A Hong Kong court on Thursday handed prominent pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong an additional 10-year prison term under the national security law imposed by Beijing, a ruling critics say reflects the sweeping crackdown on the city's once-vibrant democracy movement.

Wong, 30, rose to prominence as a teenage leader of student protests and later campaigned internationally for Hong Kong's democracy movement. He was already serving a sentence of four years and eight months after pleading guilty in the city's largest national security case, and had been scheduled for release in January.

Collusion charge under 2020 security law

In 2025, Wong was hit with a new charge of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security, an offense created by the 2020 security law. He pleaded guilty earlier this year.

Judge William Tam found that Wong and fellow activist Nathan Law worked with foreign officials and other overseas actors to seek measures against China and Hong Kong. The judge cited Washington's revocation of Hong Kong's preferential treatment as a special administrative region, along with U.S. sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials, as examples of the hostile steps the two had sought.

"The punishment must fit the gravity of the crime committed," Tam wrote, adding that the court also needed to convey the community's strong condemnation of the collusion.

Tam said he began with a 13-year starting point before reducing the term in light of Wong's guilty plea and mitigating factors. The remaining two months of Wong's first national security sentence will run concurrently with the new term.

U.S. condemns the sentence

The United States sharply criticized the ruling and called for Wong's immediate release. In a statement, the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong said Wong had been unjustly held since late 2020 and that the case showed how far Beijing is willing to go to silence advocates for fundamental freedoms in the city.

Supporters fill the courtroom

Wong, dressed in a dark shirt at the High Court, nodded to supporters and pro-democracy activists in the public gallery before the hearing began. He remained composed as the judge delivered the sentencing remarks and thanked supporters as he was led out.

Seating was limited, and dozens of people lined up outside the court for a place in the gallery, some arriving as early as Tuesday, with attendees taking turns inside. Tiffany Chin, a former member of Scholarism, the now-disbanded student group Wong once led, was in tears after the sentence was announced. A resident named ET Wong said the activist had taken a hard road for Hong Kong's future, human rights and the student movement, and should never have been imprisoned.

Wong's statement

In a statement written from prison, Wong said he had believed he was acting lawfully and was not directly calling for sanctions when he shared other people's social media posts or urged foreign companies to consider ending business with the Hong Kong police. He said he later came to see that his judgment had been wrong.

A Minnesota restaurant owner has been sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for his role in a massive fraud scheme that stole millions of dollars from a government-funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Salim Said, the operator of Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, was convicted of participating in a scheme that submitted fraudulent claims for meals that were never served to children. Federal prosecutors said Said was responsible for approximately $44 million in fraudulent reimbursements, including funds obtained through other participants he recruited into the operation.

According to federal prosecutors, Said repeatedly submitted false reimbursement claims that dramatically inflated the number of meals his restaurant and associated distribution sites supposedly provided to underprivileged children.

In one particularly striking example, Said claimed his operation distributed approximately 6,000 meals per day. However, FBI surveillance cameras recorded only about 40 people collecting food daily at the monitored location.

Prosecutors said the discrepancy demonstrated the extent of the fraudulent reporting used to obtain federal funds.

For 21 consecutive months, Said submitted thousands of fraudulent reimbursement claims, falsely representing that meals had been provided to children in need. Investigators determined that children listed in many of the reimbursement records were entirely fictitious.

The scheme exploited temporary changes to federal child nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. When schools closed, the federal government expanded meal distribution programs to allow restaurants and other organizations to provide food to children outside traditional school settings.

Prosecutors said Said and other participants took advantage of the relaxed program requirements by fabricating meal distribution records and collecting millions of dollars in government reimbursements.

Federal investigators also uncovered substantial personal purchases made with proceeds from the fraudulent operation.

According to prosecutors, Said purchased a $1.2 million residence, invested in commercial real estate, and acquired an $87,000 pickup truck while benefiting from the scheme.

During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel condemned Said for using taxpayer-funded assistance intended for vulnerable children to enrich himself.

The judge said his actions had not only deprived taxpayers of millions of dollars but had also damaged Minnesota's reputation.

Said, who was born in Somalia, denied wrongdoing during his 2025 trial, claiming that many of the meals had been delivered to off-site locations. However, he expressed remorse during his sentencing hearing.

His defense attorney, Barry Zone, requested a 12-year prison sentence and disputed prosecutors' characterization of Said as a principal architect of the fraud. The court ultimately imposed a 30-year sentence.

The case was part of the broader Feeding Our Future scandal, one of the largest pandemic-related federal nutrition assistance fraud investigations in the United States.

Feeding Our Future, a Minnesota-based nonprofit organization, served as a central participant in the scheme. Its former leader, Aimee Bock, was convicted of organizing the operation and recruiting restaurant owners and other participants to submit fraudulent claims.

