The United States on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza because it was not linked to the release of hostages, saying it would embolden Hamas militants.

All 14 other members of the council voted in favor of the resolution, which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as “catastrophic” and called on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid to the 2.1 million Palestinians in the territory.

The resolution before the U.N.'s most powerful body also did not fulfill two other U.S. demands: It did not condemn Hamas’ deadly attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza.

Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea, speaking to the council immediately before the vote, said the resolution would undermine the security of Israel. a close U.S. ally, and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire “that reflects the realities on the ground.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the resolution would only have empowered Hamas. “Hamas could end this brutal conflict immediately by laying down its arms and releasing all remaining hostages,” he said in a statement.

Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon thanked the United States for refusing to abandon the hostages. He said the resolution’s failure to make the release of hostages a condition for a ceasefire would have put all the pressure on Israel and handed Hamas “time, leverage and political cover.”

But the U.S. veto of the resolution — its fifth since the start of the war — was roundly criticized by other members of the council, who accused the United States of providing Israel with impunity. The Chinese ambassador to the U.N. said Israel’s actions have “crossed every red line” of international humanitarian law and seriously violated U.N. resolutions. “Yet, due to the shielding by one country, these violations have not been stopped or held accountable,” Ambassador Fu Cong said.

Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward, a usual U.S. ally, lashed out at Israel. “This Israeli government’s decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive, and the U.K. completely opposes them,” she said.

Pakistan’s Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said the U.S. veto “will be remembered as a complicity, a green light for continued annihilation. A moment where the entire world was expecting action. But yet again, this council was blocked and prevented by one member from carrying out its responsibility.”

Slovenia’s U.N. Ambassador Samuel Žbogar, the coordinator for the council’s 10 elected members, stressed that it was never the intention to provoke a veto and therefore the resolution focused on the humanitarian crisis and the urgent need for unimpeded access to deliver aid.

Months of a political drama in South Korea is drawing to a close with the country poised to elect a new president this week to succeed Yoon Suk Yeol, a conservative leader who was toppled over his ill-fated imposition of martial law.

Surveys show liberal Lee Jae-myung maintaining a solid lead over his main conservative rival Kim Moon Soo, who wants an upset victory. Whoever wins, the new president will forgo the usual two-month transition and serve one full, five-year term at a time when South Korea faces crucial challenges including a severe left-right political divide, the Trump administration’s tariff policy and North Korea’s expanding military partnership with Russia.

Here is a look at the two main candidates standing for the June 3 election:

LEE JAE-MYUNG

Lee, 60, the Democratic Party candidate, was the driving force behind an opposition-led campaign to oust Yoon, whose Dec. 3 marital law decree plunged South Korea into turmoil.

Lee said he initially thought Yoon’s late-night televised marital law announcement was a digital deepfake when his wife told him of the news. After realizing it was real, Lee, then the party’s chairman, ordered all his party lawmakers to rush to the National Assembly to vote down Yoon’s decree. He then livestreamed his moves to the assembly, urging the public to gather there to protest Yoon’s action.

Lee previously served as governor of South Korea’s most populous Gyeonggi province and mayor of Seongnam city, near Seoul. He has portrayed himself as “an able captain” who can revitalize the economy, heal a worsened domestic division and bring back peace with North Korea.

“If you give me a chance to work as president, I will clearly prove how big change one official — the person in charge — can bring,” Lee told a crowd in his first official campaign speech on May 12.

Once a political outsider, Lee rose sharply in politics from his position as mayor after fiery speeches critical of conservative President Park Geun-hye over a 2016-17 corruption scandal that went viral.

Supporting his popularity was his self-built success story: Poverty forced him to quit school and work as a child laborer at factories where he suffered injuries that left him with an arm disability. He later passed the country’s highly exhaustive bar exam and became a human rights lawyer.

Lee has since tried to establish an image as someone who can fix deep-rooted inequality and corruption. But many conservative critics view him as a dangerous populist who intensifies divisions for political gains and backpedals on promises too easily.


