The arrest of Adys Lastres Morera, a relative of a senior figure in Cuba’s military-linked GAESA conglomerate, is being presented by U.S. authorities as a matter of national security. But strip away the diplomatic language, and a more troubling pattern emerges—one that reflects an increasingly aggressive posture by Washington under Donald Trump, positioning itself as the de facto police force of the world.
Morera, a lawful permanent resident since 2023, now faces removal proceedings not for any publicly substantiated criminal act, but under the broad and elastic justification that her presence “undermines U.S. foreign policy interests.” That phrase should alarm anyone concerned with due process and the rule of law. It signals a shift away from evidence-based enforcement toward politically motivated targeting.
This is not an isolated incident. It is part of a wider doctrine—one that expends billions of dollars pursuing individuals across borders, often in the name of ideological confrontation rather than tangible national benefit.
At a time when Americans themselves are grappling with inflation, economic uncertainty, and strained public resources, such actions raise serious questions about priorities. What exactly is gained by these high-profile detentions? And at what cost?
The irony is stark. While the United States asserts jurisdiction over foreign nationals and foreign-linked entities, it increasingly blurs the line between legitimate law enforcement and geopolitical retribution. The justification often rests on opaque claims of “threats” without transparent evidence, eroding the credibility of institutions that claim to uphold justice.
Meanwhile, the broader consequences are ignored. These policies exacerbate international tensions, complicate diplomatic relations, and deepen economic pressures—both abroad and at home. The costs are not merely financial; they are institutional and moral. Each such action chips away at the principles the United States claims to defend.
And this raises the most uncomfortable question of all: who holds power accountable when it overreaches? If the United States assumes the role of global enforcer, who then enforces the law against the United States—or against leaders who weaponize that power for political ends?
The arrest of Morera may seem like a minor headline in the churn of global news. But it is emblematic of something far larger: a system increasingly driven by retribution over reason, projection over principle, and power over justice.
https://i0.wp.com/592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/img_0285.jpg?fit=1170%2C652&ssl=16521170Editorhttps://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.pngEditor2026-05-22 09:45:172026-05-22 09:45:17Who Polices the Police? America’s Costly Campaign of Global Retribution
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Justice has quietly amended a controversial agreement establishing a $1.776 billion compensation fund, inserting a provision that permanently bars the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from auditing former President Donald Trump, his family, and associated business entities.
The addendum, signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and published on the Department’s website, states that the government is “forever barred” from examining any tax filings submitted by Trump-related individuals and companies prior to the agreement. The amendment follows the administration’s announcement of the compensation fund, which was created after Trump agreed to withdraw a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and other federal entities. Reports indicate that IRS officials had advised against settling the case, raising concerns about possible political interference in the decision.
The fund itself has drawn significant criticism for its lack of transparency and oversight. It will be administered by a five-member panel whose members serve at the discretion of the president and can be dismissed at will. The agreement does not require public disclosure of recipients or the criteria used for disbursement. During a Senate hearing, lawmakers sharply questioned the legality and ethics of the arrangement. Senator Chris Van Hollen described the fund as “an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund,” citing its broad scope and lack of accountability.
Blanche confirmed under questioning that there are no restrictions on who may apply for compensation, including individuals convicted in connection with the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. While he stated that Trump and his sons would not receive payouts, the agreement does not explicitly prohibit them from filing claims.
The agreement outlines that the fund will submit quarterly confidential reports to the attorney general detailing payouts and recipients. However, Blanche asserted that information would eventually become public through reporting mechanisms and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, despite language indicating confidentiality.
The development has intensified scrutiny over the agreement, with critics warning that it raises serious questions about governance, transparency, and the rule of law.