Bock received a 42-year federal prison sentence and was ordered to repay $242 million.

Dozens of individuals have been convicted in connection with the investigation, which revealed how participants exploited emergency federal assistance programs by submitting fabricated documentation, falsely reporting meal distribution numbers, and collecting payments for services that were never provided.

The scandal also raised serious questions about oversight by Minnesota state agencies responsible for administering federal nutrition assistance funds.

State auditors found that the Minnesota Department of Education had received numerous complaints concerning Feeding Our Future but frequently allowed the organization to address compliance concerns internally rather than taking stronger enforcement action.

The fraud investigation subsequently became a major political controversy.

President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Minnesota's Democratic leadership for failing to prevent widespread misuse of federal funds. The administration also cited concerns surrounding fraud as part of its justification for expanded immigration enforcement operations in the state's largest cities.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced in January that he would not seek reelection following sustained political criticism over the state's handling of fraud involving federally funded programs.

The case highlights the consequences of fraudulent activity involving public assistance programs, particularly those established to provide essential services to vulnerable populations during national emergencies.

Federal prosecutors emphasized that the stolen funds had been designated to feed children from low-income families, not to finance personal real estate investments, luxury purchases, or fraudulent business operations.

Said's 30-year prison sentence represents another major conviction in the continuing federal crackdown on the Minnesota child nutrition fraud scheme.

The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it will block imports from Chinese biotechnology firm BGI Group and two of its affiliates, citing alleged links to forced labor in Xinjiang, China's far-western ethnic region.

Beginning Thursday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will stop goods from BGI Group, a major player in genetic sequencing, along with BGI Genomics and MGI Tech. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the companies either source materials from Xinjiang or work with the regional government in the recruitment and movement of forced labor drawn from persecuted ethnic groups there, including Uyghurs. DHS said BGI Group holds controlling stakes in both affiliates.

DHS cites genetic testing in Xinjiang

In its announcement, DHS said credible information, including corporate and government reports, shows the three companies have supported genetic testing in Xinjiang. The department said the collection and analysis of genetic material helps Chinese authorities monitor, surveil and repress ethnic minorities, including through forced labor.

The action falls under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law at the end of 2021 in response to allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. In August, the Trump administration added 43 Chinese companies to the law's blacklist, bringing the total to 187 entities. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has pledged to protect American workers from being undercut by foreign companies that rely on forced labor.

Beijing and BGI push back

China rejected the forced labor accusations and denounced the ban as political manipulation and bullying carried out in the name of human rights. In a statement Thursday morning, China's Ministry of Commerce said the listings contradict the consensus reached by the two countries' leaders, threaten the stability of bilateral trade relations, and that China will take necessary measures to protect its interests. Beijing has long dismissed the Xinjiang allegations as false, describing its policies in the region as counterterrorism and stability efforts.

BGI Group also denied the claims, stating Wednesday that it "has not engaged in any form of forced labor" and opposes forced labor in all forms.

Biotech becomes a new front

The move highlights biotechnology as a growing area of economic and technological rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Last week, the Treasury Department proposed new limits on U.S. investment in biotechnology, artificial intelligence and supercomputing in countries such as China.

BGI Group has drawn scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and officials for years over concerns that its alleged government ties and access to vast amounts of genetic data could threaten U.S. national security and commercial interests. The company has emphasized that it is privately owned, does not serve patients in the United States and has no access to Americans' genetic data. The Pentagon has designated BGI Group, BGI Genomics and MGI Tech as Chinese military companies.

Congress did not pass a bill that would have barred BGI from working with federally funded medical providers, but late last year it approved a similar measure that did not name specific companies and instead called for a list of biotechnology companies of concern.

The latest trade action comes ahead of an expected meeting next month between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump in Shenzhen, where BGI Group is headquartered. Xi may also travel to Florida in December for the Group of 20 leaders summit, which would mark a fourth meeting between the two leaders this year as they seek to keep relations steady under a trade truce.

The Trump administration on Wednesday filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to set aside a lower court order that has stopped construction of border barriers through the Big Bend region of Texas.

The order is a significant obstacle for one of President Donald Trump's signature initiatives. The administration has been moving quickly to build walls and related infrastructure along the southern border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

Local opposition and the October injunction

In Big Bend, the project has drawn pushback from ranchers, residents, business owners and environmental groups. They contend that the plan, which combines walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology, wastes money in a region where illegal crossings have historically been low, and that construction threatens the area's landscapes. Opponents have brought several lawsuits challenging the work.

In one of those cases, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone on Oct. 2 issued a preliminary injunction halting construction across the roughly 500-mile project area while the litigation continues. The order covers Big Bend National Park as well as state-owned and privately owned land upriver and downriver from the park. Opposition had been building for months but intensified in August, when bulldozers were seen clearing land inside the national park.