KIM MOON SOO

Kim, 73, a hardline conservative who served as Yoon’s labor minister, initially was considered past his political prime.

He suddenly emerged as a potential standard-bearer of the embattled South Korean conservatives after he solely defied a request by a Democratic Party lawmaker for all Cabinet members to stand and bow at the assembly in a gesture of apology over Yoon’s decree.

Kim won the People Power Party’s nomination in early May. He quickly faced an attempt by party leaders to replace him with Han Duck-soo, a former prime minister and independent who was more popular in polls. In a dramatic shift, Kim eventually retained his candidacy after party members voted in his favor.

In a televised party meeting afterward, Kim knelt, apologized for the infighting and vowed to promote internal unity.

“From today, we are one team. Let’s fight together and win together,” he said.

Kim has said he would build a greater missile defense system and win a stronger U.S. security commitment to cope with North Korea’s evolving nuclear threats. He vowed to reform anti-business regulations and reduce corporate and inheritance taxes.

Kim was a prominent labor and pro-democracy activist in the 1970 and ‘80s, when South Korea was ruled by military-backed leaders. He was expelled from Seoul National University, the country’s top school, worked at factories to promote labor rights and spent 2 1/2 years in prison for his anti-government activities.

Kim switched his ideology in 1994 and joined a conservative party, drawing rebukes from fellow activists who denounced him as a traitor. Kim has said he abandoned his dream to become “a revolutionist” after observing the collapses of communist states.

He served as Gyeonggi province governor for eight years and a member of the National Assembly for three terms. His political career suffered major setbacks when he successively lost parliamentary and Seoul mayoral elections to the liberals. He was named labor minister in 2024.

In a recent campaign appearance, Kim lauded late authoritarian President Park Chung-hee, father of Park Geun-hye, as a great leader who lifted the country out of poverty and apologized for his past fight against him. Park is a divisive figure because he engineered the country’s past rapid economic rise but suppressed dissidents.

Immigration officials said Tomás Hernández worked in high-level posts for Cuba’s foreign intelligence agency for decades before migrating to the United States to pursue the American dream.

The 71-year-old was detained by federal agents outside his Miami-area home in March and accused of hiding his ties to Cuba’s Communist Party when he obtained permanent residency.

Cuban-Americans in South Florida have long clamored for a firmer hand with Havana and the recent apprehensions of Hernández and several other former Cuban officials for deportation have been extremely popular among the politically powerful exile community.

“It’s a political gift to Cuban-American hardliners,” said Eduardo Gamarra, a Latin American expert at Florida International University. But many Cubans fear they could be next on Trump’s list, he said, and “some in the community see it as a betrayal.”

While President Donald Trump’s mass deportation pledge has frightened migrants from many nations, it has come as something of a shock to the 2.4 million Cuban-Americans, who strongly backed the Republican twice and have long enjoyed a place of privilege in the U.S. immigration system.

Amid record arrivals of migrants from the Caribbean island, Trump in March revoked temporary humanitarian parole for about 300,000 Cubans. Many have been detained ahead of possible deportation.

Among those facing deportation is a pro-Trump Cuban rapper behind a hit song “Patria y Vida” — “Homeland and Life” — that became the unofficial anthem of anti-communist protests on the island in 2021 and drew praise from the likes of then Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, now Secretary of State. Eliéxer Márquez, who raps under the name El Funky, said he received notice this month that he had 30 days to leave the U.S.

Thanks to Cold War laws aimed at removing Fidel Castro, Cuban migrants for many decades enjoyed almost automatic refugee status in the U.S. and could obtain green cards a year after entry, unlike migrants from virtually every other country.

Support for Trump among likely Cuban-American voters in Miami was at an all-time high on the eve of last year’s election, according to a poll by Florida International University, which has been tracking the Cuban-American community since 1991. Trump rarely mentions Cubans in his attacks on migrant targets including Venezuelans and Haitians. That has given many Cubans hope that they will remain immune to immigration enforcement actions.

Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to turn the immigration crackdown to their advantage. In April, grassroots groups erected two giant billboards on Miami highways calling Rubio and Republican Reps. Mario Díaz-Balart, María Elvira Salazar and Carlos Giménez “traitors” to the Cuban-American community for failing to protect tens of thousands of migrants from Trump’s immigration policies.

In March, Giménez sent Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a letter with the names of 108 people he said were former Cuban state agents or Communist Party officials living unlawfully in the U.S.

“It is imperative that the Department of Homeland Security enforce existing U.S. laws to identify, deport and repatriate these individuals who pose a direct threat to our national security, the integrity of our immigration system and the safety of Cuban exiles and American citizens alike,” Giménez wrote, adding that the U.S. remains a “beacon of hope and freedom for those escaping tyranny.”

Giménez’s target list was compiled by Luis Dominguez, who left Cuba in 1971 and has made it his mission to topple Cuba’s government. In 2009, when the internet was still a novelty in Cuba, Dominguez said he posed as a 27-year-old female sports journalist from Colombia to lure Castro’s son Antonio into an online romance.

With support from the right-wing Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba, he started combing social media and relying on a well-oiled network of anti-socialist sources, inside Cuba and outside the country, to dox officials allegedly behind human rights abuses and violations of democratic norms. To date, his website, Represores Cubanos — Cuban Repressors — has identified more than 1,200 such state agents, some 150 in the United States.

“They’re chasing the American dream, but previously they condemned it while pursuing the Cuban dream,” Dominguez said. “It’s the typical double life of any Communist regime. When they were in power they criticized anything about the U.S. But now that they’re here, they love it.”

Dominguez, 62, said he regularly shares his findings with federal law enforcement but a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn’t comment on the agency’s relationship with the activist.

Enrique Garcia, a former colleague, said he studied with Hernández in the former Soviet Union in the 1970s. Upon their return, Hernández was sent to work in the spy agency’s elite “North America” department, said Garcia.

Garcia, who defected to the U.S. in the 1990s and has devoted himself to helping American spy catchers unmask Cuban agents, said one-time Cuban agents have infiltrated the current migration wave while hiding their past and even current loyalties to the Cuban government.

The Trump administration granted Syria sweeping exemptions from sanctions Friday in a big first step toward fulfilling the president’s pledge to lift a half-century of penalties on a country shattered by 13 years of civil war.

While broad, the administration’s actions could possibly be reversed. Syrians say they need permanent relief to secure the tens of billions of dollars in investment needed to rebuild after a conflict that fragmented the country, displaced or killed millions of people, and left behind thousands of foreign fighters.

A measure by the State Department waived for six months a tough set of sanctions imposed by Congress in 2019. A Treasury Department action suspended enforcement of sanctions against anyone doing business with a range of Syrian individuals and entities, including Syria’s central bank.

Syria is now led by Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former militia commander who helped drive longtime autocratic leader Bashar Assad from power late last year.

President Donald Trump announced last week that the U.S. would roll back the heavy financial penalties in a bid to give the interim government a better chance of survival.

The Trump administration said businesses and investors are getting the protection against sanctions they need to come back to Syria, calling it “the opportunity for a fresh start.”

“The only other option was Syria becoming a failed state and civil war,” said Mouaz Moustafa, a Syrian American advocate who had campaigned for quick, broad relief. “Now there is hope for a future democratic Syria.”

The congressional sanctions, known as the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, had aimed to isolate Syria’s previous rulers by effectively expelling those doing business with them from the global financial system. They specifically block postwar reconstruction, so while they can be waived for 180 days by executive order, investors are likely to be wary of reconstruction projects when sanctions could be reinstated after six months.

The Trump administration said Friday’s actions were “just one part of a broader U.S. government effort to remove the full architecture of sanctions.” Those penalties had been imposed on the Assad family for their support of Iranian-backed militias, their chemical weapons program and abuses of civilians.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement Friday that in return for sanctions relief, Trump expects “prompt action by the Syrian government on important policy priorities.”

