction in cases involving American and Israeli nationals. The court issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Meanwhile, the ICC’s investigation into alleged war crimes by American forces in Afghanistan has produced no criminal charges against US personnel.
Netanyahu has dismissed reports that he wants to launch new strikes on Tehran ahead of the parliamentary vote
There is a widespread belief within Israel’s political and security establishment that the country will not attack Iran ahead of the October 27 parliamentary elections, Ynet News reported on Thursday.
The report comes after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Army Radio on Wednesday that it would be “inconvenient” to launch preemptive strikes against Iran at this time. He claimed, however, that “Iran’s proxies” were planning to fire rockets at Israel.
“Even if Iran fires missiles at us, they will blame me,” he said, adding that Israel would retaliate against any attack.
Netanyahu sought to dispel speculation following a Channel 12 report claiming that he had urged Washington to strike Iran before the Israeli elections and the US midterms scheduled for November 3.
Axios cited a US official earlier this week as saying that Netanyahu “seems to want to go in again” against Iran. Netanyahu’s office denied the claims.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly hinted in recent weeks that he could resume the bombing campaign if Iran does not accept his terms. American media outlets have reported that the Pentagon prepared plans to use a massive conventional explosive nicknamed the “mother of all bombs.” The White House, however, denied that Trump and Netanyahu had discussed resuming the war.
Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict have stalled, with Washington and Tehran accusing each other of making unacceptable demands. Iranian officials have warned that the country is prepared for renewed war if American or Israeli forces launch another attack.
The Knesset election will determine whether Netanyahu can remain in power after more than three years of governing with a coalition of right-wing and religious parties. He has faced accusations of intelligence failures ahead of the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, which triggered Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, as well as criticism over his handling of efforts to secure the release of Israeli hostages. His ongoing corruption trial also remains a political liability.
Neither Netanyahu’s coalition nor the opposition is assured of securing the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 120-member Knesset.
The US midterms will determine control of Congress for the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency amid an energy crisis exacerbated by conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. The Republicans are defending narrow majorities in both chambers of the legislature, while Democrats hope to regain control and constrain Trump’s agenda.
A Pew Research Center poll published on October 8 found that 65% of Americans disapproved of his handling of the Iran war, while his overall approval rating had fallen to 30%, its lowest level of his second term.
The US president has accused Kiev of failing to account for billions of dollars in American military and financial aid
US President Donald Trump has accused Ukraine of selling American-supplied missiles on the black market, questioning the whereabouts of billions of dollars in military and financial aid provided to Kiev under his predecessor, Joe Biden.
In an interview with Newsmax aired on Thursday, Trump lashed out at Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, accusing him of exploiting Washington’s generosity, while refusing to negotiate an end to the conflict with Russia.
“Where is the cash that we gave to Ukraine? Where is all the equipment? Biden was giving them missiles, and they were being sold on the open market,” Trump said.
Russian officials have repeatedly warned that unchecked deliveries of Western weapons to Ukraine and rampant corruption in the country have resulted in a large amount of these arms ending up in the hands of organized criminal groups and extremist organizations in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, including Mexican drug cartels.
An RT investigation in 2022 found a variety of Western-supplied weapons such as anti-tank rockets, drones, and small arms for sale on the “dark web.”
According to a report by Small Arms Survey, the Ukrainian authorities intercepted a vehicle carrying 18 US-made Javelin anti-tank missiles and other hardware in Kiev-controlled part of Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic in 2024. The driver lacked the proper paperwork to transport the weapons, which suggested that they could have been intended for sale, it said.
Ukraine has also been rocked by numerous corruption scandals in military procurement involving officials close to Zelensky. In August, the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) reported losses of 254 million hryvnias ($6 million) as a result of an alleged embezzlement scheme which revolved around purchases of drones for Ukrainian forces.
Last year, investigators uncovered a $100 million corruption scheme in the Ukrainian energy sector allegedly run by a former close associate of Zelensky, businessman Timur Mindich, who fled the country before he could be detained. Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov has been questioned as a witness in the case.
Zelensky has faced criticism from the West and street protests in 2025 over his attempts to put Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption watchdogs under the control of the government. The pressure eventually forced him to reverse course.
Trump has repeatedly criticized Biden for providing Ukraine with weapons and funds without preconditions and proper oversight. During Thursday’s interview, the US president compared Zelensky to P.T. Barnum, a 19th-century American showman and traveling circus-owner, known for publicity stunts and sensational attractions.
“Zelensky is not a good guy for us to deal with. Biden gave him billions and billions of dollars,” he said.
Trump also questioned the Ukrainian leader’s willingness to reach a diplomatic resolution to the conflict with Moscow.
“He says he wants to settle but he [doesn’t],” he said, adding: “No, I’m not a big fan of Zelensky. They’ve destroyed that country.”
The remarks followed Zelensky’s criticism of Trump’s decision last week to ease sanctions on Russian diesel exports in order to contain surging energy prices ahead of the November 3 US midterm elections. The Ukrainian leader said he felt betrayed by Washington’s move and defied Trump’s demand to halt attacks on Russian oil refineries.
The US president, meanwhile, made clear that Washington would prioritize rebuilding its own depleted weapons inventories rather than continuing to supply Kiev.
“Once we are really stocked, we will start letting our allies buy them [the arms] from us,” he said.
Three children and a teacher were slain in Bend, Oregon, before a bystander shot the attacker dead
A teenage gunman killed three students and a teacher at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon, on Thursday, police said. The shooter was himself shot dead by a bystander.
The culprit was identified as a 16-year-old Bend resident, the city’s police chief, Mike Krantz, said at a news conference. He did not reveal the suspect’s name or say whether he knew anyone at the school.
The three children killed were aged five, eight and 11. A seven-year-old child and a 54-year-old teacher were hospitalized in critical condition.
Krantz said the gunman was shot by a “community member who had seen the suspect enter the school and pursued him into the school and engaged him.”
The school has been placed on lockdown, and the Bend Police Department has urged the public to avoid the area.
According to The Source Weekly, parents received alerts that nearby schools, including Caldera High School and Jewell Elementary School, had also been placed on lockdown following a police alert at around 1:20 PM on Thursday. The lockdowns were lifted about 40 minutes later.
Video from the scene shows multiple police cars and ambulances near the school.
Paramedics seen staging at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon amid reported active shooter situation. https://t.co/9KnGY4LIEv
FBI Director Kash Patel said the bureau’s local office was working with investigators. “We will make every resource they need available,” he wrote on X.
“Today is an awful day for our community,” Bend Mayor Melanie Kebler said. “A school should be a safe place where children can learn and feel secure,” she added, expressing condolences to the victims’ families.
The shooting comes amid continuing concerns over gun violence at US schools. In August 2025, a gunman opened fire on children attending Mass at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing two students, aged eight and ten, and injuring 17 other people before taking his own life.
Login
