Heidi Kingstone is a journalist and author covering human rights issues, conflict and politics. Her most recent book is “Genocide: Personal Stories, Big Questions.” Slavery is alive and thriving, and it’s wrapped inside shiny chocolate bars that promise to be “fair trade,” “child-labor free” and “sustainable.” In West Africa, which produces more than 60 percent of the world’s cocoa, over 1.5 million children still work under hazardous conditions. Kids, some as young as five, use machetes to crack pods open in their hands, carry loads that weigh more than they do and spray toxic pesticides without protection. Meanwhile, of the roughly 2 million metric tons of cocoa the Ivory Coast produces each year, between 20 percent and 30 percent is grown illegally in protected forests. And satellite data from Global Forest Watch shows an increase in deforestation across key cocoa-growing regions as farmers, desperate for income, push deeper into forest reserves. The bitter truth is that despite decades of pledges, certification schemes and packaging glowing with virtue — of forests saved, farmers empowered and consciences soothed — most chocolate companies have failed to eradicate exploitation from their supply chains. Today, many cocoa farmers in the Ivory Coast and Ghana still earn less than a dollar a day, well below the poverty line. According to a 2024 report by the International Cocoa Initiative, the average farmer earns only 40 percent of a living wage. Put starkly, as the global chocolate market swells close to a $150 billion a year in 2025, the average farmer now receives less than 6 percent of the value of a single chocolate bar, whereas in the 1970s they received more than 50 percent. Then there’s the use of child labor, which is essentially woven into the fabric of this economy, where we have been sold the illusion of progress. From the 2001 Harkin-Engel Protocol — a voluntary agreement to end child labor by the world’s chocolate giants — to today’s glossy environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports, every initiative has promised progress and delivered delay. In 2007, the industry quietly redefined “public certification,” shifting it from a commitment to consumer labeling to a vague pledge to compile statistics on labor conditions. It missed the original 2010 deadline to eliminate child labor, as well as a new target to reduce it by 70 percent by 2020. And that year, a study by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center found that hazardous child labor in cocoa production increased from 2008 to 2019. “We covered a story about a ship carrying trafficked children,” recalled journalist Humphrey Hawksley, who first exposed the issue in the BBC documentary called Slavery: A Global Investigation. “The chocolate companies refused to comment and spoke as one industry. That was their rule. Even now, none of them is slave-free,” he added. As it stands, many of the more than 1.5 million West African children working in cocoa production are trafficked from neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali. Traffickers lure them with false promises or outright abduction, offering children as young as 10 either bicycles or small sums to travel to the Ivory Coast. There, they are sold to farmers for as little as $34 each. And once on these farms, they are trapped. They work up to 14 hours a day, sleep in windowless sheds with no clean water or toilets, and most never see the inside of a classroom. Last but not least, we come to deforestation: Since its independence, more than 90 percent of the Ivory Coast’s forests have disappeared due to cocoa farming. In 2024, deforestation accelerated despite corporate commitments to halt it by 2025, as declining soil fertility and stagnant prices pushed farmers farther into the forest to plant new cocoa trees. But as Reuters Correspondent for West and Central Africa Ange Aboa described them, such labels are “the biggest scam of the century!” | Lena Klimkeit/Picture Alliance via Getty Images Certification labels like “Rainforest Alliance” and “Fairtrade” are supposed to prevent this. But as Reuters Correspondent for West and Central Africa Ange Aboa described them, such labels are “the biggest scam of the century!” Complicit in all of this are the financiers and investors who profit. For example, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is the world’s largest investor, and Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) is a shareholder in 9,000 corporations, including Nestlé, Mondelez, Hershey, Barry Callebaut and Lindt — all part of the direct chocolate cluster. NBIM also has shares in McDonald’s, Starbucks, Unilever, the Dunkin’ parent company and Tim Hortons — the indirect high-volume buyer cluster. “The richest families in cocoa — the Marses, the Ferreros, the Cargills, the Jacobs — are billionaires thanks to the exploitation of the poorest children on earth,” said journalist and human rights campaigner Fernando Morales-de la Cruz, the founder of Cacao for Change. “And countries like Norway, which claim to be ethical, profit from slavery and child labor.” The problem is, few are asking who picks the cocoa. And though the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which was adopted last year, requires large companies to address human rights and environmental abuses in their supply chains, critics say the directive’s weaknesses, loopholes, and delayed enforcement will blunt its impact. However, all of this could still be fixed. Currently, a metric ton of cocoa sells for about $5,000 on world markets, but Morales-de la Cruz estimates that a fair farm-gate price would be around $7,500 per metric ton. To that end, he advocates for binding international trade standards that enforce living incomes and transparent pricing, modeled on the World Trade Organization’s compliance mechanisms. “Human rights should be as binding in trade as tariffs,” he insisted. The solution isn’t to buy more “ethical” bars but to demand accountability and support legislation that makes exploitation unprofitable. “We can’t shop our way to justice,” he said. So, as the trees in the Ivory Coast’s forests fall, the profits in Europe and North America continue to soar. And two decades after the industry vowed to end child labor, the cocoa supply chain remains one of the world’s most exploitative and least accountable. Moreover, the European Parliament’s vote on the Omnibus simplification package last month laid bare the corporate control and moral blindness still present in EU policymaking, all behind talk of “cutting red tape.” “Yet Europe’s media and EU-funded NGOs stay silent, talking of competitiveness and green transitions, while ignoring the children who harvest its cocoa, coffee and cotton,” said Morales-de la Cruz. “Europe cannot claim to defend human rights while profiting from exploitation.” However, until the industry pays a fair price and governments enforce real accountability, every bar of chocolate remains an unpaid moral debt.