Al-Sharaa’s own past has fueled doubts. The group that he led, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, was originally affiliated with al-Qaida, although it later renounced ties and took a more moderate tone. It is still listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

But if al-Sharaa’s government fails, the U.S. and others fear renewed conflict in Syria and a power vacuum that could allow a resurgence of the Islamic State and other extremist groups.

“If we engage them, it may work out, it may not work out. If we do not engage them, it was guaranteed to not work out,” Rubio told lawmakers this week. Trump met al-Sharaa last week in Saudi Arabia, a day after announcing his intention to lift the sanctions: “We’re taking them all off. Good luck, Syria. Show us something special.”

Rubio said sanctions relief must start quickly because Syria’s transition government could be weeks from “collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions.”

But asked by lawmakers this week what sanctions relief should look like overall, Rubio gave a one-word explanation: “Incremental.” While some sanctions can be quickly waived through executive actions like those taken Friday, Congress would have to permanently remove the penalties it imposed.

A proposal circulated among administration officials this week broadly emphasized taking all action possible, as fast as possible, according to U.S. officials familiar with the plan who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Last week, a State Department proposal laid out a three-phase road map with temporary, partial relief initially and setting sweeping conditions for Syrians to meet for any future phases of relief or permanent lifting of sanctions, one of the officials said.

A war next door in Ukraine.Migration pressure at borders. Russian sabotage across the region. Doubts about the U.S. commitment to Europe’s security.

In Poland’s presidential election Sunday, security looms large. So do questions about the country’s strength as a democracy and its place in the European Union. One of the new president’s most important tasks will be maintaining strong ties with the United States, widely seen as essential to the survival of a country in an increasingly volatile neighborhood.

Voters in this Central European nation of 38 million people will cast ballots to replace conservative incumbent Andrzej Duda, whose second and final five-year term ends in August.

With 13 candidates, a decisive first-round victory is unlikely. Some have appeared unserious or extreme, with a couple expressing openly pro-Putin or antisemitic views. A televised debate this week dragged on for nearly four hours. There are calls to raise the threshold to qualify for the race.

A runoff on June 1 is widely expected, with polls pointing to a likely showdown between Rafał Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw, and Karol Nawrocki, a conservative historian backed by the Law and Justice party, which governed Poland from 2015 to 2023. Poland’s geography gives the election added importance. Bordering Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave, Belarus and war-torn Ukraine — as well as several Western allies — Poland occupies a critical position along NATO’s eastern flank and serves as a key logistics hub for military aid to Ukraine.

There are growing fears that if Russia prevails in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it could target other countries that freed themselves from Moscow’s control some 35 years ago. Against that backdrop, the election will shape Warsaw’s foreign policy at a moment of mounting strain on trans-Atlantic unity and European defense.

Both leading candidates support continued U.S. military engagement in Europe. Trzaskowski puts greater emphasis on deepening ties with the European Union, while Nawrocki is more skeptical of Brussels and promotes a nationalist agenda.

When Law and Justice held power, it repeatedly clashed with EU institutions over judicial independence, media freedom and migration. While Poland is a parliamentary democracy, the presidency wields significant influence. The president serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, holds veto power, shapes foreign policy and plays a symbolic role in national discourse.

Under Duda, the office largely advanced the conservative agenda of Law and Justice. Since Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centrist coalition came to power in late 2023, Duda has blocked key reforms aimed at restoring judicial independence and repairing relations with the EU.

South Korea’s acting leader, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, said Thursday he is resigning to take on “heavier responsibility” amid expectation he will run in next month’s presidential election.

Han has emerged as a potential conservative standard bearer as the main conservative People Power Party remains in disarray over the recent ouster of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Observers expect Han to officially launch his presidential campaign on Friday.

“I have two paths ahead of me. One is completing the heavy responsibility that I handle now. The other is putting down that responsibility and taking a heavier responsibility,” Han said in a nationally televised announcement. “I’ve finally determined to put down my post to do what I can and what I have to help overcome the crises facing us.”

Han, who Yoon had appointed prime minister, the country’s No. 2 post, is expected to align with the People Power Party to launch a unified conservative campaign against liberal front-runner Lee Jae-myung, observers say.