The waiver dispute

At the center of the case are broad waivers issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security that let U.S. Customs and Border Protection skip environmental and other regulatory requirements that would otherwise slow a project of this size.

The government maintains that Big Bend sees a high level of illegal entry and that a 1996 law expressly gives the secretary authority to waive such rules when needed to build barriers and roads near the border. Challengers counter that Congress limited that power to areas of high illegal entry, and that the remote, rugged Big Bend region does not qualify.

Judge Cardone agreed with the challengers, finding that they "are likely to succeed on the merits of their major questions doctrine claim that the Big Bend Waivers were issued in excess of the Secretary's authority."

What is at stake

Trump has long promised a wall along the approximately 2,000-mile southwest border. Last summer, congressional Republicans provided the Department of Homeland Security with $46 billion to complete it, using a combination of 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance systems.

The administration warns that if Big Bend remains one of the few stretches without barriers, illegal crossings could shift there. Opponents respond that drones, surveillance towers and similar tools would be equally effective at a far lower cost than a wall.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, leaving intact a ruling that wiped out the $8.2 million defamation verdict he won over a political ad aired during his 2017 U.S. Senate campaign.

By declining to hear the case, the justices let stand a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that set aside a jury's finding that the ad had defamed Moore. The outcome is a win for Senate Majority PAC, the Democratic-aligned super PAC that paid for the ad and has maintained that it was accurate.

Monday's order follows an earlier setback for Moore. In June, the Court denied his emergency request to freeze the 11th Circuit ruling while his appeal was pending.

Background of the 2017 race

Moore, known for his opposition to same-sex marriage and his support for displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, lost the 2017 Senate election after his campaign was engulfed by allegations of misconduct. Leigh Corfman accused Moore of touching her inappropriately in 1979, when she was 14 and he was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. Moore denied the allegation. Other women said Moore had dated them or asked them out when they were in their late teens.

The disputed ad

Senate Majority PAC financed Highway 31, a group that ran a heavy advertising campaign against Moore during the race. Moore's defamation suit focused on one of its television spots. His lawyers argued that the ad combined statements and fragments of quotes from different news stories in a way that falsely suggested he had been accused of soliciting sex from young girls at a shopping mall. They described it as a "fabricated accusation, never made by any reporter," and said it aired 533 times in Alabama in the closing days of the election.

From jury win to reversal

A federal jury sided with Moore in 2022 and awarded him $8.2 million. The 11th Circuit later vacated that award, concluding that Moore had not proven the PAC acted with actual malice, the standard a public figure must meet to win a defamation claim.

Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was found guilty of leading an insurrection on Thursday and sentenced to life in prison for his brief imposition of martial law in 2024, a ruling that marks a dramatic culmination of the country's biggest political crisis in decades.

The conservative leader was ousted from office after he declared martial law and sent troops to surround the National Assembly on Dec. 3, 2024, in a baffling attempt to overcome a legislature controlled by his liberal opponents.

Judge Jee Kui-youn of the Seoul Central District Court said he found Yoon, 65, guilty of rebellion for mobilizing military and police forces in an illegal attempt to seize the Assembly, arrest political opponents and establish unchecked power for an indefinite period.

Yoon's martial law imposition, the first of its kind in more than four decades, recalled South Korea's past military-backed governments when authorities occasionally proclaimed emergency decrees that allowed them to station soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or in public places such as schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations.

As lawmakers rushed to the National Assembly, Yoon's martial law command issued a proclamation declaring sweeping powers, including suspending political activities, controlling the media and publications, and allowing arrests without warrants.

The decree lasted about six hours before being lifted after a quorum of lawmakers managed to break through a military blockade and unanimously voted to lift the measure.

Yoon was suspended from office on Dec. 14, 2024, after being impeached by lawmakers and was formally removed by the Constitutional Court in April 2025. He has been under arrest since last July while facing multiple criminal trials, with the rebellion charge carrying the most severe punishment.

An expressionless Yoon gazed straight ahead as the judge delivered the sentence in the same courtroom where former military rulers and presidents have been convicted of treason, corruption and other crimes over the decades.

Yoon Kap-keun, one of the former president's lawyers, accused the judge of issuing a predetermined verdict based solely on prosecutors' arguments and said the rule of law had collapsed. He said he would discuss whether to appeal with his client and the rest of the legal team.

Former President Yoon claimed in court that the martial law decree was only meant to raise public awareness of how the liberals were paralyzing state affairs, and that he was prepared to respect lawmakers if they voted against the measure.

Prosecutors said it was clear Yoon was attempting to disable the legislature and prevent lawmakers from lifting the measure through voting, actions that exceeded his constitutional authority even under martial law.