The looming Supreme Court showdown over President Donald Trump’s tariffs amounts to an epic clash between two of the most deeply ingrained tenets of the conservative legal movement. The first is that presidents need and are entitled to extreme deference on matters of national security and foreign policy. That precept suggests the six conservative justices may be willing to uphold Trump’s unprecedented move to bypass Congress and unilaterally impose sweeping global tariffs. On the other hand, an indisputable hallmark of the Roberts court is a deep mistrust for government meddling in the free market. That ideological predilection, which has fueled a slew of pro-business, anti-regulatory rulings, could prompt the court’s conservatives to view Trump’s tariffs more skeptically than they view many of his other, non-economic policies. “I think that some of the justices that matter are going to feel a bit torn,” said Jonathan Adler, a professor at William and Mary Law School. “What’s interesting here is that this case requires some of the conservative justices to confront a conflict between different strands of their own jurisprudence.” In the case set for oral arguments Wednesday, Trump is asking the justices to overturn lower-court decisions that declared many of the tariffs — the centerpiece of Trump’s economic agenda — an illegal overreach. The lower courts found that a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not authorize the president to impose such broad tariffs. FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THE KAVANAUGH FACTOR Lurking just below the surface in the case is a key dynamic: Should Trump’s tariffs be treated as a garden-variety economic policy, or are they a core part of the president’s management of international relations and national security? “How this case comes out will depend in large part on what the frame or the lens on it is,” said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis. “Is this a case about unbridled, unauthorized — at least not explicitly authorized — broad executive authority, or is this a case about presidential ability to discharge foreign affairs and national security responsibilities?” That question could be most acute for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose public appearances frequently include an account of his searing experiences working in President George W. Bush’s White House after 9/11. Kavanaugh is often the high court’s most outspoken voice for the president’s need for flexibility and dexterity in response to international challenges. But he is also highly skeptical of government power in the economic realm. A year before Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh declared his fealty to the conservative theory known as the “major questions doctrine” — the notion that courts should block executive branch actions of widespread impact when their legal basis is ambiguous. Staking out his position in a case involving net neutrality rules, Kavanaugh said he saw the doctrine applying to “a narrow class of cases involving major agency rules of great economic and political significance.” “If an agency wants to exercise expansive regulatory authority over some major social or economic activity … an ambiguous grant of statutory authority is not enough,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Congress must clearly authorize an agency to take such a major regulatory action.” Under this sort of test, the widespread tariffs Trump implemented would be on shaky legal ground because the 1977 law at issue, known as IEEPA, does not expressly empower the president to enact tariffs. However, just four months ago, Kavanaugh emphasized that the court’s skepticism about legally dubious executive branch actions has an important limit. “The major questions canon has not been applied by this Court in the national security or foreign policy contexts. … The canon does not translate to those contexts because of the nature of Presidential decisionmaking in response to ever-changing national security threats and diplomatic challenges,” he wrote in a solo concurring opinion in a case about funding to improve internet and phone service for low-income and rural Americans. TRUMP CLAIMS TARIFF POWER Trump announced his sweeping, worldwide “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, hitting nearly every country in the world with a minimum 10 percent tariff and including rates reaching 50 percent on some nations. The president claimed the authority to impose the tariffs under IEEPA, which Congress passed to try to rein in broader powers granted by a predecessor statute. IEEPA gives the president the right to “regulate … importation” of items from foreign countries during a presidentially declared national emergency. It’s fairly clear that in such an emergency the president has the power to put an embargo on foreign individuals or particular foreign countries. The administration contends that broader power to regulate and prohibit imports implies the related power to impose import taxes better known as tariffs, but opponents of Trump’s move say Congress knew how to confer that power on the president if it wanted to do so. “Nowhere does it say tariffs, taxes, duties,” noted Elizabeth Goitein, who studies emergency powers at New York University’s Brennan Center. A federal appeals court ruled, 7-4, in August that Trump’s broad tariffs exceeded his authority under IEEPA. However, the Federal Circuit’s majority stopped short of saying the law could never be used to impose more targeted tariffs. WATCHING THE COURT’S CENTER Many experts consider Kavanaugh likely to lean toward blessing the tariffs, although his vote isn’t a sure thing. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are thought by court watchers to be even more likely to uphold the tariffs. Assuming the three liberal justices vote against the administration, that leaves Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in play, although under that scenario both Roberts and Barrett would have to join the liberals to assemble enough votes to strike down the tariffs. “The center of the court is going to be especially interesting to watch,” Roman Martinez, a former law clerk to Kavanaugh and Roberts, said during a discussion at Georgetown Law. “I think this case will probably split the conservatives,” said Cary Coglianese, a University of Pennsylvania law school professor who specializes in administrative law and regulatory processes. Among the liberal justices, the Trump administration’s strongest prospect for support in the tariffs cases may be Obama appointee Elena Kagan. Like Kavanaugh, she saw presidential decisionmaking up close in White House jobs, although hers were under President Bill Clinton.thathis travel ban policy. That seemed to show deference to the president’s need for flexibility, although she joined the court’s liberal wing in dissent six months later when the court issued a final, 5-4 ruling upholding the travel ban. ‘THE STAKES IN THIS CASE COULD NOT BE HIGHER’ Some court watchers say the conservative justices, including Trump’s three high court appointees, could be hesitant to rule against Trump on an issue so central to his policy agenda. Just as many saw politics at work in the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision to leave a key part of President Barack Obama’s signature health care law in place, the justices might decide not to provoke the political fury that would be unleashed by striking down the tariffs. “This, along with ICE and immigration … is the paramount domestic policy initiative of this president,” said Donald Verrilli, who served as solicitor general under Obama. “One way of thinking about this is that the justices who are going to determine the outcome of this case feel like they need a really pretty strong case on the legal merits before they’re going to decide to cross swords with the president.” The tariffs case also comes to the court amid an extraordinary winning streak for Trump and his policies. Since January, Trump has brought an unprecedented number of emergency appeals to the justices and has prevailed in more than 20 of them, freeing his hand to gut foreign aid, fire leaders of federal agencies, and strip hundreds of thousands of immigrants of deportation protections. Trump and his administration have sought to keep that streak going by painting a potential defeat for his tariff policy as so cataclysmic that the justices would be ill-advised to take that risk. Trump warned on the eve of the arguments that the case “is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country.” Trump’s lawyers have also pushed the rhetorical envelope. The Trump administration’s formal plea to the high court to take up the tariff case turned heads in the legal community by including language so hyperbolic that it seemed designed to remind the justices of the intense retort they are certain to receive from Trump if they rule against him. “The stakes in this case could not be higher,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. “The President and his Cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe.” THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EFFECT That sort of apocalyptic verbiage is a rarity in Justice Department filings with the high court. While the justices will likely be reluctant to mount a direct challenge to those sorts of presidential predictions, the administration’s sky-is-falling claims could actually prompt some of the court’s conservatives to give Trump less running room, lawyers who practice before the court said. Even as the legal challenges have been playing out, Trump has raised doubts about whether the tariffs his imposed are a response to bona fide emergencies or more mundane concerns. Last month, Trump declared he was imposing an additional 10 percent tariff on Canada to express his irritation at a TV advertisement the province of Ontario aired showcasing President Ronald Reagan’s opposition to tariffs. “If the justices think that these assertions are kind of pretextual, I think that could shape their thinking about the other more purely legal issues in the case,” said Martinez, who authored an amicus brief for the Chamber of Commerce opposing the tariffs. “It could … bring into sharp relief in their eyes the dangers of giving the president this broad authority to impose tariffs. So, that’s a dynamic that could play out, as well.” Another factor undercutting the potential political blowback the court could receive from voiding the Trump tariffs: Most of the Republican establishment is profoundly unenthusiastic about them. Even some Trump backers might quietly celebrate a court ruling preventing the kind of broad-based tariffs the president announced in April. For decades, liberals and many legal academics have argued that the Roberts court is beholden to business interests, delivering a broad blow to the power of federal government agencies to regulate businesses, reining in federal authority