Han, 75, is a career bureaucrat with about 40 years of public service and a Harvard doctorate in economics. He has held many top posts under both conservative and liberal governments, including trade minister, finance minister and ambassador to the U.S. He’s served as prime minster twice, first under liberal President Roh Moo-hyun from 2007 to 2008 and later under Yoon.

Han’s supporters say his extensive government experience, especially on economic affairs, would make him the right leader who can deal with President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies and other economic problems. But his critics say Han — who has never had an elected post — has no strong political support base and is too old to become president.

Lee’s main liberal opposition Democratic Party lambasted Han’s move. “Only the people’s severe punishment awaits Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who is blind with greed and abandons state affairs,” party spokesperson Cho Seung-rae said.

Han is to formally end his term at midnight after he signs a related document, according to South Korean media. With Han’s resignation, Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok becomes acting president until a new leader is elected on June 3.

Lee, who won the nomination of the Democratic Party on Sunday, has been favored to win. But his campaign suffered a blow Thursday after the Supreme Court ordered a lower court to review its earlier cancellation of his conviction over election law violation charges.

While it’s unclear the Seoul High Court will come up with a new ruling on Lee before the June 3 election, the development provided his conservative rivals with fodder for a political offensive. Under South Korean law, anyone who receives a fine exceeding 1 million won ($683) for election law violations is barred from running for elections for five years.

The Democratic Party condemned the Supreme Court for allegedly trying to interfere in the election.

After the liberal opposition-controlled parliament impeached Yoon on Dec. 14 over his martial law declaration that plunged the country into turmoil, Han began serving as acting leader. But Han quickly clashed with Lee’s Democratic Party over his refusal to fill three vacant seats on the nine-member Constitutional Court, which was deliberating whether to formally dismiss or reinstate Yoon. A court decision to dismiss Yoon needed support from at least six justices.

In late December, the Democratic Party and other small opposition parties voted to impeach Han, accusing him of obstructing the restoration of the court’s full membership and abetting Yoon’s martial law decree. In March, however, the Constitutional Court overturned Han’s impeachment, reinstating him as acting president. The court in early April ruled to dismiss Yoon.

Yoon separately faces a criminal trial for rebellion in connection with his martial law decree. On Thursday, prosecutors added charges of abuse of power, according to a Seoul prosecutors’ office.

Lee Jae-myung, a liberal who wants greater economic parity in South Korea and warmer ties with North Korea, became the main opposition party’s presidential candidate Sunday, solidifying his position as front-runner to succeed recently ousted conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol.

The former Democratic Party chief had led the opposition-controlled parliament’s impeachment of Yoon over the imposition of martial law in December. The country’s Constitutional Court formally dismissed Yoon earlier this month, prompting an early presidential election on June 3 to find a new president.

In a nationally televised announcement, the Democratic Party announced that Lee won its presidential nomination with nearly 90% of the votes cast during the primary that ended Sunday, defeating two competitors.

“Now, the people and our party colleagues gave me an opportunity to win back the presidency and build a new, real Republic of Korea. Thank you! I’ll humbly uphold that ardent, serious task,” Lee said in a victory speech.

Lee, 60, who served as the governor of South Korea’s most populous Gyeonggi province and a mayor of Seongnam city, is the clear favorite to win the election. In a Gallup Korea poll released on Friday, 38% of respondents chose Lee as their preferred choice, while all other aspirants obtained single-digit ratings. The main conservative People Power Party will nominate its candidate next weekend. Its four presidential hopefuls competing to win the party ticket won a combined 23% of support ratings in the Gallup survey.

It will be Lee’s third bid to run for president. He lost the 2022 election to Yoon in the narrowest margin in the country’s presidential elections. In 2017, Lee ranked third in a Democratic Party primary.

Lee has long established an image as an anti-establishment figure who can eliminate deep-rooted inequality and corruption in South Korea. But his critics view him as a populist who relies on stoking divisions and demonizing opponents and worry his rule would likely further polarize the country.