BEIJING, May 18 — A magnitude 5.2 earthquake struck China’s southwestern Guangxi region early Monday, leaving two people dead, one missing, and forcing the evacuation of more than 7,000 residents in the city of Liuzhou, according to state media reports. Authorities confirmed that four individuals were hospitalized following the quake, though none sustained life-threatening injuries. Emergency response teams remain engaged in ongoing search and rescue operations. State broadcaster CCTV reported that 13 buildings collapsed as a result of the tremor. Railway officials have also warned of potential transportation disruptions as inspections of rail infrastructure continue. Despite the damage, essential services—including communications, electricity, water, gas supply, and road traffic—are reported to be operating normally in the affected areas.
https://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.png00Editorhttps://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.pngEditor2026-05-18 09:18:062026-05-18 09:18:06Deadly Quake in Southern China Triggers Mass Evacuations and Transport Disruptions
Iran’s threats to the Strait of Hormuz should be understood as more than another round of brinkmanship over shipping lanes.
They point to a broader geopolitical shift: power in the Middle East is increasingly being exercised not just through missiles, mines and tankers, but through the hidden infrastructure that keeps modern economies running. Under the sea, fibre-optic cables carry the digital traffic of finance, trade, diplomacy and intelligence. That makes Hormuz not only a maritime chokepoint, but a data chokepoint too.
For decades, the world has treated the Strait of Hormuz as a passageway for oil. That remains true: roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids pass through it, which is why every crisis in the Gulf sends energy markets into a nervous spasm. But the strait’s strategic meaning has widened. Subsea cables now run through nearby waters, linking the Gulf to Asia and Europe and giving the region’s economies access to the internet backbone on which banking, logistics, cloud computing and government systems depend.
The vulnerability is obvious once you look for it, which is precisely why it has been so easy to overlook. That is what makes Iran’s posture so consequential. Tehran has spent years learning how to weaponise geography. In the past, that meant harassing tankers, seizing ships, or threatening to close Hormuz outright. Now the target set is broader. If the sea lanes are the economy’s bloodstream, the cables are its nervous system. Disrupt one and you create panic; disrupt both and you compound uncertainty.
Even without cutting a single cable, the mere suggestion that Iran might do so can raise risk premiums, unsettle investors, and force governments and companies to think about worst-case scenarios they previously filed under theoretical. This is not just about technical damage. It is about strategic signalling. Iran does not need to sever every cable to gain leverage.
It only needs to convince its rivals that it can. In a region where perception is often as powerful as hardware, that is enough to alter behaviour. Gulf states depend heavily on stable digital links for finance, state administration, aviation, energy, and the data-heavy economies they are trying to build. The prospect of even temporary disruption introduces a new layer of pressure on governments already trying to manage conflict, deterrence and domestic expectations at once.
The wider danger is that the Strait of Hormuz becomes a model for future coercion. If one state can threaten subsea cables in a global chokepoint, others will study the lesson. The oceans are full of hidden infrastructure, and many of those systems are poorly defended, hard to repair and difficult to monitor at scale. That is a structural weakness in the architecture of globalisation. The world built a hyperconnected economy without giving enough thought to how fragile the physical layers beneath it really are. The result is that a crisis in one narrow waterway can ripple far beyond the region, affecting everything from payment systems to satellite coordination to the timing of container shipments.
The geopolitical implications are particularly severe because the Persian Gulf is already one of the world’s most militarised theatres. A move against subsea cables would blur the line between conventional conflict, economic warfare and cyber operations. It would also widen the circle of stakeholders. Europe, Asia and the United States all have an interest in keeping Hormuz open, not only for energy flows but for digital continuity.
That means any escalation could draw in outside powers more quickly and with less warning than in previous crises. A cable attack would not be a local incident; it would be read as a challenge to the stability of the global system itself. There is also a dangerous asymmetry at work. Iran can create disruption relatively cheaply, while repair, rerouting and resilience cost others far more. A navy can escort tankers, but it cannot instantly protect every stretch of seabed. Cable repair ships are few.
Permits, access and security all slow recovery. That asymmetry is exactly why the threat matters. In modern geopolitics, the side that can create uncertainty faster than its opponents can restore order often gains the upper hand, even without winning a battle in the traditional sense. The lesson for the West and its Gulf partners is uncomfortable.
