Blog

A Russian court on Monday convicted a prominent opposition politician for speaking out against the war in Ukraine and sentenced him to 11 years and one month in prison in the latest crackdown leading up to next month’s parliamentary election.

The verdict against Lev Shlosberg, a senior member of the Yabloko party, was another step by the Kremlin to stifle dissent since Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022. Yabloko is the only official political party overtly opposing the war.

In a separate ruling Monday, Russia’s Supreme Court upheld its earlier decision to bar Yabloko from the ballot in the Sept. 18-20 parliamentary vote, denying an appeal by the party.

The moves against Shlosberg and Yabloko highlight the Kremlin’s intolerance toward any criticism of the war, now in its fifth year.

It was Shlosberg’s second trial in 2 years

Shlosberg, 63, is Yabloko’s deputy chairman and served in the regional legislature of Pskov from 2016-21. He stood trial in the city of Pskov, some 370 miles northwest of Moscow, on charges of “discrediting” and spreading “false information” about the Russian military.

The charges stemmed from a debate in which he called for ending the war and from posting on his Telegram channel a British tabloid front page featuring an image of a bloodied woman next to one of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the headline: “Her blood … his hands.” Shlosberg has rejected the charges as unfounded.

It was the second trial for Shlosberg in the last two years. He has also been designated a “foreign agent,” a label that carries strong pejorative connotations in Russia and brings additional government scrutiny. He was convicted of violating the foreign agent regulations.

In December 2025, he was placed in pretrial detention on the new charges and has been behind bars ever since. He is one of several prominent Yabloko members in recent years to be jailed or designated a “foreign agent” as Kremlin pressure on the party has mounted.

Yabloko called the sentence ‘barbaric’

In his final statement to the court Friday, Shlosberg said that for 30 years, Russia has traveled “a path from hopes for freedom to the almost complete destruction of human and civil rights and freedoms.”

He said the war in Ukraine has “changed the lives of every Russian citizen without exception,” and predicted that once its true death toll becomes known, “the entire country will shudder.”

Yabloko said Shlosberg received a “barbaric sentence” for “love of the Motherland and calls for a ceasefire.” In a statement on Telegram, the party said Shlosberg will appeal.

Amnesty International denounced the verdict against Shlosberg.

“His arbitrary prosecution and sentencing are blatant reprisals for exercising his right to freedom of expression to call for peace,” said Marie Struthers, the group’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia director.

“The Russian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Lev Shlosberg and quash his conviction,” her statement added. “They must repeal legislation criminalizing peaceful anti-war expression, end the persecution of Yabloko members and supporters, and respect the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and political participation for all Russians.”

Supreme Court upholds removing Yabloko from the ballot

In Moscow, the Supreme Court upheld its ruling of a week ago to remove Yabloko from the ballot in the election for the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, denying an appeal by the party.

The Central Election Commission in July had allowed Yabloko on the ballot along with 10 other parties. Young social media users and many Russian opposition figures in exile have since come out in support of Yabloko, urging voters to back the party, once a leading liberal voice in parliament that later lost its bloc of seats as the Kremlin tightened its grip on politics.

In recent years, Yabloko was the only registered opposition party that opposed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Its campaign slogans for this year’s election included, “For a ceasefire agreement, diplomacy, and peace!” “Our goal is to prevent nuclear war!” and “For a Russia free from fear and political repression!”

Several Kremlin parties publicly assailed Yabloko for its anti-war stance after it got a slot on the ballot. The Motherland Party filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, demanding its removal from the ballot, accusing Yabloko of copyright infringement and exceeding campaign spending limits. The party also viewed Yabloko’s stance on Ukraine as unlawful and tantamount to calling for the violation of Russia’s territorial integrity.

Yabloko rejected these accusations, but the Supreme Court sided with the Motherland Party.

As the court met Monday on Yabloko’s appeal, the party’s supporters gathered outside the courthouse and Russian media reported that several dozen people were detained.

