Act Archives | Trendbrio.com

War Powers Act in Focus as Trump Hints at Possible Strike on Iran

Fola Badmus3 months ago3 months ago04 mins

As tensions escalate in the Middle East, renewed attention is being drawn to the War Powers Act of 1973 amid speculation that former U.S. President Donald Trump may order a military strike on Iran. Trump recently refused to rule out U.S. involvement in Israel’s conflict with Iran, telling reporters: “I may do it. I may not.” While the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war, presidential military actions in modern times have largely sidestepped formal declarations, raising fresh questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Trump’s allies have emphasized that any decision to engage militarily would rest squarely with him, with Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce stating: “He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward.” However, critics and anti-war advocates argue that Congress must play a decisive role in matters of war and peace, as stipulated under the Constitution. This has prompted some lawmakers to reassert congressional authority through the War Powers Act. The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 during the aftermath of the Vietnam War, requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying armed forces into hostilities. It also limits military engagement to 60 days—plus a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress authorizes continued involvement. Legal experts note that while the act exists to check presidential powers, it has rarely been enforced. Previous administrations, including Trump’s, have carried out strikes abroad—such as the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020—without prior congressional approval. “Presidents have often cited national security and self-defense to bypass formal authorization,” said Ayodele Oni, a constitutional analyst. “The courts have also been reluctant to intervene in these political questions.” The last time the U.S. formally declared war was in 1942 during World War II. Since then, successive administrations have conducted military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere without formal declarations of war. Should Trump move forward with military action against Iran, Congress could invoke the War Powers Act to force a withdrawal. However, enforcement would likely face political hurdles, including the possibility of a presidential veto and the challenge of securing a two-thirds override in both chambers. As diplomatic tensions rise, the debate over war powers underscores the enduring struggle between executive authority and congressional oversight in U.S. foreign policy.

Middle East

What Is Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility and Could US Weapons Destroy It?

Fola Badmus3 months ago3 months ago06 mins

The Fordow nuclear facility in Iran has once again come under global scrutiny amid heightened tensions following Israeli airstrikes and speculation about potential US military involvement. As concerns grow over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, many are questioning whether the fortified site could be destroyed — and what risks it poses. What Is the Fordow Facility?Located 30km northeast of Qom, deep in Iran’s mountainous terrain, Fordow was initially constructed as a military installation for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) before being converted into a uranium enrichment site. The facility lies hundreds of meters underground, making it one of Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear sites. Iran formally disclosed its existence to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2009, only after Western intelligence services uncovered its secret development. Why Is It Significant?First site where uranium enriched close to weapons-grade levels was found: In 2023, IAEA inspectors detected particles enriched to nearly 90% purity — the threshold for weapons-grade uranium. Capacity: Fordow is equipped to hold nearly 3,000 centrifuges, a small portion compared to Natanz (which has capacity for about 50,000), but its location deep underground makes it more defensible. Symbolic and strategic value: Fordow’s continued operation is often cited by the West as a major obstacle to reviving the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA). Has Fordow Been Hit or Damaged in Recent Attacks?Following Israel’s massive strike on Iran’s Natanz facility, missiles also targeted Fordow. However, according to IAEA chief Rafael Grossi, no visible damage was recorded at Fordow or at the Khondab heavy water reactor. This suggests Fordow remains operational, unlike Natanz, which sustained both above-ground and suspected underground damage. What Happens at Fordow?Fordow’s original role was to enrich uranium up to 20% U-235 — far above the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA but below weapons-grade. Since the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran has resumed higher enrichment levels at the site. Uranium enrichment involves concentrating the fissile U-235 isotope. Weapons-grade uranium requires enrichment levels of 90% or more, which Fordow is technically capable of producing. What Did Iran Agree to Under the JCPOA?Under the 2015 JCPOA, Iran agreed to: By 2017, these conditions were met — until the agreement began to collapse post-2018. Can the US Destroy Fordow With Airstrikes?Not easily. Military analysts agree that Fordow’s deep underground location makes it extremely difficult to target with conventional weapons. To neutralize it, the US would likely require: In short, Fordow is not invulnerable, but destroying it would require serious firepower and likely a coordinated air campaign, not a single strike. What’s Next?With the Israel-Iran conflict escalating and the JCPOA effectively dormant, Fordow represents both a flashpoint and a symbol of Iran’s nuclear resilience. Whether the U.S. will attempt military action there remains uncertain, but any such move would risk widening the current conflict — and dragging the world’s most volatile region into deeper chaos. Bottom line:Fordow is a hardened, operational nuclear facility, vital to Iran’s enrichment program. While not untouchable, it’s built to withstand conventional strikes, and any U.S. attempt to neutralize it would be a major military gamble with significant regional consequences.