Deterrence in the 21st century cannot be confined to missiles and minesweepers. It must extend to the physical infrastructure of connectivity: redundant cable routes, faster repair capacity, stronger monitoring, and closer coordination between governments and private operators. Yet even that is only partial insurance. Because the deeper issue is not simply vulnerability, but interdependence. The global economy has become so dependent on a handful of narrow passages, both maritime and digital, that regional conflict now has systemic consequences.
Iran understands this. By turning the world’s attention to the undersea cables beneath Hormuz, it is reminding its adversaries that power in the age of networks is exercised in layered ways. Control the sea, and you influence oil. Threaten the seabed, and you unsettle data, finance and communication. The real risk is not that Iran will literally unplug the internet, but that it will exploit the fragility of the infrastructure on which the world’s confidence depends.
That is the geopolitical message of Hormuz now: the age of chokepoints is not over. It has simply gone underground.
https://i0.wp.com/592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/img_0174.jpg?fit=1170%2C801&ssl=18011170Editorhttps://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.pngEditor2026-05-18 08:24:172026-05-18 08:24:17Iran is weaponising the world’s hidden digital chokepoint
At least three people were killed and more than a dozen injured after Ukraine launched a sweeping overnight drone assault targeting the Moscow region, marking one of the most significant escalations of the war deep inside Russian territory in over a year. Russian state news agency TASS, citing local and military officials, reported that more than 500 drones were deployed in the attack.
Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed 556 drones were intercepted, while Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin said over 120 were shot down as they approached the capital and surrounding areas. Despite the high interception rate, the fallout proved deadly.
A woman was killed in Khimki after a drone struck a private residence, leaving another person trapped beneath the rubble. In Mytishchi, two men died when falling debris hit a house under construction. Authorities reported at least 12 injuries across the Moscow region, including workers at an oil refinery. Drone fragments also sparked fires and structural damage in multiple locations. A home in the village of Subbotino caught fire, while residential buildings in the town of Istra were hit, injuring four people.
Debris was reported on the grounds of Sheremetyevo Airport, Russia’s busiest air hub, though no casualties or major disruptions were confirmed there. The scale and reach of the attack underscore Ukraine’s growing capacity to project force far beyond the front lines, increasingly targeting symbolic and logistical centers within Russia itself.
The strike follows a wave of Russian attacks earlier in the week on Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, which killed at least 25 people and injured dozens, according to Ukrainian officials—highlighting a continuing cycle of retaliation that is intensifying both in frequency and scope.
Ukraine’s military leadership signaled the psychological dimension of the operation as it unfolded. In a message posted to Telegram, the commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned System Forces warned residents of Moscow’s elite Patriarchy district that their “one-way ticket to a peaceful life… has been canceled.” Meanwhile, Ukraine reported that Russia launched 287 drones overnight into its territory, injuring civilians in the Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. Ukrainian air defenses said they intercepted all but eight.
As both sides increasingly rely on mass drone deployments, the conflict is rapidly evolving into a high-volume, long-range war of attrition—where even intercepted attacks carry consequences, and the battlefield now stretches deep into civilian spaces on both sides.
https://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.png00Editorhttps://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.pngEditor2026-05-17 12:22:122026-05-17 12:25:46Ukraine Escalates Drone War with Massive Strike Near Moscow
A senior intelligence official has accused the CIA of obstructing the U.S. government’s own investigation into the origins of COVID-19—alleging withheld records, retaliation against cooperating staff, and surveillance of investigators.
Testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, James Erdman III, who led the ODNI probe under the Trump administration, said agency personnel were “spied upon illegally” while carrying out directives authorized at the highest levels of government. Erdman further claimed the CIA suppressed internal assessments pointing to a lab leak and punished analysts who refused to abandon that conclusion.