Lee currently faces five trials for corruption and other criminal charges. If he becomes president, those trials will likely stop as he will enjoy special presidential immunity from most criminal charges.

Lee’s rise comes as conservatives are struggling to win back public confidence in the wake of Yoon’s martial law decree that plunged the country into turmoil. The People Power Party is grappling with internal feuding between senior members defending Yoon’s action and reformist members who voted for his impeachment.

Hong Kong’s government on Monday defended its immigration procedures after a British member of parliament was denied entry to the Chinese city last week, an incident that has prompted concerns among U.K. officials.

Wera Hobhouse, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party representing Bath, on Sunday wrote on the social media platform Bluesky that authorities gave her no explanation for what she described as a “cruel and upsetting blow.” She noted that she was the first British MP to face such a situation upon arrival in the former British colony since it returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

Hobhouse had told British media that she flew to Hong Kong to visit her newborn grandchild. She is also a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China that has scrutinized Beijing’s human rights record.

The Hong Kong government, in a statement released late Monday, maintained that its immigration officers are duty-bound to question individuals to ascertain the purpose of any visit.

“The person concerned knows best what he or she has done. It will be unhelpful to the person’s case if the person refuses to answer questions put to him or her for that purpose,” the statement read. The government added that it would not comment on individual cases.

The statement also said that Chief Secretary Eric Chan discussed the matter with the U.K. Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security Douglas Alexander earlier on Monday during the British official’s visit to Hong Kong.

In Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian emphasized that immigration affairs fall within the scope of national sovereignty and the city’s government has the right to handle individual immigration cases according to the law.

The British government also issued a statement on Monday about Hobhouse’s entry denial last Thursday. It stated that Alexander had raised its concerns with senior Chinese and Hong Kong counterparts and demanded an explanation during his visit to the city and mainland China.

“Unjustified restrictions on the freedom of movement for U.K. citizens into Hong Kong only serves to further undermine Hong Kong’s international reputation and the important people-to-people connections between the U.K. and Hong Kong,” it said.

It added that the U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy made clear that it would be unacceptable for any member of parliament to be denied entry for simply expressing their views.

A former Conservative lawmaker and 14 others have been charged with cheating when placing bets on the timing of Britain’s general election last year, the Gambling Commission said Monday.

Craig Williams was one of several people who had been investigated for cashing in on insider knowledge on the date then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak would call the election. Other members of the Conservative Party that controlled government at the time and a police officer were among those facing charges that carry a potential two-year prison term, if convicted.

It’s legal for politicians to wager on elections, but the investigation was about whether they used inside information to gain an unfair advantage. One of the popular bets at the time was to wager on the date the prime minister would call an election.

At the time, the conventional wisdom was that Sunak would call an election in the fall, but he surprised people in May when he set the election date for July 4th. The announcement was a disaster as Sunak was drenched in pouring rain outside his residence and word quickly spread that a handful of people with connections to the party had placed suspiciously timed bets.

The vote six weeks later ended up being a bloodbath for Conservatives, as the Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, swept them out of office for the first time in 14 years.

Williams, who was Sunak’s parliamentary private secretary and running for reelection, had disclosed he placed a 100-pound ($131) bet on a July election days before the date had been announced.

“I committed an error of judgment, not an offense, and I want to reiterate my apology directly to you,” he said in a video posted on social media in June.

In the election, Williams lost his seat representing an area of Wales, finishing third.

Others facing charges included Russell George, a Conservative in the Welsh parliament, Nick Mason, a former chief data officer for the Tories and Thomas James, the director of the Welsh Conservatives.

Anthony Lee, a former Conservative campaign director, was also charged alongside his wife, Laura Saunders, who ran unsuccessfully for a seat in Parliament representing an area of southwest England.

George was suspended by the Conservative Party after news of the criminal case.

A U.S. citizen awaiting trial in Moscow has been forcibly admitted to a psychiatric hospital, Russian state media reported Sunday.

Joseph Tater, 46, was arrested in August 2024 after being accused of assaulting a police officer during a confrontation with staff at an upmarket hotel in the Russian capital.