to prevent development on environmental grounds and weakening federal enforcement of securities laws. If one subscribes to the notion that the opinions of some billionaires hold outsized sway at the court, well-heeled business people and investors have been sharply negative about the tariffs, although the markets have shrugged them off at least for now. “Tariffs are taxes,” one of many Wall Street Journal editorials skewering Trump’s tariffs declared. “If he can impose a tax on any imported product any time he wants, he really has the power of a king.” In short, while a ruling against the tariffs would surely infuriate Trump, it wouldn’t do much if anything to hurt the conservative justices’ standing in their legal, political and social circles. A RULING AGAINST HIM WOULDN’T LEAVE TRUMP WITHOUT TOOLS If the justices are looking for some sort of middle ground on tariffs or are divided in a way that makes an up-or-down ruling on Trump’s powers infeasible, they have a couple of options. The court could reject Trump’s broadest and most extreme tariffs, while highlighting his options under laws other than IEEPA. Many legal experts have pointed to powers Congress gave the president in 1974 to put quotas on imports and impose tariffs of up to 15 percent “to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,” a concept that trade specialists say encompasses trade deficits. Those experts argue that Congress’ decision to pass that law, known as the Trade Act, undercuts Trump’s arguments that he should be able to use IEEPA to address the trade deficit problem. However, the Trade Act comes with clear limits, declaring that those tariffs and trade restrictions must be “temporary” and last no longer than five months, unless Congress extends them. That may not represent enough of a cudgel for the Trump administration to use in talks with foreign countries in an effort to get them to agree to longer-lasting trade deals. Another concession the Supreme Court could offer Trump is to allow some tariffs involved in the legal fight to remain in effect. Part of the battle is over tariffs he imposed on Canada and China over trafficking in fentanyl and drug precursors into the U.S. and on Mexico to address those problems as well as migration and human trafficking. A ruling upholding those tariffs, but striking down the more global import taxes linked to trade deficits, would allow Trump to claim a partial win but probably won’t insulate the justices from a presidential rebuke. THE OPTICS OF TURNABOUT Despite the efforts some justices may make to distinguish the worldwide tariffs from other policies federal courts have blocked under the major questions doctrine, if the court allows Trump’s tariffs, many politicians and commentators are likely to accuse the justices of a double-standard. Exhibit No. 1 in this argument will be the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down one of President Joe Biden’s signature policies: his student debt relief plan. That 6-3 decision, wielding the doctrine to invalidate student debt forgiveness, was handed down by the same nine justices over two years ago. “It’s arguably quite analogous,” Goitein said. “Will the Supreme Court act consistently? Of course, the justices might say in a ruling upholding the Trump tariffs that they are pivoting based on legal substance and not politics. But for a court that many members of the public already view skeptically, the result may look partisan. “This will be a true test of the Supreme Court in many, many ways,” Goitein said. Erica Orden contributed to this report.

LONDON — A man sent to France under the “one in, one out” scheme agreed between London and Paris has returned to Britain on a small boat. The Guardian newspaper reported on Wednesday that the man, who wants to claim asylum in the U.K., made a second crossing on a small boat as he claims to be the victim of modern slavery at the hands of smugglers in northern France. The “one in, one out” scheme struck between the U.K. and France in July meant undocumented migrants entering Britain via small boats could be returned in exchange for asylum seekers who had never crossed the channel and had a U.K. connection. The first undocumented migrant was returned in September. “If I had felt that France was safe for me I would never have returned to the U.K.,” the man told the Guardian.  “The smugglers are very dangerous. They always carry weapons and knives. I fell into the trap of a human trafficking network in the forests of France before I crossed to the U.K. from France the first time.” He added: “They took me like a worthless object, forced me to work, abused me, and threatened me with a gun and told me I would be killed if I made the slightest protest.” 25 asylum seekers who were returned to France as part of the deal drafted a joint statement shared with the Guardian earlier this month, warning about the “extremely difficult and unsafe conditions” they were living in. The Home Office confirmed Sunday that 16 small boat arrivals had been returned to France last week, taking the total number of returns to 42, while 23 asylum seekers have been brought to the U.K. under the treaty. A Home Office spokesperson said:  “We will not accept any abuse of our borders, and we will do everything in our power to remove those without the legal right to be here. Individuals who are returned under the pilot and subsequently attempt to re-enter the U.K. illegally will be removed.” Bethany Dawson contributed to this report.

