South Sudan has reversed its decision to deny entry to a man it said was a Congolese national deported by the United States after Washington imposed a blanket visa ban on South Sudanese citizens.

In a dramatic U-turn on Tuesday, South Sudan’s foreign ministry said the government had chosen to admit the deportee, identified as Makula Kintu, “in the spirit of the friendly relations between South Sudan and the United States.”

US President Donald Trump has heavily cracked down on immigration since his return to power in January and has launched a series of deportation actions in recent months.

On Saturday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that visas held by South Sudanese citizens were being revoked and no new visas would be granted to people from the country over their government’s failure to receive deportees “in a timely manner.”

South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation and one of its poorest is already troubled by armed conflict in its northern region that threatens to plunge it back into another civil war.

On Monday, the South Sudanese foreign ministry clarified that Kintu arrived at the Juba International Airport in the country’s capital on Saturday with a travel document that was not his.

According to the ministry, he presented “a South Sudanese travel document under the name Nimeri Garang” to immigration officials.

However, a series of verifications revealed that he was not Garang and instead identified him as Kintu — a citizen of the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

“He (Kintu) was not admitted (into South Sudan) and was subsequently returned to the sending country (the US) for further processing,” it added.

The ministry explained it was awaiting the arrival of the actual Garang, whom it said the South Sudanese embassy in Washington had been notified by the US State Department of his deportation and scheduled arrival in Juba next month.

US authorities are yet to comment on the nationality discrepancy.

The South Sudanese foreign ministry cited information on Kintu’s travel history supplied by the US Department of Homeland Security which stated that he initially arrived in the US in 2003 “and voluntarily departed for the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2009.”

It added that Kintu “re-entered the United States illegally on July 10, 2016” and that while he was being questioned Saturday by immigration officials at the Juba airport, Kintu “stated that he hails from the Ema tribe of the Northern Kivu Province in the Democratic Republic of Congo and added that he was brought to South Sudan against his will.”

In its latest communication Tuesday, the ministry noted that Kintu would nonetheless be allowed to enter South Sudan when he arrives again on Wednesday.

“The Government of the Republic of South Sudan remains committed to supporting the return of verified South Sudanese nationals who are scheduled for deportation from the United States,” the foreign ministry said.

García would not discuss any specifics around the deportees beyond confirming they are in his facility. But when pressed, he said “there are no privileges.”

Some 278 men have been deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador, accused of being members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang or Salvadorans who are said to be part of MS-13.

But they also include Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father-of-three from Maryland, who was mistakenly removed from the US through an “administrative error.”

His case is now with the US Supreme Court, which extended the deadline of a lower court judge requiring the administration to get him back by midnight on Monday.

García said he was not familiar with the specifics of any individual deportee and could not comment further.`

They are removed from their communal cell by armed personnel and taken to a room with video conference facilities. Monitors showed court proceedings in progress, apparently with lawyers and judges present.

Cecot houses both convicted criminals and those still going through El Salvador’s court system. With many constitutional rights suspended under El Salvador’s years-long state of emergency, some people have been detained by mistake, President Nayib Bukele has admitted; several thousand of them have already been released.

Where the lights are always on

Each of the eight sectors is fully self-contained with these conference rooms as well as a medical clinic, with the intention that inmates never step outside their warehouse-like building.

They are watched through the bars constantly and the lights are always on, García said. There are even guards on catwalks above the cells.

Looking down through the metal-grille ceiling into a cell, the deliberate harshness of the life for the Salvadoran inmates — whether convicted or awaiting trial — is clear. They are allowed no personal possessions; they must use an open toilet and there’s a cement basin for washing and large jug for drinking water.

Still, there are checks for contraband when the inmates are “extricated” from the cells. The men have their hands cuffed behind them and then run to sit in a designated spot, stretching their legs around those of the man in front in what becomes a human herringbone pattern.

When Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem visited CECOT last month, she recorded a video message to say to undocumented immigrants in the US: “This is one of the consequences you could face.”

“First of all, do not come to our country illegally. You will be removed, and you will be prosecuted,” she said. “But know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people.”

It is busier inside now, with more men in each cell.

Last year, García would say only between 10,000 and 20,000 inmates were being held. Now he says it’s getting closer to its 40,000 maximum population, but once again declined to give a specific number, citing security precautions. The growth would include the deportees from the US, but be mostly Salvadorans rounded up under the emergency situation introduced by Bukele.