Middle East

Israel Escalates Gaza Attacks Locks Down West Bank as Focus Shifts to Iran

Fola Badmus3 months ago3 months ago03 mins

As global attention intensifies around Israel’s military confrontation with Iran, violence against Palestinians in the occupied territories has sharply escalated, with dozens killed in recent days amid what many observers are calling a mounting humanitarian catastrophe. On Thursday alone, at least 16 Palestinians were reportedly shot dead by Israeli troops while attempting to access food aid in Gaza. This followed a grim pattern: 29 killed on Wednesday, and at least 70 more gunned down on Tuesday at an aid distribution site in Khan Younis, according to eyewitnesses and health officials. The victims, many of whom were already displaced and starving, were fired upon with drones, machine guns, and tank shells. Earlier in the week, 38 Palestinians were killed in Rafah under similar circumstances, while another 17 died on Sunday in both southern and central Gaza. The killings have occurred at locations run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)—a controversial new entity established by Israel and backed by the United States. Staffed by private security contractors, the GHF was launched in May 2025 to replace United Nations-led aid operations in Gaza, which Israel had previously restricted. Since its creation, GHF distribution points have reportedly become flashpoints of deadly violence. Witnesses say this marks at least the eighth major incident in which Palestinians seeking food have been fired upon. “This happens to some extent every day. It’s becoming a routine,” said Yasser al-Banna, a journalist reporting from inside Gaza. “Now that Israel has started a war with Iran, everyone here in Gaza is scared that the world is going to forget about them,” he told Al Jazeera. Meanwhile, the West Bank remains under heavy lockdown, with increased military checkpoints, curfews, and raids targeting Palestinian communities. Human rights organizations have decried what they describe as collective punishment and war crimes, urging the international community to maintain focus on the worsening conditions in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. As civilian casualties continue to mount, humanitarian groups have reiterated urgent calls for a ceasefire, international investigations, and the restoration of independent aid operations in the besieged enclave.