The European Union’s efforts to secure its external borders have been questioned after a Libyan naval vessel opened fire on a French ship that was rescuing migrants. Although no one was killed or injured, the incident has led to a major political row in Italy, which gave the Libyans the boat as part of an EU program. On Aug. 24, the Ocean Viking, a ship belonging to the French NGO SOS Méditerranée, came under fire in international waters about 40 nautical miles off the coast of Libya. The Ocean Viking had just rescued 87 people from a rubber dinghy when a Libyan coast guard patrol boat approached and opened fire at close range. “Without any warning or ultimatum, two men aboard the patrol vessel opened fire on our humanitarian ship, unleashing at least 20 relentless minutes of assault gunfire directly at us,” the NGO said in a statement, denouncing what it called a “violent and deliberate attack.” The vessel sustained serious damage: shattered windows, broken antennnae, bullet holes in the bridge and destroyed rescue equipment. Prosecutors in Siracusa, Sicily have opened a criminal investigation into the attack. Last week, police boarded the Ocean Viking in the town of Augusta in Sicily, where the 87 rescued migrants disembarked, to inspect the damage and gather testimony. According to SOS Méditerranée, the boat that attacked them was a Corrubia-class patrol vessel built in Italy and given to Libya in 2023 under the EU Border Assistance Mission in Libya program, part of Europe’s strategy of outsourcing border control. During the attack, the Ocean Viking crew issued a mayday call and alerted NATO, which referred them to the Italian navy. “However, the Italian Navy never answered the phone,” the NGO said in its statement. Valeria Taurino, the director of SOS Méditerranée Italy, called for “a thorough investigation” into the incident and an end to European cooperation with Libya. “An entity that makes illegal claims in international waters, obstructs rescues, and attacks unarmed humanitarian operators cannot be considered a competent authority,” she said. After the 87 rescued people left the ship, the Ocean Viking and its crew were held in isolation for several days on health grounds, as one of those rescued tested positive for tuberculosis. On Friday the NGO announced the Italian authorities had finally lifted the quarantine, allowing the crew to disembark. The Italian government — led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — has been clamping down on NGOs as part of its drive to reduce migration. On Monday another rescue ship — the Mediterranea — was placed under administrative detention after it let 10 migrants disembark in Trapani — the nearest safe port — instead of following Interior Ministry orders to sail to Genoa, some 770 kilometers away. The move reflects stricter rules introduced in 2023 by Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi, which require that NGO ships notify authorities after a rescue and then sail immediately to a designated port, often hundreds of kilometers away. Critics say the measure cripples rescue operations by forcing vessels to make long detours. The Italian government — led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — has been clamping down on NGOs as part of its drive to reduce migration. | Fabio Frustaci/EPA “It’s like forcing a burn victim to remain in the flames,” said Laura Marmorale, president of Mediterranea Saving Humans, denouncing the policy as “inhumane” and “unacceptable.” The incidents have led to sharp criticism of the Italian government. Opposition leader Elly Schlein of the Democratic Party urged the government to end its migration deal with Libya, while Green Europe lawmaker Angelo Bonelli condemned the use of Italian-built boats to launch attacks on NGOs. He denounced Meloni’s silence as a “political and moral surrender that humiliates our country before Europe and the world.” However, Piantedosi pointed the finger at NGOs rather than at the Libyan shooters. “It is the State that fights human traffickers and manages and coordinates rescues at sea. Not the NGOs,” he wrote on social media. EU institutions reacted more cautiously. During a press briefing on Tuesday, a Commission spokesperson described the Ocean Viking episode as “worrying,” saying Brussels had contacted Libyan authorities to “clarify the facts.” The EU’s border agency Frontex called the incident “deeply concerning” and called for a swift investigation, stressing: “No rescuer should ever be put in danger while carrying out life-saving work.” Speaking at a conference in Rimini last week, Meloni said her policies had “drastically” reduced arrivals and cut “the number of deaths and missing persons at sea.” She framed her migration crackdown as a humanitarian success: “Nothing is more important than saving a human life, than tearing it away from the claws of human traffickers.” Yet critics argue that Italy’s approach comes at the cost of partnering with abusive countries. Valeria Taurino, the director of SOS Méditerranée Italy, called for “a thorough investigation” into the incident and an end to European cooperation with Libya.| Donato Fasano/EPA In January, the government faced backlash for releasing Osama Al-Masri Njeem, a Libyan general wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes. A 2021 video shared by the NGO Refugees in Libya shows Al-Masri allegedly executing a man in Tripoli. EU’S MIGRATION GAMBLE The attack on the NGO vessel has highlighted Europe’s uneasy partnership with Libya. Since the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the country has fractured and become a major transit hub for migrants from Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Despite widespread reports of torture, sexual violence and forced labor in Libya’s detention system, the EU and Italy have continued to support the Libyan coast guard. Rome signed the Italy–Libya Memorandum in 2017, funding and equipping Libyan patrols. The deal, criticized by rights groups, was renewed in 2019 and again in 2023. Since taking office in 2022, Meloni has tightened those ties further, securing an $8 billion gas deal in 2023. At the same time, the EU has spent more than €91 million on border and migration management in Libya since 2014 as part of a €338 million migration package, while Italy has spent nearly €300 million on containment measures since 2017. But oversight of these funds remains weak. In a report released in September 2024, the European Court of Auditors warned that more than €5 billion from the EU Trust Fund for Africa had been disbursed with insufficient controls. Europe’s reliance on Libya is complicated further by rivalries with other powers. Russia has expanded its presence through arms supplies and a planned naval base in Tobruk, while Turkey is accused of cutting maritime deals with Libyan authorities that Greece deems illegal under international law. In July, EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner defended the need for Brussels to activate talks with Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar as a necessary step to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from further weaponizing migration. “There is certainly a danger that Russia … [will] use migrants and the migration issue as a weapon against Europe,” he told POLITICO. “This weaponization is taking place, and of course we also fear that Russia intends to do the same with Libya.” In July, Brunner was ejected from Benghazi as “persona non grata” over an apparent breakdown in diplomatic protocol. He had been leading a delegation of senior EU representatives — including ministers from Italy, Malta and Greece — in an attempt to discuss efforts to tackle the flow of migrants into Europe from the country.