Liberal politician Grigory Yavlinsky, who co-founded Yabloko in the 1990s and chairs its political committee, deplored the court’s ruling in an online statement. It marked “a serious, deepening crisis in the Russian political system and a lack of understanding of a desired future,” he said.

“People begin to feel this more acutely, regardless of their political views and positions,” he said, adding that Yabloko’s campaign “for peace and freedom” hit this particular “sore point.”

Yabloko chairperson Nikolai Rybakov told reporters after the ruling that the party will continue its fight by lodging a complaint to the Presidium of the Supreme Court and possibly going to the Constitutional Court.

“We achieved the main thing: The whole world knows how many people in Russia want peace, want to live normally, and to raise children under a peaceful sky in their country,” Rybakov said.

Regarding the prison term handed to Shlosberg, Rybakov said, “Our feelings are with Lev and other political prisoners who have fought and are fighting for peace, for people to not die.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Monday it is temporarily pausing construction of a contentious border construction project in Texas’ Big Bend National Park while the head of the agency tasked with building the wall visits to do an “on-the-ground evaluation.”

The project through the national park in southern Texas has faced fierce bipartisan opposition by critics who say it is marring the area’s pristine environment. They argue the region’s rugged and remote terrain already serves as a deterrent to migrants and smugglers. Border crossings in the area have historically been lower than other regions and have dropped even further over the past two years.

“CBP is pausing all construction activity in Big Bend National Park while I visit and conduct a personal, on-the-ground evaluation,” Rodney Scott, who heads Customs and Border Protection, said on X. Scott said over the next couple of days, he was going to “listen to local leadership, community members, and stakeholders” to address what he said were “real” national security threats while protecting the park.

While it isn’t clear whether the brief suspension portended a more permanent halt to the construction in the area, it reflected the intensity of the bipartisan opposition and was a rare concession from the administration on a signature promise of the president’s that it has raced to complete.

Congress gave the Trump administration $46 billion last summer to build a wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, and the administration has been charging ahead and waiving numerous regulations in an effort to swiftly build the wall.

Scott has said that he expects the first layer of the wall to be built by the end of next year.

But the administration has run into fierce opposition in Texas especially when it comes to construction in and near Big Bend National Park and a state park to the west.

Customs and Border Protection earlier this year backed off of plans to build a 30-foot-tall bollard wall through the parks but was still moving forward with other border protection measures such as a new road, lights, miles of barriers designed to stop cars from crossing the border, and technology such as fiber optic cables to be buried under the fences.

That has sparked opposition from Democratic and Republican sheriffs in the region, former national park officials, local residents who rely on the parks for their livelihood, and from some Texas elected officials. Critics have said it will scar the rugged landscape that attracts tourists who raft down the Rio Grande and take advantage of some of the clearest night skies in the U.S. to gaze at stars.

Last week, bulldozers were seen clearing land at the park, sparking even more concern and raising questions from one of the state’s Republican senators. Sen. John Cornyn, who lost the Republican primary to the state’s attorney general, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin over construction concerns.

“My constituents believe that the 1,000-foot riverbank cliffs and remote Big Bend terrain offers its own source of deterrence for any illegal migrants crossing into the United States. The dangerous terrain includes steep mountains, deep canyons, and expansive deserts which they believe act a natural barrier that limits large-scale movements,” Cornyn wrote.

MEXICO CITY — Hundreds of people have been killed in the year since the U.S. military began bombing boats it accused of ferrying drugs off Latin America’s Caribbean and Pacific coasts. Now, the Trump administration says it is seeking to extend that lethal campaign to land, pursuing deals that would put U.S. forces on the ground in allied nations across the region.

President Donald Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, announced last week during a visit to Panama that Colombia, Guatemala, and Honduras had agreed to allow the U.S. to carry out joint military operations against criminal groups on their soil, following Ecuador, which launched similar missions with the U.S. in March. Guatemala, however, has denied reaching such an agreement.