A Moscow court agreed to admit Tater to a psychiatric hospital non-voluntarily after a medical evaluation on March 15, Russian state news agency Tass reported.

It said that doctors had described Tater as displaying signs of “tension, impulsivity, persecutory delusions, and lack of self-awareness regarding his condition.”

The U.S. Embassy in Moscow declined to comment on the case, citing privacy concerns.

Tater had been due to stand trial on April 14 on charges of assaulting a police officer, which is punishable with a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. It is unclear when the court made its decision to detain him on medical grounds, but Tass previously reported that he had been released from pre-trial detention at the end of March.

At a September court hearing, Tater claimed he came to Russia to seek political asylum and that he was being persecuted by the CIA. Tater’s defense lawyer has appealed his forced hospitalization, accusing officials of trying to “isolate the defendant from society,” Tass reported.

Human rights groups have repeatedly accused Russia of forcing citizens into psychiatric institutions due to their political views — a Soviet-era practice they say has been increasingly used by President Vladimir Putin’s government.

Tater has already served 15 days in jail for the same incident after being found guilty on administrative charges of “petty hooliganism.”

He was detained in August 2024 when he became abusive to hotel staff who requested to see his documents, Russian state news agencies reported. They reported that Tater swore and “behaved aggressively” when the hotel refused to accommodate him, and later grabbed the arm of a police officer called to the scene.

Tater is just one of several Americans detained in Russia on drug or assault convictions, with many serving sentences of several years. They include Robert Gilman, 72, who was handed 3 1/2-year sentence at the age of 72 after being found guilty of assaulting a police officer following a drunken disturbance on a train, and Travis Leake, a musician who was convicted on drug charges and sentenced to 13 years in prison in July 2024.

South Korea’s Constitutional Court will rule Friday on whether to formally dismiss or reinstate impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol — a decision that either way will likely deepen domestic divisions.

The court has been deliberating on Yoon’s political fate after the conservative leader was impeached in December by the National Assembly, which is controlled by the liberal opposition, over his brief imposition of martial law that triggered a massive political crisis.

Millions of people have rallied around the country to support or denounce Yoon. Police said they’ll mobilize all available personnel to preserve order and respond to possible acts of vandalism, arson and assault before and after the court’s ruling.

The Constitutional Court said in a brief statement Tuesday that it would issue its ruling at 11 a.m. Friday and allow TV stations to broadcast it live. Removing Yoon from office requires support from at least six of the court’s eight justices. If the court rules against Yoon, South Korea must hold an election within two months for a new president. If the court overturns his impeachment, Yoon would immediately return to his presidential duties.

Jo Seung-lae, a spokesperson for the main liberal opposition Democratic Party which led Yoon’s impeachment, called for the court to “demonstrate its firm resolve” to uphold the constitutional order by dismissing Yoon. Kwon Youngse, leader of Yoon’s People Power Party, urged the court’s justices to “consider the national interest” and produce a decision that is “strictly neutral and fair.”

Many observers earlier predicted the court’s verdict would come in mid-March based on the timing of its rulings in past presidential impeachments. The court hasn’t explained why it takes longer time for Yoon’s case, sparking rampant speculation on his political fate.

At the heart of the matter is Yoon’s deployment of hundreds of troops and police officers to the National Assembly after imposing martial law on Dec. 3. Yoon has insisted that he aimed to maintain order, but some military and military officials testified Yoon ordered them to drag out lawmakers to frustrate a floor vote on his decree and detain his political opponents.

Yoon argues that he didn’t intend to maintain martial law for long, and he only wanted to highlight what he called the “wickedness” of the Democratic Party, which obstructed his agenda, impeached senior officials and slashed his budget bill. During his martial law announcement, he called the assembly “a den of criminals” and “anti-state forces.”

By law, a president has the right to declare martial law in wartime or other emergency situations, but the Democratic Party and its supporters say South Korea wasn’t in such a situation.