LONDON — British prosecutors confirmed Wednesday that they have charged far-right influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan with a host of offenses including rape and human trafficking. The Crown Prosecution Service said in a statement that it had authorized charges against the brothers, who rose to prominence as key figures in the online “manosphere.” The pair are currently in Romania where they are subject to a European arrest warrant issued in 2024 at the request of Britain’s Bedfordshire Police. A Bucharest court has ordered the pair to be extradited to the U.K. once a criminal case in Romania concludes. The CPS confirmed that Andrew Tate, 38, faces 10 charges, including rape, actual bodily harm, human trafficking and controlling prostitution for gain, relating to three women. His brother Tristan, 36, faces 11 charges relating to one woman. They include rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking. Both have previously denied wrongdoing and said any sexual activity was consensual. A CPS spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday: “We can confirm that we have authorised charges against Andrew and Tristan Tate for offences including rape, human trafficking, controlling prostitution and actual bodily harm against three women. “These charging decisions followed receipt of a file of evidence from Bedfordshire Police. “A European Arrest Warrant was issued in England in 2024, and as a result the Romanian courts ordered the extradition to the UK of Andrew and Tristan Tate. “However, the domestic criminal matters in Romania must be settled first. “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendants have the right to a fair trial. “It is extremely important that there be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” The statement from the CPS comes after the pair were allowed to fly to the U.S. in February for a controversial promotional tour after being freed from house arrest in Romania.

BRUSSELS — The European Union is looking into whether Hungary’s plan to deploy facial recognition technology to identify people attending LGBTQ+ Pride events is illegal. The move by the EU, reported exclusively by POLITICO, sets up the latest clash between Brussels and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government as Hungary becomes an increasingly troublesome member of the bloc. It also marks the first real test of landmark EU artificial intelligence rules that critics say contain too many exemptions to effectively protect against abusive uses of technology.  Hungary in mid-March banned Pride gatherings and changed its laws to allow police to use biometric cameras to identify protestors who attend such events. The government said it had done so to protect children from the LGBTQ+ agenda, but opponents say Budapest is stoking an anti-LGBTQ+ campaign to garner far-right support — and is hitting the limits of EU legality. The European Commission is “currently assessing” the Hungarian law to see whether it complies with the bloc’s AI Act, Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told POLITICO. One of the things the Commission needs to decide is whether facial recognition is happening in real time — which would constitute a breach of newly implemented AI rules — or whether the ways in which surveillance images are being processed gives Hungary an opt-out. The AI Act foresees administrative fines of up to €35 million for violations, but it’s up to EU countries themselves to appoint an authority to impose a fine. Still, EU countries have to report back to the Commission if they allow some of the prohibited practices, which gives Brussels some power to intervene. Regnier said the Commission “will not hesitate to take action, where appropriate.” A Hungarian government spokesperson said Hungary “believes all is in line with our constitution and EU law.” GROWING PRESSURE The EU’s executive has been under heavy pressure to respond to Hungary’s Pride ban, particularly on the use of facial recognition. The EU moved in February to prohibit police forces from using real-time facial recognition technology under its artificial intelligence rulebook. Whether to ban systems that can identify people in real time based on their biometric data (i.e. through CCTV) was one of the thorniest topics as the law was being agreed — European Parliament lawmakers largely favored a ban while EU countries wanted an opt-out to allow them to fight serious crime. As a result, “real-time biometric identification” by police forces is forbidden, but with significant exceptions.  