US warned Iran over alleged Israeli plot to kill negotiators – NYT

The United States reportedly warned Iran of an alleged Israeli plan to assassinate two of its top officials during Pakistan-mediated negotiations, The New York Times reported on Friday.

According to the newspaper, which cited current and former U.S. officials, the alleged plot targeted Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, and the Speaker of Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

The report said officials in the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump feared the alleged operation could derail diplomatic efforts and trigger a fresh military confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

It added that the U.S. quietly conveyed its concerns to Iranian authorities through regional intermediaries in an effort to prevent further escalation.

The newspaper also reported that Ghalibaf’s aircraft was forced to make an emergency diversion after Iranian intelligence allegedly received information suggesting Israeli fighter jets were preparing to target the plane.

However, the report noted that no public evidence has been released to substantiate the alleged assassination plot.

Israeli authorities have denied the allegations, describing the report as false and rejecting claims that they planned to target the Iranian officials.

The development comes amid lingering tensions between Israel and Iran despite renewed diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing hostilities in the region.

Neither the White House nor the Iranian government had issued an official statement on the report as of the time of filing this report.

US warned Iran over alleged Israeli plot to kill negotiators – NYT

Trump Weighs Entry Restrictions for Pregnant Foreign Visitors After Supreme Court Ruling

The Trump administration is considering tighter restrictions on pregnant foreign women seeking to enter the United States, following a landmark US Supreme Court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born on American soil.

Although no formal policy has been announced, senior White House officials say the administration is exploring measures to curb birth tourism—the practice of travelling to the United States primarily to give birth so that a child automatically acquires US citizenship.

The renewed push comes after the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, declared unconstitutional President Trump’s executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are either in the country illegally or on temporary visas. The court held that the order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed birthright citizenship for more than 150 years.

The ruling represents a significant legal setback for one of the Trump administration’s most ambitious immigration initiatives, reinforcing long-standing constitutional protections for nearly everyone born on US soil.

Despite the decision, White House officials have signalled that the administration is not backing away from efforts to tighten immigration policies surrounding birthright citizenship.

Speaking after the judgment, Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security, said the administration would take “a hard look” at restricting entry for pregnant foreign nationals if officials believe their primary reason for travelling is to give birth in the United States.

According to Miller, immigration authorities must carefully assess temporary visitors because of concerns surrounding birth tourism.

READ ALSO:

• Ogun 2027: Group Rejects Yayi’s Governorship Bid, Endorses Adebutu
• Adeyemi Insists Gbajabiamila Approved His Appointment as Court Case Begins
• UK Plans £10,000 Repayment Rule for Asylum Seekers Before Permanent Settlement

“You have to now think very carefully about who you let into your country, even on a temporary basis because of the possibility for birth tourism.”

He argued that some foreign nationals deliberately travel to the United States in the final weeks of pregnancy so their children can obtain American citizenship, which he claimed could provide long-term access to government benefits and immigration opportunities.

The administration has consistently argued that birthright citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration and rewards individuals who violate US immigration laws while disadvantaging those who follow legal immigration procedures.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said President Trump remains committed to protecting what she described as the value of natural-born American citizenship.

She disclosed that the President has directed Congress to consider legislative measures addressing birthright citizenship while instructing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritise investigations into alleged birth tourism operations.

“The Department of Justice will also prioritise investigations of birth tourism schemes. The Trump administration has many tools to safeguard American citizenship,” Jackson said.

Meanwhile, Senator Markwayne Mullin, a key Trump ally, also suggested that tougher restrictions on pregnant visitors are being considered.

Speaking on Fox News, Mullin alleged that some women enter the United States on tourist visas during the final weeks of pregnancy specifically to give birth before returning to their home countries.

He argued that some children born through birth tourism later return to the United States after being raised abroad, raising concerns he linked to national security and intellectual property protection.

While the administration portrays birth tourism as a growing concern, immigration experts say it represents only a small fraction of births in the United States.

The US government does not maintain official statistics on births involving temporary foreign visitors. However, independent estimates suggest that between 20,000 and 26,000 babies are born each year to mothers who entered the country on temporary visas.

Current US immigration regulations already allow consular officers to refuse tourist visa applications if they determine that an applicant’s primary purpose is to obtain US citizenship for a child through childbirth. However, pregnancy itself is not grounds for visa denial. Applicants may still qualify if they demonstrate a legitimate reason for travel and the financial means to cover medical expenses without relying on public assistance.

