The scandal centers on leaked audio recordings obtained by the outlet Diario Red, which allegedly capture conversations between JOH, current Honduran President Nasry Asfura, and Vice President María Antionieta Mejía discussing a plan to undermine progressive governments in the region through a media disinformation campaign. The recordings appear to indicate that Israel played a direct role in the scheme.

JOH—who had been sentenced to 45 years in US federal prison on drug trafficking charges before being pardoned by Trump in late November, a move widely interpreted as interventionin Honduras’ elections—apparently claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu helped secure his release. The scheme reportedly sought to create a JOH-led media channel to spread fake news against left-wing leaders in the region while opening up Honduran land to foreign investment. Argentina’s far-right President Javier Milei, who has described himself as “the most Zionist president in the world,” was also allegedly involved.

The scandal unfolded just as Herzog embarked on a highly successful diplomatic tour of Central America. After stopping in Panama, Herzog attended last week’s inauguration of Costa Rican President Laura Fernández, whose right-wing government appears poised to deepen ties to Israel. Fernández held the first official meeting of her presidency with Herzog and pledged to move Costa Rica’s embassy to Jerusalem, crossing a long-standing diplomatic red-line given that much of the city remains occupied territory and is not internationally recognized as Israel’s capital. Herzog also met in Costa Rica with Chilean President José Antonio Kast, who vowed to restore diplomatic ties with Israel after his predecessor Gabriel Boric recalled Chile’s ambassador in protest of the war in Gaza. Herzog likewise met in Costa Rica with Asfura, an ardent Zionist of Palestinian descent who has already visited Israel and affirmed his intention to strengthen diplomatic ties with Israel.

The trip underscored a broader regional shift. In the immediate aftermath of Israel’s genocidal response to the October 7 attacks, Latin America’s progressive governments emerged as some of the strongest international critics of the Israeli state. Leaders from Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia, Honduras and Chile either withdrew their ambassadors from Israel or suspended diplomatic ties entirely. But many of the region’s new right-wing governments are now reversing those measures, weakening what had been a significant international front of opposition to Israel’s war.

At the same time, Israel’s violence continues to reverberate directly in the region. Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila, one of the leaders of the Global Sumud Flotilla, was detained by Israeli forces after participating in a humanitarian aid mission bound for Gaza. The flotilla set sail from Spain weeks ago, but after 22 boats were stopped near Crete on April 30, Israeli forces transferred 168 activists to Greece while taking Ávila and the Spanish activist Saif Abu Keshek to Israel for further interrogation. Both men were released last week after investigations into alleged ties with terrorist organizations, but they claim they were tortured during their detention—and described the far worse conditions faced by Palestinian prisoners. Israel’s treatment of Ávila reignited calls within Brazil for President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva to move beyond critical rhetoric to a fully sever ties with Israel. As Israel deepens relations with Latin America’s ascendant right wing, accountability for the ongoing destruction in Gaza appears increasingly out of reach.

From NACLA Update, May 15. Lightly edited, internal links added.

Map: Perry-Castañeda Library

The organizations report that the administration in April re-arrested and forcibly transferred to third countries people who had previously been granted withholding of removal by US immigration judges and had prevailed on habeas petitions challenging the legality of their detention. The report documents an attempted transfer of individuals to Libya last year in violation of a court order then in effect.

Approximately 16,000 of the documented transfers have been to Mexico. That figure includes thousands of individuals the administration failed to acknowledge in a March 5 disclosure to a federal court. Roughly 1,400 additional people have been sent to 20 other countries, including Eswatini, South Sudan and Uganda. A March 2026 agreement with Costa Rica provides for regular weekly transfers.

The tracker reports that the administration has paid at least $44 million to receiving governments in connection with the agreements and has used the threat of third-country transfer to pressure detained immigrants into abandoning their legal claims.

Separately, the tracker reports that government attorneys have filed motions to “pretermit,” or dismiss without merits review, thousands of pending asylum cases in immigration court on the basis of Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Uganda. Citing data compiled by immigration advocacy group Mobile Pathways from Executive Office for Immigration Review records, the tracker counts nearly 9,500 such pretermissions as of February 2026. The following month, the Department of Homeland Security directed Immigration & Customs Enforcement attorneys to stop filing new pretermission motions but did not withdraw those already pending.