It will be “like you saw with the strikes on the drug boats,” Hegseth said during a military drill in the jungle in Panama. “Same effect on land. And so we’re working with Ecuador. We’re working with Colombia. We’re working with partners to bring the fight to the (designated terrorist organizations) on land.”

The expansion marks a new phase in the Trump administration’s campaign to pressure governments across Latin America to align with its security priorities and assert what it calls “American dominance over the Western Hemisphere.”

Voters across the region are increasingly embracing Trump-aligned leaders, giving Washington more willing partners. But critics warn that the widening U.S. military campaign risks civilian casualties and a backlash against the U.S. that could outlast the Republican administration.

“What’s going on is an attempt to legitimize the increased use of the U.S. military in the region,” said Michael Shifter, a Latin America expert at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank. “It projects power, demonstrates military superiority, and enables Washington to impose its agenda. This is not cooperation, it’s obviously a very asymmetrical relationship.”

Escalating unilateral boat strikes to joint land operations

The U.S. military has operated in Latin America for generations, supplying allies with weapons, intelligence, and training to fight drug trafficking, while leaving a fraught legacy of support for military coups and dictatorships.

But since Trump returned to office in January 2025, Washington has pursued its most interventionist approach to the region in decades.

His administration has designated 20 Latin American criminal groups as “foreign terrorist organizations,” sent U.S. forces into Venezuela to capture its president, and involved CIA agents in drug lab busts in Mexico. It has killed more than 200 people in over 60 boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, offering little evidence that those targeted were “narco-terrorists” and drawing questions about the strikes’ legality.

But sustained U.S. combat operations alongside local forces would be “new and different,” said William LeoGrande, a Latin America specialist at American University, testing deep-rooted sensitivities over national sovereignty and the presence of U.S. troops.

Hegseth provided few details about what joint operations with Colombia, Guatemala, and Honduras would look like. But in Colombia, where Trump-backed Abelardo de la Espriella took office this month, he raised the prospect of U.S. forces joining strikes against armed groups including the National Liberation Army, or ELN, Colombia’s last major guerrilla group. Hegseth said de la Espriella had requested greater U.S. military involvement.

“Anywhere you traffic drugs or you threaten the American people or our partners, you are a target just like ISIS or al-Qaida,” Hegseth said, equating drug traffickers with Islamic extremist groups that dominated U.S. national security priorities for decades.

On Saturday, following a drone attack by the ELN on troops, de la Espriella vowed the rebels would “pay a high price.”

Concerns over U.S. military presence in Latin America

Ecuador has emerged as the clearest case of direct U.S. military involvement, launching joint raids with Washington despite voters overwhelmingly rejecting foreign military bases in a November 2025 referendum. A New York Times investigation found that one strike on an alleged drug lab in March instead destroyed a cattle farm.

The push to extend such agreements has gained the most traction among Trump’s ideological allies in the region — conservative leaders elected on promises of aggressive crackdowns on crime in recent months.

Guatemala stands out as an exception. Its progressive government has worked closely with Washington on security despite political differences. But President Bernardo Arévalo has denied agreeing to joint anti-drug operations, saying they would be illegal without congressional approval.

Honduras, Colombia, and Ecuador did not respond to requests for comment on Hegseth’s remarks.

A notable outlier from the new U.S. anti-trafficking alliance is Mexico, a major source and transit point for fentanyl and other drugs entering the U.S. Progressive President Claudia Sheinbaum has cooperated closely with Washington on security but resisted mounting pressure for a U.S. military role in fighting cartels on Mexican soil.

“Ultimately, the United States will have to define what ‘joint operations’ means in each of these countries. It may discover pretty quickly that this is something most governments — even governments on the right — are quite uncomfortable with,” said Adam Isacson, a defense analyst with the Washington Office on Latin America.