SERAP sues Tinubu, governors over misuse of Cybercrimes Act

Fola Badmus8 months ago8 months ago012 mins

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against the government of President Bola Tinubu and Nigeria’s 36 governors over “the repressive use of the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 to criminalize legitimate expression and violate the human rights of Nigerians, including activists, journalists, bloggers and social media users.” The ECOWAS Court had in its judgment dated 25 March, 2022 “ordered Nigerian authorities to stop using section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 to prosecute anyone on the grounds of insulting or stalking public officials online.” The Court declared section 24 as “arbitrary, vague and repressive” and ordered Nigerian authorities “to repeal it in conformity with the country’s human rights obligations.” But while the Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024 has repealed section 24, it has not cured the arbitrary, vague and repressive nature of the provisions. In the suit no: ECW/CCJ/APP/03/2025filed last week before the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, SERAP is challenging “the legality and compatibility of the provisions of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024 with the rights to freedom of expression and information.” SERAP said, “The provisions of the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 have opened the door to criminalizing legitimate expression and punishing activists, journalists, bloggers and social media users.” According to SERAP, “What constitutes ‘causing a breakdown of law and order’ in section 24(1)(b) of the amended legislation is unclear and undefined, threatening to punish peaceful and legitimate expression and opening the provisions up to abuse.” SERAP also said, “Rather than using the amended legislation to make cyberspace and its users safer, Nigerian authorities are routinely weaponizing it to curb Nigerians’ human rights and media freedom.” SERAP is arguing that, “The Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024, in addition to its arbitrary, vague and repressive section 24 provisions, broadly defines ‘cyberstalking’ in section 58 as ‘a course of conduct, directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.’” SERAP is also arguing that, “The provisions of the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 represents a harshly punitive attempt to address the problems relating to stalking and harassment and fails to provide sufficient safeguards against misuse, particularly for peaceful and legitimate exercise of human rights.” SERAP is arguing that, “The use of section 24 of the Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024 to harass those who are deemed critical of the government directly threatens the staff, members and supporters of SERAP, particularly given the nature of the organization’s advocacy for human rights.” The suit filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers, Kolawole Oluwadare, Mrs Adelanke Aremo and Andrew Nwankwo, read in part: “The amended legislation is abused to threaten and stifle people’s human rights and livelihoods. “The vague, arbitrary, and repressive provisions on ‘cyberstalking’ in section 24 of the Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024 are routinely abused to suppress factual reports by activists, journalists, bloggers and social media users, thereby leaving a chilling effect on human rights and media freedom. “Nigerian authorities not only have a negative obligation to abstain from unduly interfering with human rights and media freedom but also have a positive obligation to facilitate and protect these rights. “Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and full enjoyment of this right is central to achieving individual freedom and to developing democracy. It is not only the cornerstone of democracy, but indispensable to a thriving civil society. “Whether labelled as cyberstalking, criminal defamation, seditious libel of government officials or false news, the provisions of section 24 of the Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024 disproportionately penalize the accused and inevitably limits protected public discussion and debate on matters of legitimate public concern. “The ECOWAS Court had on 25 March 2022 ruled that section 24 of the Cybercrime Act 2015 is arbitrary, vague and repressive and therefore, is in contravention of Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. “The Court also ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria to amend Section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 in accordance with its obligations under Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. “The National Assembly amended section 24 and other provisions of the Cybercrime 2015 in 2024 but the new Cybercrime (Amendment) Act, 2024 still criminalizes ‘cyberstalking’. The provisions remain vague, arbitrary, and frequently misused by Nigerian authorities to crackdown on human rights. “Since the amendment of the Cybercrime Act in 2024, Nigerian authorities at all levels have consistently used the provisions of the Cybercrime Act to harass, intimidate, arbitrarily arrest and detain and unfairly prosecute users of social media, activists, journalists, and bloggers solely for the peaceful exercise of their rights. “Stories published online have been deemed ‘offensive’, ‘obstructive’, ‘insulting’ or ‘annoying’ with actionable consequences under provisions of section 24 of the Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024 even when the stories are true and factual. “According to the 2023 and 2024 Freedom House Reports on Nigeria, internet freedom of expression declined due to an unprecedented pattern of arbitrary arrests and detention of bloggers after the enactment of the Cybercrime (Amendment) Act 2024. “There are several reports on the recent abusive use of the arbitrary, vague and repressive provisions of section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024. “For example, the police filed ‘cybercrime charges’ against activist Dele Farotimi under the arbitrary, vague and repressive provisions of the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024. “Journalist Agba Jalingo of the Cross River Watch Newspaper was charged with ‘cyberstalking’ over a report that a relative of a former governor of Cross River State had engaged someone to sit for law exams on her behalf. “Chioma Okoli was arrested following her comment on Facebook complaining about the sugar content of Nagiko tomato mix. Funke Adeoye was also reportedly summoned by the police for alleged cyberbullying due to a statement she shared on her X account. “The Nigeria police also reportedly re-arraigned four bloggers on fresh charges of alleged cyberstalking. The police also arrested ‘a famous singer’ for alleged cyberstalking…