The court also convicted and sentenced five former military and police officials involved in enforcing Yoon's martial law decree. They included ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who received a 30-year jail term for his central role in planning the measure, mobilizing the military and instructing military counterintelligence officials to arrest 14 key politicians, including National Assembly speaker Woo Won-shik and current liberal President Lee Jae Myung.

In announcing Yoon and Kim's verdicts, Jee said the decision to send troops to the National Assembly was key to his determination that the imposition of martial law amounted to rebellion.

As Yoon arrived in court, hundreds of police officers watched closely as Yoon supporters rallied outside a judicial complex, their cries rising as the prison bus transporting him drove past. Yoon's critics gathered nearby, demanding the death penalty.

There were no immediate reports of major clashes following the verdict.

A special prosecutor had demanded the death penalty for Yoon Suk Yeol, saying his actions posed a threat to the country's democracy and deserved the most serious punishment available, but most analysts had expected a life sentence since the poorly-planned power grab did not result in casualties.

South Korea has not executed a death row inmate since 1997, in what is widely seen as a de facto moratorium on capital punishment amid calls for its abolition.

Jung Chung-rae, leader of the liberal Democratic Party, which led the push to impeach and remove Yoon, expressed regret that the court stopped short of the death penalty, saying the ruling reflected a lack of a sense of justice.

Song Eon-seok, floor leader of the conservative People Power Party, to which Yoon once belonged, issued a public apology, saying the party feels a deep sense of responsibility for the disruption to the nation.

The office of current President Lee Jae Myung did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Last month, Yoon was sentenced to five years in prison for resisting arrest, fabricating the martial law proclamation and sidestepping a legally mandated full Cabinet meeting before declaring the measure.

The Seoul Central Court had previously convicted two other members of Yoon's Cabinet in connection with the martial law debacle. That includes Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who received a 23-year prison sentence for attempting to legitimize the decree by forcing it through a Cabinet Council meeting, falsifying records and lying under oath. Han has appealed the verdict.

Yoon is the first former South Korean president to receive a life sentence since former military dictator Chun Doo-hwan, who was sentenced to death in 1996 for his 1979 coup, a bloody 1980 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Gwangju that left more than 200 people dead or missing, and corruption.

The Supreme Court later reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, and he was released in late 1997 under a special presidential pardon. He died in 2021.

The Trump administration reached a trade deal with Taiwan on Thursday, with Taiwan agreeing to remove or reduce 99% of its tariff barriers, the office of the U.S. Trade Representative said.

The agreement comes as the U.S. remains reliant on Taiwan for its production of computer chips, the exporting of which contributed to a trade imbalance of nearly $127 billion during the first 11 months of 2025, according to the Census Bureau.

Most of Taiwan’s exports to the U.S. will be taxed at a 15% rate, the USTR’s office said. The 15% rate is the same as that levied on other U.S. trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Japan and South Korea.

Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick attended the signing of the reciprocal agreement, which occurred under the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States. Taiwan’s Vice Premier Li-chiun Cheng and its government minister Jen-ni Yang also attended the signing.

computer chips, the exporting of which contributed to a trade imbalance of nearly $127 billion during the first 11 months of 2025, according to the Census Bureau.

Most of Taiwan’s exports to the U.S. will be taxed at a 15% rate, the USTR’s office said. The 15% rate is the same as that levied on other U.S. trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Japan and South Korea.

Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick attended the signing of the reciprocal agreement, which occurred under the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States. Taiwan’s Vice Premier Li-chiun Cheng and its government minister Jen-ni Yang also attended the signing.

“President Trump’s leadership in the Asia-Pacific region continues to generate prosperous trade ties for the United States with important partners across Asia, while further advancing the economic and national security interests of the American people,” Greer said in a statement.

The Taiwanese government said in a statement that the tariff rate set in the agreement allows its companies to compete on a level field with Japan, South Korea and the European Union. It also said the agreement “eliminated” the disadvantage from a lack of a free trade agreement between Taiwan and the U.S.

The deal comes ahead of President Donald Trump’s planned visit to China in April and suggests a deepening economic relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan.

Taiwan is a self-ruled democracy that China claims as its own territory, to be annexed by force if necessary. Beijing prohibits all countries it has diplomatic relations with — including the U.S. — from having formal ties with Taipei.

Cheng said Taiwan hopes the agreement will make it a strategic partner with the U.S. “so as to jointly consolidate the democratic camp’s leading position in high technology.”

The agreement would make it easier for the U.S. to sell autos, pharmaceutical drugs and food products in Taiwan. But the critical component might be that Taiwanese companies would invest in the production of computer chips in the U.S., possibly helping to ease the trade imbalance.