The EU’s executive has been under heavy pressure to respond to Hungary’s Pride ban, particularly on the use of facial recognition. | Balint Szentgallay/NurPhoto via Getty Images “Hungary’s amended law appears to enable the use of real-time biometric surveillance at Pride events, which is an application clearly falling under the AI Act’s prohibitions,” said Italian social democratic European lawmaker Brando Benifei, one of the two architects of the EU’s AI Act. “Such systems are not only technically designed to identify individuals in public without consent, but also risk inferring sensitive attributes like sexual orientation,” he said in a statement shared with POLITICO.  Two dozen civil society groups expressed their concerns about Hungary’s move in a letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week. On April 14, the Commission’s Executive Vice President for Tech Sovereignty Henna Virkkunen met with the new Hungarian government commissioner for AI, László Palkovics. Commission spokespeople didn’t say whether Virkkunen had raised the issue with Palkovics. Palkovics served as an independent tech and innovation minister in previous Orbán governments. He was appointed in late February and will be in charge of setting up the Hungarian authority that will oversee enforcement of the AI Act.  A MATTER OF SECONDS Hungary can avoid an AI Act ban if facial-recognition technology is not used in real time but has a time lag — which, although not forbidden, is considered a “high-risk” application. That could well be the case, said Ádám Remport, a legal expert at the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, which campaigns in favor of human rights and opposes the government’s plan.  According to Remport, the Hungarian police take footage from public cameras and send it to the Hungarian Institute for Forensic Sciences, which does the actual facial recognition. “Because there’s a time lag here, it may not be real time according to the AI Act, but we don’t know what that time lag is,” he said.  Even if there’s a time lag, Hungary will still have to adhere to “strict regulatory requirements,” said the Commission’s Regnier, such as conducting an impact assessment. That would also require the Hungarian government to seek approval from a judge — but Brussels and Budapest are engaged in an ongoing tug-of-war over the independence of judges and the country’s adherence to the rule of law. For campaigners, it’s proof that the EU’s AI regulation has too many loopholes that allow police forces to use facial-recognition technology.  “We are now seeing the concrete consequences of what happens when we succeed in watering down certain regulations,” Remport said.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — State Attorney General James Uthmeier confirmed Tuesday that the state has opened a criminal investigation into Andrew Tate and his brother, Tristan, after their arrival in Florida last week. State investigators, Uthmeier said, have been ordered to execute search warrants and issue subpoenas probing the Tate brothers on the heels of charges they faced in Romania surrounding allegations of human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women. Andrew Tate, a far-right influencer, and his brother were arrested near Bucharest in December 2022 and stayed in the country until arriving in Florida last week after their travel ban was lifted by Romanian authorities. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signaled that the Tate brothers were not welcome in Florida ahead of Uthmeier’s office launching its investigation. “These guys have themselves publicly admitted to participating in what very much appears to be soliciting, trafficking, preying upon women around the world,” Uthmeier said in an interview posted to social media. “People can spin or defend however they want. But in Florida, this type of behavior is viewed as atrocious.” Florida’s investigation into the brothers comes after Andrew Tate expressed disappointment Monday over DeSantis’ cold response to their arrival in Fort Lauderdale. Tate questioned the governor’s reaction on a recent podcast appearance, suggesting DeSantis should have answered by saying, “as far as we’re concerned, he’s broken no laws.” “Isn’t the whole point of democracy, innocent until proven guilty?” Tate said. “I’ve yet to even have a trial, let alone a conviction. I’ve never even been tried after three years. I’ve never been to trial.” Romania’s Directorate for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism said that, while the agency had accepted a request from the Tate brothers to be allowed to leave Romania, they are still under investigation and “judicial control,” meaning they must return to Romania in March. More details into Florida’s investigation were not available as of Tuesday evening. “They chose to come here and set their feet down in this state, and we’re going to pursue every tool we have within our legal authority to hold them accountable,” Uthmeier said.