His testimony comes amid a shifting official stance. In January 2025, the CIA—under Director John Ratcliffe—publicly stated that a lab leak is now the most likely origin of the pandemic, reversing years of ambiguity. Earlier intelligence summaries released under the Biden administration showed a divided community, with agencies split between natural origin, lab leak, and inconclusive positions. Erdman also pointed to the influence of former COVID adviser Anthony Fauci, alleging that scientists consulted by intelligence agencies were not neutral, but closely tied to gain-of-function research—the very field under scrutiny.
Congress had mandated full disclosure of intelligence findings in 2023, yet only a brief, partially redacted summary was released. Now, according to Erdman, efforts by ODNI under Director Tulsi Gabbard to declassify roughly 2,000 documents are being slowed by resistance from the CIA and State Department. He cited the firing of a CIA contractor just one day after speaking with investigators as further evidence of institutional pushback.
“The deep state still resists this congressional mandate,” said Senator Rand Paul, who has long argued that a lab leak is the most plausible explanation and is pushing for stricter oversight of high-risk research. Meanwhile, a promised policy to restrict gain-of-function research—ordered by the Trump administration for release by September 2025—remains outstanding.
Erdman warned that continued resistance from both intelligence and public health agencies is now stalling reforms aimed at preventing future pandemics.
https://i0.wp.com/592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/img_0109.jpg?fit=1090%2C705&ssl=17051090Editorhttps://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.pngEditor2026-05-14 11:59:512026-05-14 11:59:51Whistleblower: CIA Blocked, Spied on COVID Investigators
Bangkok, Thailand — May 12, 2026 — A rare and exceptionally large ruby weighing approximately 11,000 carats (2.2 kilograms or 4.8 pounds) has been discovered in Myanmar’s famed Mogok gem region, marking one of the most significant gemstone finds in recent decades.
According to state-run media, the rough ruby was unearthed in mid-April near Mogok, located in the upper Mandalay region — an area long regarded as the epicenter of Myanmar’s lucrative ruby mining industry. The discovery occurred shortly after the country’s traditional New Year celebrations. The newly found gemstone is considered the second-largest ruby ever discovered in Myanmar by weight. While it is roughly half the size of a 21,450-carat ruby uncovered in 1996, experts suggest it may be of greater value due to its superior quality. The stone reportedly exhibits a purplish-red hue with yellowish undertones, moderate transparency, and a highly reflective surface — characteristics associated with high-grade rubies.
Myanmar remains the world’s dominant source of rubies, accounting for up to 90% of global supply, with most originating from Mogok and Mong Hsu. However, the gemstone trade has long been mired in controversy, as both legal and illicit sales have historically provided substantial revenue to military authorities and armed groups.
Human rights organizations, including Global Witness, have repeatedly called on transnational jewelers to halt the purchase of Myanmar-sourced gemstones, citing concerns that proceeds contribute to ongoing conflict and human right.
The discovery comes amid continued political instability in Myanmar. Earlier this year, a new government was installed following elections widely criticized by opposition groups and international observers as lacking credibility. President Min Aung Hlaing, the military leader who seized power in 2021, remains at the helm. He and members of his cabinet recently inspected the ruby in Naypyitaw, the nation’s capital. Gemstone mining continues to play a dual role in Myanmar’s prolonged internal conflict, serving as a major revenue source for both the military establishment and ethnic armed groups seeking autonomy.
https://i0.wp.com/592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/img_0063-e1778699016980.jpg?fit=1170%2C658&ssl=16581170Editorhttps://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.pngEditor2026-05-13 16:52:352026-05-13 19:06:08Massive 11,000-Carat Ruby Discovered in Myanmar’s Conflict Zone
President Irfaan Ali wants investors to come prepared, to do their homework, and to stop treating Guyana like a drive-through market. Fair enough. But the problem is that this is the same administration that has spent years cultivating exactly the kind of investment culture it now wants to scold—one marked by preferential access, political convenience, and a troubling tolerance for foreign actors who seem to get the soft landing locals never receive.