A thousand or more armed guards rotate duties at the prison, built in just seven months and opened in January 2023. The prison is also ringed by multiple electric fences and 19 watchtowers.

For critics, Cecot is a sign of how quickly rights can disappear. But for many in El Salvador it is proof of effective control and a return to security in what was once the “murder capital of the world.”

New images have emerged of one of China’s futuristic fighter jets, a three-engine, tailless flying wing aircraft that Western analysts have dubbed the J-36.

It’s unclear when the images, which are taken from a video, were shot, but they appeared on Chinese social media sites on Monday and show the aircraft flying over a highway near the runway of Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, the factory in Sichuan province where the new jet is believed to have been made.

Images of the J-36 first appeared on Chinese social media late last year, quickly capturing the attention of aircraft enthusiasts and military analysts. More appeared online last month.

The jet is thought to be a sixth-generation aircraft, incorporating the latest stealth technology, avionics and powerplant and airframe engineering.

Military aviation expert David Cenciotti, a former Italian Air Force officer, said on his website, The Aviationist, that the six-second video gives a close look at the design of the J-36.

“The trijet engine arrangement, with two engine intakes under the wings and a dorsally-mounted intake behind the cockpit, is a departure from conventional twin-engine setups seen in many contemporary fighters. This configuration may offer advantages in terms of thrust and redundancy,” Cenciotti wrote.

He said space on the aircraft’s belly shows room for internal weapons bays that could enable it to carry long-range strike missiles.

The J-36 could see China pull even with, or possibly ahead of, the United States in the race to field a sixth-generation fighter.

The US military’s fifth-generation jets – the twin-engine F-22 and single-engine F-35 – are generally regarded as the world’s best at the moment, though China also has two fifth-generation models, the J-20 and J-35. Neither of those Chinese jets has proven combat experience and effectiveness like the two US fighters, however.

US President Donald Trump announced last month that a contract for the US Air Force’s sixth-generation fighter – dubbed the F-47 – had been awarded to Boeing. Trump said a prototype of the jet had been flying for five years.

But a US Air Force announcement of the Boeing contract for the F-47 did not give a timeline for when the jets would be deployable, saying only the contract awarded on March 21 covered “the engineering and manufacturing development phase” as well as funds for “a small number of test aircraft for evaluation.”

While China’s J-36 was dominating military aviation chatter this week, it’s not the only sixth-generation jet that Beijing seems to have in the works.

The same day that pictures emerged of the J-36 in December, photos were also posted of a new tailless, twin-engine jet, referred to by analysts as the J-XX and sometimes the J-50.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) hasn’t publicly acknowledged the existence of either the J-36 or J-50.

But the state-run tabloid Global Times last month ran a story quoting various Chinese military experts as saying the images of the two new aircraft “if authentic,” show China is making quick progress on sixth-generation fighter jets.

“From a development point of view, China appears to be determined to make explorations on next-generation aviation equipment,” Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, was quoted as saying.

It can take years for a fighter jet to go from concept to public introduction, let alone deployment.

China’s J-35 was first shown to the public at last November’s Airshow China in Zuhai, but it had been in development for 10 or more years, according to analysts.

In late November, a gaggle of open-water swimmers set out from Sydney’s Bondi Beach. About 500 meters (1,600 feet) from shore, they stopped and formed a line 150 meters (about 500 feet) long, treading water above the length of the beach’s shark net.

They hoped to demonstrate that the length of the net paled in comparison to that of the world-famous kilometer-long beach. And that if they could easily bypass the net, sharks can too.

Miller was out of town the day of the protest, but she’s among a growing group of swimmers, surfers, animal welfare advocates, and others vocally opposed to shark nets, which have been used at Sydney’s beaches every summer since 1937.

Opponents of the nets – which are installed at 51 beaches between Newcastle and Wollongong – argue they are ineffective, outdated, and harmful to the ocean ecosystem. They say nets provide swimmers with a false sense of security. Some academic studies back up claims that the nets are not effective at keeping people safe.

From September 2023 to April 2024, 255 marine creatures were entangled in shark nets in New South Wales (NSW). But only 15 of those animals were “target species” like great white, tiger and bull sharks. The rest were rays, turtles, dolphins, fish like longtail tuna, and sharks not considered dangerous.