The administration has invoked a range of statutory and constitutional authorities to justify the transfers, including the Alien Enemies Act, and the suspension-of-entry provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Federal judges have held several uses of those authorities unlawful, including in challenges to expulsions of Venezuelans to El Salvador and to forced transfers of people with final removal orders carried out without notice or an opportunity to raise fear-based claims.

From JURIST, May 5. Used with permission.

See our last report on the third-country deportations.

See our podcast “MAGA-fascism and the struggle in Libya”

Photo: Venezuelan deportees in Honduras. Credit: ICE via Wikimedia Commons

Image: Grunge Love

“The initial 14 [deportees] were brought to Ghana on Sept. 6,” lead lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor explained to media outlets. “Three were deported [from Ghana] that night. Eleven were held in military detention. Out of that 11, 10 were deported with the matter in court, and eight of them are in Togo.”

The deportations arose from a “third country deportation” agreement between the US and Ghana earlier this year. Ghana’s parliamentary minority bloc has now called for its suspension, as leaders claim the government entered into the agreement without proper legislative approval. Samuel Abu Jinapor, a ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Ghana’s Parliament, argued:

The government’s conduct in operationalizing the agreement with the United States without parliamentary ratification is a direct constitutional violation of Article 75 and an affront to the authority of the [Ghanan] Supreme Court. It is therefore deeply concerning that the government continues to operationalize the agreement despite this flagrant operational breach.

Ghana’s Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa told local media that the decision to enter into the agreement was not a signal of support for the US administration, but rather a decision “grounded purely on humanitarian principle and Pan-African empathy.” However, reports have claimed that Ablakwa and President John Mahama may also be motivated by the hope that the White House will lift travel restrictions on Ghanaians entering the US as consideration for the agreement.

After initial pushback from federal courts, in July the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to enter into third-country deportation agreements with multiple nations, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda. International organizations have warned that the policy risks great harm to individuals, and skirts government accountability.

The West African deportees also filed a lawsuit in the US courts last month, asserting that they were taken from an immigration facility, shackled, placed in straitjackets, and flown to Ghana in a cargo plane without meaningful notice or hearing.

From JURIST, Oct. 7. Used with permission.

Photo: Venezuelan deportees in Honduras. Credit: ICE via Wikimedia Commons

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us at one of our three tiers via Patreon: Become a Basic Supporter for just $1 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $5 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 65 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 66!

Image: blende12/Pixabay

The court concluded that “the current situation constitutes a climate emergency due to the accelerated increase in global temperature, resulting from several human activities, produced unequally by States in the international community, which increasingly affect and pose a serious threat to humanity and especially to those in a vulnerable situation.”

The court affirmed the existence of a human right to a healthy environment, elaborating on the obligations derived from that right within the context of the climate emergency. It reiterated that states have international and domestic human rights obligations to counter climate change and, in particular, protect those most vulnerable to its impacts.

In January 2023, Chile and Colombia jointly requested an advisory opinion on the obligation of states under the American Convention in response to the climate crisis. Following a procedure that included 263 briefs and two public hearings last year, the court notified member states of its advisory opinion on July 4.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) also celebrated the opinion. Dr. Grethel Aguilar, the IUCN director general, stated, “This Advisory Opinion is key in reaffirming that states have an obligation under international law to address the climate emergency. It comes at a historic moment in which climate change redefining the limits of law and justice.”

Advisory opinions serve a consultative function, allowing the court to clarify matters with regard to international norms at the request of a member state. Although they serve as authoritative interpretations to the member states, they are not legally binding.

From JURIST, July 5. Used with permission.

Note: A similar advisory opinion is being sought from the International Court of Justice.