The impeachment motion accused Yoon of suppressing National Assembly activities, attempting to detain politicians and others and undermining peace in violation of the constitution and other laws. Yoon has said he had no intention of disrupting National Assembly operations and detaining anyone.

Martial law lasted only six hours because lawmakers managed to enter the assembly building and voted to strike down his decree unanimously. No violence erupted, but live TV footage showing armed soldiers arriving at the assembly invoked painful memories of past military-backed dictatorships in South Korea. It was the first time for South Korea to be placed under martial law since 1980.

Earlier public surveys showed a majority of South Koreans supported Yoon’s impeachment. But after his impeachment, pro-Yoon rallies have grown sharply, with many conservatives fed up with what they call the Democratic Party’s excessive offensive on the already embattled Yoon administration.

In addition to the Constitutional Court’s ruling on his impeachment, Yoon was arrested and indicted in January on criminal rebellion charges.Yoon was released from prison March 8, after a Seoul district court cancelled his arrest and allowed him to stand his criminal trial without being detained.

Ten senior military and police officials have also been arrested and indicted over their roles in the martial law enactment.

South Korea’s truth commission concluded the government bears responsibility for facilitating a foreign adoption program rife with fraud and abuse, driven by efforts to reduce welfare costs and enabled by private agencies that often manipulated children’s backgrounds and origins.

The landmark report released Wednesday followed a nearly three-year investigation into complaints from 367 adoptees in Europe, the United States, and Australia, representing the most comprehensive examination yet of South Korea’s foreign adoptions, which peaked under a succession of military governments in the 1970s and ’80s.

The government-appointed Truth and Reconciliation Commission said it confirmed human rights violations in 56 of the complaints and aims to review the remaining cases before its mandate expires in late May.

However, some adoptees and even a commission investigator criticized the cautiously written report, acknowledging that investigative limitations prevented the commission from more strongly establishing the government’s complicity.

That investigator, Sang Hoon Lee, also lamented that the panel on Tuesday deferred assessments of 42 other adoptees’ cases, citing a lack of documentation to sufficiently prove their adoptions were problematic. Lee and the commission chairperson, Sun Young Park, did not specify which types of documents were central to the discussions.

However, Lee implied that some members of the commission’s decision-making committee were reluctant to recognize cases in which adoptees had yet to prove beyond doubt that the biological details in their adoption papers had been falsified — either by meeting their birth parents or confirming information about them.

Most Korean adoptees were registered by agencies as abandoned orphans, although they frequently had relatives who could be easily identified or found, a practice that often makes their roots difficult or impossible to trace. Government data obtained by The Associated Press shows less than a fifth of 15,000 adoptees who have asked South Korea for help with family searches since 2012 have managed to reunite with relatives.

Lee said the committee’s stance reflects a lack of understanding of the systemic problems in adoptions and risks excluding many remaining cases.

“Personally, I find yesterday’s decision very regrettable and consider it a half-baked decision,” Lee said.

After reviewing government and adoption records and interviewing adoptees, birth families, public officials and adoption workers, the commission assessed that South Korean officials saw foreign adoptions as a cheaper alternative to building a social welfare system for needy children.

Through policies and laws that promoted adoption, South Korea’s military governments permitted private adoption agencies to exercise extensive guardianship rights over children in their custody and swiftly transfer custody to foreign adopters, resulting in “large-scale overseas placements of children in need of protection,” the commission said.

Authorities provided no meaningful oversight as adoption agencies engaged in dubious or illicit practices while competing to send more children abroad. These practices included bypassing proper consent from biological parents, falsely documenting children with known parents as abandoned orphans, and switching children’s identities, according to the commission’s report. It cited that the government failed to ensure that agencies properly screened adoptive parents or prevent them from excessively charging foreign adopters, who were often asked to make additional donations beyond the standard fees.

The commission’s findings broadly aligned with previous reporting by The AP. The AP investigations, which were also documented by Frontline (PBS), detailed how South Korea’s government, Western countries and adoption agencies worked in tandem to supply some 200,000 Korean children to parents overseas, despite years of evidence that many were being procured through questionable or outright unscrupulous means.