This year, amid growing opposition to the nets, they were removed on March 31, a month earlier than normal, due to increased turtle activity in April.

And in recent months, in response to a survey sent out by the NSW government, asking local authorities to vote on the use of shark nets, none of the eight councils where shark nets are used elected to continue their use next season, according to Humane World for Animals.

Now, the state government is set to decide if shark nets have a future in NSW.

Politics over nets

Going to the beach is a popular pastime in Australia, where almost 90% of the population lives within 50 kilometers (30 miles) of the coast. The country’s shoreline is also home to several species of sharks, including tiger, bull, and great white sharks, that are most frequently involved in serious injuries to humans.

NSW has a comprehensive shark management program to try to keep beachgoers safe.

In addition to nets, authorities use technologies like SMART drumlines, which consist of a buoy and a baited hook. When an animal is caught, authorities are alerted. Non-target animals are released, and sharks of target species are tagged and released farther out to sea. Later, if a tagged shark swims close to shore, the public is alerted via an app and updates to an X account. Drone patrols are also a common sight over the state’s beaches.

“It’s not something that we considered flippantly, it’s not something that’s a response to special interests,” he added. “It is something that is based on science.”

Over the last 10 years there were, on average, 2.8 annual fatalities from shark incidents nationally, 20 cases a year where people were injured, and seven a year where the person was uninjured, according to the Taronga Conservation Society Australia, which works on the Australian Shark-Incident Database.

For comparison, in 2023, 125 people drowned in the ocean, according to Surf Life Saving Australia, and there were 1,266 fatalities on Australian roads over the same period, according to official data.

Since the meshing program began in 1937, there has only been one fatal shark incident at a netted beach, and that was back in 1951, says Green, of NSW DPIRD. He points to a 1997 study that says when they were first introduced, shark nets in NSW, Queensland and South Africa reduced the rate of shark incidents by about 90%.

He added that to date, there has not been a shark bite while drones have been monitoring a beach. (Officials have been trialing the use of drones to detect sharks at NSW beaches since 2017).

The tensions over the future of shark nets were on full display in late February at a local council meeting in Randwick, home to Coogee, another popular Sydney beach, just a few kilometers south of Bondi.

“They do not form a barrier, deter, deflect, or stop sharks from swimming at beaches,” Lauren Sandeman, a PhD researcher in human and shark interactions, told the council. “Their goal is to entangle and kill whatever swims into the net.”

For others, the risk of changing tack is too great. “If these shark nets were removed and some person is getting mauled by a shark and being killed, I couldn’t face that person’s partner or parent,” said councilor Noel D’Souza, before casting his vote to keep the nets in the water.

In the end, eight councilors voted to do away with shark nets, beating out the seven councilors who want them to stay.

Saving Norman

The population of grey nurse sharks on Australia’s East coast has dwindled to about 2,000 animals making them critically endangered. The sharks, which can grow over to over three meters (almost 10 feet) in length and have long, scraggly teeth visible even when their mouths are closed, are not considered a threat to divers and swimmers.

“They have this ferocious look about them, and yet they’re these cute, cuddly Labradors,” says Sarah Han-de-Beaux, a Sydney-based free- and scuba diver, who frequently spots the sharks on her outings.

Several years ago, Han-de-Beaux and others started “Saving Norman,” a campaign to advocate for the removal of the nets. (Many Sydney residents refer to grey nurse sharks as “Norman,” a name coined by a local drone photographer).

In recent months, she’s given up most of her weekends to campaign for the removal of the nets, manning booths at local beaches to educate the public.

“People think they stretch the whole beach,” she says, but all shark nets in NSW span 150 meters (about 500 feet) and are just six meters tall.

Han-de-Beaux says that it’s been a year of progress. This summer, the frequency of net inspections went up to every two days from every three days, to increase the possibility of releasing entangled animals alive. (The previous summer, only 36% of the 255 creatures caught in the nets were released alive).

Other measures to protect accidental catch, like installing lights on the nets to deter turtles, were trialed. And in recent weeks, local officials have been posting signs warning the public of the early removal of the nets.

Now, a decision is expected from the New South Wales government on if the nets will go back in next September. Pepin-Neff estimates that the decision might be clear when the next state budget is announced, generally around June.

The government will consider feedback from the surveys it sent out to coastal councils, and other data as it develops its shark management program for the 2025 to 2026 season, according to Green. “Our program is evidence-based after many years of trials and research,” he added.