‘There is only so much sovereignty they can cede’

Observers question whether a more militarized approach would produce lasting security gains. Shifter said the campaign may serve partly as a show of force, building on the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as the Trump administration seeks to offset foreign policy setbacks elsewhere, including in the Middle East.

Others warn the strategy risks civilian casualties, particularly in Colombia, where armed groups operate among civilian populations and often function as de facto authorities in areas beyond the state’s reach. Rather than beating back those groups, military strikes are more likely to force them to adapt, said Jeremy McDermott, co-director of the Colombia-based investigative organization InSight Crime.

“The U.S. bombs an ELN camp in Colombia or in Venezuela, what is the first thing the ELN are going to do? They’re going to dismantle all their camps and move into the villages and towns,” he said.

In the long term, experts say, deeper U.S. military involvement could test how far voters are willing to go in putting security over sovereignty, potentially constraining even Trump’s closest allies.

“All of these presidents, no matter how far right they are, face pressure to do something about security and to make a show of pursuing the ‘bad guys’ who are making people feel unsafe. There is broad agreement on that,” Isacson said. “But they also know there is only so much sovereignty they can cede before public opinion begins turning against them.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump says vandals are to blame for large swaths of dead grass on the National Mall near the World War II Memorial — in the spot where he had a stage built and hosted crowds for his July 4 celebration.

Trump made the accusation in a social media post on Sunday without saying why he believes it’s the work of vandals instead of trampled turf from the Independence Day festivities. The Republican president posted a photo showing a once-grassy area by the World War II Memorial, now patchy and brown across much of the sprawling turf.

“Look what VANDALS did to the grass connecting the vandalized World War II Monument and the vandalized Reflecting Pool, which will be opened again, and better than ever, shortly,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

“Anybody who thinks the Reflecting Pool wasn’t vandalized should go back to Law School!” he added.

Trump has repeatedly blamed vandals for damage to his renovation projects in the nation’s capital, often without evidence and sometimes despite opposing accounts from his officials. Trump lashed out at U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro this month after her office concluded that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was the result of poor construction and not the work of vandals, as Trump claimed.

Authorities on Friday announced an arrest in connection with vandalism at the World War II Memorial, after the words “Clean hands dirty $” were found painted on the monument and bubbles filled a fountain. Pirro said felony charges were being brought against Melissa L. Farris, who was in custody and couldn’t be reached for comment.

A woman identified on her Facebook page as Melissa Lovewell on Thursday posted a video in which she is seen taking cans of spray paint from her bag and then painting the monument. “I will wait here to be arrested for spraying our veterans’ fountain,” she says. “It was me. I’m doing it. It’s on camera.”

The woman was identified by her Kentucky driver’s license as Melissa L. Farris, of Elizabethtown, Ky., an arrest warrant says.

Charging documents in that case make no mention of the grassy area Trump is highlighting in his new claims. Authorities said Farris had previously been arrested for camping on federal property a few blocks from the World War II Memorial, but not the area cited by Trump.

That stretch of lawn is instead where a large stage was built and crowds gathered to hear from Trump and watch fireworks at a July 4 event celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary. Trump claimed without providing evidence that more than 400,000 people attended the event before a storm hit the area and delayed his remarks.

Photos from the time, taken by a streaming webcam atop the Washington Monument, show a large bandstand and seating areas covering nearly the entire lawn Trump now says has been vandalized. Associated Press photos from the days that followed showed workers removing the structures, revealing brown, damaged grass underneath.

On Aug. 1, Trump posted a different photo of the same area that appears to show the numbers “86 47” — which federal officials have said constitutes a threat against Trump, the 47th president — emblazoned into the grass. He cited it as evidence refuting Pirro’s conclusion, calling it “a pure case of VANDALISM, that included the grass.”

“There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS!” he wrote.

Those numbers are not visible in the photo Trump posted to social media on Sunday.