Kristina WiIfore is co-founder of #ShePersisted, a global platform for addressing digital threats to women leaders. As Moldova hurtles toward critical elections on Sunday, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Malicious actors, bankrolled by foreign sources, are working to sway the country’s public. And their target? President Maia Sandu — fighting not only for reelection but for her country’s future as a European democracy.  As Moldova’s first female president, Sandu’s candidacy has become ground zero for a flurry of gendered disinformation attacks, all designed to undermine her leadership and derail the nation’s EU membership referendum, which coincides with the election. This is no ordinary election. It’s an all-out assault on Moldova’s sovereignty, and at the heart of the battle lies one simple truth: Whoever controls the narrative determines Moldova’s future. In a crowded field of 10 candidates, Sandu’s still expected to win the first round, despite being buffeted by efforts to weaken and discredit her and the women serving in her administration. These attacks are gendered, insidious and relentless, looking to exploit traditional gender norms in a country where 97 percent of the population believes women should be “cherished and protected by men.” But this isn’t about traditional values — it’s about manipulating them to maintain Russia’s grip on Moldova. President of The European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen shakes hands with President of Moldova, Maia Sandu. | Elena Covalenco/AFP via Getty Images Disinformation targeting female leaders isn’t just a women’s issue. It’s a democracy issue; it’s a human rights issue; and in the digital age, it’s also a matter of national security. These weaponized lies are meant to fracture the foundations of participatory governance and erode trust in democracy. Our organization, #ShePersisted, has been tracking these toxic trends since 2022, identifying common gendered narratives aimed at women in politics across major digital platforms in countries like Italy, Hungary and Ukraine. Now, it’s Moldova that’s become the latest battleground in Russia’s destabilization playbook. The parallels to the U.S. are striking here. Much like Vice President Kamala Harris, who has similarly been the target of disinformation campaigns, Sandu’s candidacy has been a lightning rod for misogyny cloaked in political rhetoric. And just as we’ve seen false claims about Harris’s identity and qualifications, Moldova’s social media platforms are awash with deepfake videos and conspiracy theories aimed at the sitting president. Both women have dealt with an onslaught of digital attacks designed to weaken the public’s trust in their leadership — attacks that are gendered, racist and xenophobic — and it’s no accident these narratives spread so easily. Social media algorithms reward the most divisive content. For the Kremlin, manipulating online discourse by gaming algorithms is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, all thanks to the oligarchs of tech that foster this environment, where digital distortions flourish in the name of keeping users hooked and advertisers paying. In Moldova in particular, the malign actors are explicitly pro-Russian, using inauthentic and coordinated behavior to seed and amplify their attacks. And the campaigns are part of a broader strategy to destabilize the country, oust pro-European Sandu and drag Moldova back into Russia’s orbit. The Kremlin’s use of deepfakes and false narratives — claiming Ukrainian F-16s will soon land on Moldovan soil and fabricating stories about compulsory EU-mandated “sexual education” — mirrors the chaos it tried to sow in the 2016 U.S. election. Its methods, however, have become more sophisticated. According to a joint statement by the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., Russia is now actively using “disinformation, criminal and covert activities, and corruption to undermine sovereignty and democratic processes” in the upcoming Moldovan elections. In Moldova in particular, the malign actors are explicitly pro-Russian, using inauthentic and coordinated behavior to seed and amplify their attacks. | Daniel Mihailescu/AFP via Getty Images Despite the red alert, though, it’s still largely U.S.-based digital media companies that are acting as modern-day conflict profiteers. Earlier this year, #ShePersisted combined social listening with forensic data analytics to understand the toxicity directed at women leaders in Moldova. The results? A chilling glimpse into the future of global disinformation campaigns. From deepfakes of Sandu resigning while wearing a hijab to offers of bribes for voters to reject Moldova’s EU integration, the manipulation is as multifaceted as it is dangerous. In one case, exiled oligarch and opposition leader Ilan Shor — widely seen as “Moscow’s man in Moldova” — used Facebook to run hundreds of ads that were viewed 155 million times. And the fact that he could do this while not, in fact, being in Moldova is a testament to the power online infrastructure afforded him, as Meta has repeatedly failed to track and remove these coordinated campaigns. But the threats aren’t confined to political manipulation. Human traffickers and scam artists are leveraging these same platforms to victimize Moldovans too. In a country where 80 percent of the population is deeply concerned about human trafficking [LINK?], social media platforms have become the primary tool for traffickers, targeting vulnerable women and girls. And what has Meta done? Almost nothing. Regardless of clear abuse, social media giants continue to prioritize profits over safety, allowing both gendered disinformation and criminal exploitation to thrive. For Moldova, the road ahead is now fraught with peril— it’s a path the U.S. knows all too well. And as Sandu prepares for a tight election, the parallels between the challenges faced by women leaders worldwide are impossible to ignore. Whether it’s Harris or Sandu, gendered disinformation is among the most powerful tools bad actors use to erode democratic progress around the world today. And if social media platforms don’t step up to enforce their own rules — removing posts inciting violence, disabling accounts that spread gendered falsehoods and curtailing the amplification of disinformation — they’ll continue to be complicit in corrosion of democracy. Moldova’s election isn’t just a fight for one woman’s political future, it’s a fight for the future of democracy itself. Like any good fight, it requires action — in this case, both online and off. And if we fail to address the weaponization of gendered disinformation now, the next battlefield could be much nearer to home.