Legal experts note that any new policy targeting pregnant travellers would likely face significant judicial scrutiny. Immigration authorities would have to ensure that any restrictions comply with constitutional protections, anti-discrimination laws and existing immigration statutes.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed decades of constitutional precedent, holding that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to almost everyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, except in limited circumstances such as children born to accredited foreign diplomats.

Although the administration cannot overturn that constitutional interpretation through executive action, officials have indicated they will continue pursuing alternative measures through legislation, stricter visa screening and criminal investigations into organised birth tourism networks.

Immigration analysts say the debate over birthright citizenship is likely to remain one of the most contentious issues in US immigration policy, with further legal and political battles expected in Congress and the courts.

Trump Weighs Entry Restrictions for Pregnant Foreign Visitors After Supreme Court Ruling

UK Plans £10,000 Repayment Rule for Asylum Seekers Before Permanent Settlement

The UK government has proposed sweeping reforms that could require some asylum seekers to repay up to £10,000 (about ₦18 million) in state support before they become eligible for permanent settlement in Britain.

The proposal, contained in the newly introduced Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026, would empower the Home Office to recover the costs of accommodation and financial support provided to asylum seekers once they have secured refugee status and are financially able to contribute.

If approved by Parliament, the measure would mark one of the most significant changes to the UK’s asylum system in recent years, shifting part of the financial burden of refugee support from taxpayers to beneficiaries who later become economically stable.

Under the proposed legislation, adults who received asylum support—including accommodation and weekly subsistence payments—could be required to repay around £10,000 before qualifying for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), commonly known as permanent settlement.

The repayment scheme would be means-tested, meaning only those with sufficient financial resources would be expected to contribute. Government officials said the exact repayment thresholds and collection methods would be determined by the Home Secretary through secondary legislation.

The reforms would also apply to former asylum seekers who leave the UK and later wish to return, requiring them to settle any outstanding repayment obligations before becoming eligible under the settlement pathway.

READ ALSO:

• US Withdraws Majority of Troops from Nigeria After Counterterrorism Mission
• Ronaldo Makes World Cup History as Ramos Fires Portugal Past Croatia into Round of 16
• Court of Appeal to Deliver Judgment Friday in UI-ISI Hijab Case

Defending the proposal, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the government had already reduced asylum accommodation costs by £1 billion, but insisted that those who eventually establish themselves financially should help repay the cost of the support they received.

“The cost of asylum accommodation to the British taxpayer is too high.

“We have already reduced asylum costs by £1 billion, but it is also right that we ask those who can contribute to do so.

“Receiving asylum support is a right, but it is also a responsibility. Once people can contribute and repay the generosity of the British people, we expect them to do so.”

The Home Office said the policy is intended to create a fairer and more sustainable asylum system while easing pressure on public finances.

According to government estimates, accommodating an asylum seeker in dispersal accommodation costs an average of £23.25 per person per night, while housing someone in a hotel costs approximately £144 per person each night.

Weekly subsistence payments currently range between £9.95 and £49.18 per person, depending on individual circumstances.

The government says the UK spent billions of pounds on asylum accommodation and support in recent years, making cost recovery a necessary component of broader immigration reforms.

The Home Office argues that many refugees become financially independent after receiving protection.

Government data shows that about 25% of people aged 16 to 64 who were granted asylum between 2015 and 2023 secured employment within the same calendar year they obtained refugee status. That figure increased to 50% within two years.

Among refugees employed eight years after being granted protection, 37% worked full-time with median annual earnings of around £23,000, while approximately 40% earned above the UK’s minimum wage.

Officials say these figures demonstrate that many recognised refugees are capable of contributing financially once they have rebuilt their lives.

The proposal has, however, sparked criticism from refugee advocacy organisations, immigration lawyers and human rights groups.

Critics argue that recognised refugees often spend years waiting for asylum decisions during which they have limited opportunities to work or build savings. They warn that requiring repayments before granting permanent settlement could delay integration, create financial hardship and discourage long-term stability for vulnerable people fleeing conflict and persecution.

Some campaigners have described the proposal as unprecedented, noting that refugees are generally not required to repay asylum support before obtaining permanent residency in most countries.

The repayment proposal forms part of a broader package of immigration reforms introduced through the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026.

The legislation also includes measures aimed at reforming asylum appeals, strengthening age assessment procedures, revising modern slavery protections and tightening immigration enforcement.

The UK government says the reforms are designed to reduce pressure on public finances, discourage irregular migration and restore public confidence in the country’s asylum system.

The bill is currently before Parliament and must complete the legislative process before the proposed repayment requirement can become law.

UK Plans £10,000 Repayment Rule for Asylum Seekers Before Permanent Settlement