Photo: Marizilda Cruppe/Greenpeace via Mongabay

The request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ was submitted in March 2023, following the unanimous adoption of Resolution 77/276 by the UN General Assembly. The resolution sought the court’s guidance on the obligations of sates to “ensure the protection of the climate system…for present and future generations,” and the legal implications of “acts and omissions [that] have caused significant harm to the climate system.” The second question especially addresses the international community’s legal responsibilities to small island developing States, which are disproportionately threatened by the adverse effects of climate change.

Article 96 of the UN Charter serves as a legal basis for the General Assembly, Security Council and specialized agencies to submit legal questions to the ICJ. Article 65 of the ICJ Statute further establishes the court’s jurisdiction to provide advisory opinions. Although non-binding, they serve as authoritative statements on international law.

The request for an advisory opinion was initially inspired by a grassroots movement in Vanuatu and subsequently advanced by its government. This island state in the South Pacific, in collaboration with nations such as Costa Rica, Sierra Leone, Angola, Germany, the Federated States of Micronesia, Bangladesh and others, played a key role in drafting the resolution. The adverse consequences of climate change are well recognized, yet substantial discrepancies persist in the international community’s approach to mitigating its impacts. Emissions from high-polluting countries like the US, Canada, Russia and China have accelerated climate change and its harmful consequences, disproportionately affecting small island nations, which are particularly vulnerable due to their “geographical circumstances and level of development.” The unanimous agreement of all 193 UNGA member states to refer the request to the ICJ highlights the critical importance of addressing this global issue.

Remarkably, the international community’s participation has been unprecedented, with 91 written submissions, 62 follow-up comments, and 98 states, along with 12 authorized international organizations, set to engage in the oral proceedings.

While the ICJ’s advisory opinion is expected in 2025, it is not the first international judicial body to address states’ legal obligations regarding climate change. Earlier this year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion, urging states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent marine pollution. This opinion has set a precedent for future climate-related litigation and may influence the ICJ’s forthcoming decision. Additionally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) is preparing its advisory opinion on climate change, following public hearings in June. The IACHR opinion is expected to contribute further to this evolving area of international law.

From JURIST, Dec. 2. Used with permission.

Photo: ICJ

To join BOGA, countries would have to set firm targets for ending current oil and gas production and banning new exploration. Countries could get into a “second-tier” level if they make steps such as limiting fossil fuel financing or reforming subsidies for fossil fuel companies.

Although Costa Rica is not a major producer fossil fuels itself, it has long been recognized for leading the way in phasing out production and setting aggressive decarbonization targets. Denmark—one of the largest oil producers in the EU—last year enacted a ban on fossil fuel exploration and extraction. (Gizmodo, Aug. 26)

Photo: Flickr/photodiscoveries via weather2travel.com

Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, the energy and environment minister for Costa Rica, was among those pressing to hold the summit earlier than a full year after originally scheduled. “We’re losing time,” he told the New York Times. “If there are no strings attached to international aid and national recovery plans we may be in a very difficult spot. Having a COP soon would help influence global recovery plans.”

Ominously, the postponement comes just a week after temperatures as high as 86 degrees Fahrenheit were reported above the Arctic Circle. The record-breaking temperatures in the Arctic Sea north of Russia and across much of northern Siberia were reported by the Finnish Meteorological Institute. The loss of sea ice, already at alarming levels, also escalated, with ice cover in the Kara Sea taking the deepest May decline ever recorded. (Gizmodo)

The Kara Sea, a western arm of the Arctic Sea, is itself slated for oil exploitation by Russian interests—with access perversely facilitated by the loss of sea ice.

Extremely depressed oil prices as a result of the pandemic have brought the industry to a virtual stand-still—but an industry bail-out is being considered in the guise of a recovery measure. In Canada, Alberta’s energy minister Sonya Savage even suggested exploiting the pandemic to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built while protests are effectively banned.  The pipeline, the focus of protest by Indigenous peoples and their allies, would bring shale oil from Alberta’s tar sands fields over the Rockies to ports in British Columbia.

Photo: Ralf Vetterle, Pixabay

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to donate just $1 per episode via Patreon. A total of $30 per episode would cover our costs for engineering and producing. We are currently up to $25.

Photo: David Lynch via Twitter