In the meantime, swimmers like Miller plan to keep taking to the water, nets or not, accepting the risk of entering a shark’s natural habitat.

“Every time I get in the ocean, I assume that there are sharks in there. It’s where they live,” she says. “We’d have to be super unlucky for something to go terribly wrong.”

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday the Panama Canal faces ongoing threats from China but that together the United States and Panama will keep it secure.

Hegseth’s remarks triggered a fiery response from the Chinese government, which said: “Who represents the real threat to the Canal? People will make their own judgement.”

Speaking at a ribbon cutting for a new US-financed dock at the Vasco Nuñez de Balboa Naval Base after a meeting with Panama President José Raúl Mulino, Hegseth said the US will not allow China or any other country to threaten the canal’s operation.

“To this end, the United States and Panama have done more in recent weeks to strengthen our defense and security cooperation than we have in decades,” he said.

Hegseth alluded to ports at either end of the canal that are controlled by a Hong Kong consortium, which is in the process of selling its controlling stake to another consortium including BlackRock Inc.

“China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area,” Hegseth said. “That gives China the potential to conduct surveillance activities across Panama. This makes Panama and the United States less secure, less prosperous and less sovereign. And as President Donald Trump has pointed out, that situation is not acceptable.”

Hegseth met with Mulino for two hours Tuesday morning before heading to the naval base that previously had been the US Rodman Naval Station.

On the way, Hegseth posted a photo on X of the two men laughing and said it was an honor speaking with Mulino. “You and your country’s hard work is making a difference. Increased security cooperation will make both our nations safer, stronger and more prosperous,” he wrote.

Late Tuesday, Mulino and Hegseth released a joint statement.

A vaguely worded portion of the statement suggested the two had discussed the tolls the United States pays for its ships crossing the canal. It said that within the canal’s framework, “the Republic of Panama and the United States of America will work, as established, on a mechanism to compensate for the payment of tolls and charges.”

Panama’s Foreign Relations Ministry did not immediately answer a request for clarification.

But the Spanish and English versions had at least one significant discrepancy. The Spanish version included that “Secretary Hegseth recognized the leadership and inalienable sovereignty of Panama over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas.” That sentence appeared nowhere in the English version.

The visit comes amid tensions over Trump’s repeated assertions that the US is being overcharged to use the Panama Canal and that China has influence over its operations — allegations that Panama has denied.

Shortly after the meeting, the Chinese Embassy in Panama slammed the American government in a statement on X, saying the US has used “blackmail” to further its own interests and that who Panama carries out business with is a “sovereign decision of Panama … and something the US doesn’t have the right to interfere in.”

“The US has carried out a sensationalistic campaign about the ‘theoretical Chinese threat’ in an attempt to sabotage Chinese-Panamanian cooperation, which is all just rooted in the United State’s own geopolitical interests,” the embassy wrote.

After Hegseth and Mulino spoke by phone in February, the US State Department said that an agreement had been reached to not charge US warships to pass through the canal. Mulino publicly denied there was any such deal.

Trump has gone so far as to suggest the US never should have turned the canal over to Panama and that maybe that it should take the canal back.

The China concern was provoked by the Hong Kong consortium holding a 25-year lease on ports at either end of the canal. The Panamanian government announced that lease was being audited and late Monday concluded that there were irregularities.

The Hong Kong consortium, however, has already announced that CK Hutchison would be selling its controlling stake in the ports to a consortium including BlackRock Inc., effectively putting the ports under American control once the sale is complete.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Mulino during a visit in February that Trump believes China’s presence in the canal area may violate a treaty that led the US to turn the waterway over to Panama in 1999. That treaty calls for the permanent neutrality of the American-built canal.

Mulino has denied that China has any influence in the operations of the canal. In February, he expressed frustration at the persistence of the narrative. “We aren’t going to speak about what is not reality, but rather those issues that interest both countries,” he said.

The US built the canal in the early 1900s as it looked for ways to facilitate the transit of commercial and military vessels between its coasts. Washington relinquished control of the waterway to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999, under a treaty signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter.

“I want to be very clear, China did not build this canal,” Hegseth said Tuesday. “China does not operate this canal and China will not weaponize this canal. Together with Panama in the lead, we will keep the canal secure and available for all nations through the deterrent power of the strongest, most effective and most lethal fighting force in the world.”