The President is not setting standards so much as trying to retrofit them after the fact.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭
Guyana cannot spend years projecting itself as open for business at any cost, then act offended when investors come expecting access, speed, and influence. That image was reinforced by the government’s defensive posture on the oil contract, where the 2% royalty arrangement remains protected behind the familiar shield of contract sanctity, even as ordinary Guyanese are told to accept the deal as settled history. A state that refuses to revisit glaring imbalances in its most consequential contract cannot suddenly pose as a hard-headed gatekeeper when it is convenient.
The message abroad is not hard to decode: some deals are untouchable, some interests are protected, and some players are simply more welcome than others.
𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠
That is why Congressman Gabe Evans’s recent letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio matters. Evans warned of “creeping Chinese influence” in Guyana and raised alarms about reports of Chinese firms securing contracts, financing, and political footholds in ways that could threaten U.S. interests in energy, diplomacy, and critical minerals. In plain terms, Guyana is not only being watched; it is being scrutinized for the very habits its leadership has normalized.
So when Ali stands before an American audience and lectures on investor expectations, the paradox is obvious. He is effectively telling U.S. investors to temper their assumptions while Washington is already asking whether Guyana has become too accommodating to Chinese influence.
𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦
The U.S. ambassador’s point about predictability cuts straight through the noise. Predictability means rules that are clear, consistent, and applied without regard to who has the best political connections. It does not mean one set of doors for locals, another for foreign firms, and a VIP corridor for the well-connected.
That distinction matters because the complaints from Guyanese businesses are not imaginary. Local truckers have protested what they describe as a system that favors Chinese-linked firms and squeezes out domestic operators, with some alleging that contracts and access flow through family ties, political connections, and selective facilitation.
When local players are forced to shout just to be treated fairly, the government has already admitted the weakness of its own system.
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞
The administration’s favorite phrase—sanctity of contract—has become a political refuge. It is invoked to shut down calls for renegotiating oil terms, yet it is rarely accompanied by equal vigor in defending local enterprise from unfair competition or foreign dominance.
That is the real sting in this debate: the government is fiercely principled when protecting corporate arrangements, but noticeably flexible when the national interest requires courage.That is not consistency. It is choreography.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦
The accusation now hanging over the administration is not simply that it welcomes investment. It is that it has rolled out the red carpet for certain foreign actors, especially Chinese businesses, and then turned around to demand restraint from everyone else.You cannot preach prudence to investors while refusing to exercise it on behalf of your own citizens.
This is not a neutral posture. It is a choice—one that signals to global capital that Guyana is willing to prioritize investor comfort over national leverage. When disputes arise, the government has too often appeared aligned with oil majors rather than the Guyanese people, particularly on issues of environmental liability, cost recovery audits, and regulatory enforcement. The result is a credibility gap wide enough to swallow the President’s Houston remarks whole.
Investors notice these signals, and so do citizens
A country cannot market itself as business-friendly, then punish the public for believing it.
𝐂𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠
If President Ali wants to be taken seriously, he must first explain why Guyana keeps attracting the same complaints: one-sided contracts, preferential treatment, weak procurement credibility, and a pattern of accommodation that now has even U.S. lawmakers sounding alarms. The issue is not that investors need to come prepared. The issue is that Guyana’s government should have prepared its own house long ago.
Until it does, the President’s lecture will remain what it sounded like in Houston: not a statement of principle, but an attempt to put discipline on an image his own administration helped create.
If President Ali truly wants investors to come prepared, then the government must first do its own preparation—by strengthening institutions, enforcing accountability, and demonstrating that Guyana is not just open for business, but serious about protecting its people, its resources, and its future.
Because in the end, the investment climate is not defined by speeches in Houston.
https://i0.wp.com/592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/img_0043.jpg?fit=1170%2C749&ssl=17491170Editorhttps://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.pngEditor2026-05-12 11:50:202026-05-12 11:50:20Ali Cannot Lecture Investors While Guyana’s Own Record Raises Red Flags
The United States has taken the extraordinary step of revoking tourist visas for five board members of La Nación, Costa Rica’s most influential newspaper—an action critics warn could send a dangerous signal to independent media across the region.
Pedro Abreu, CEO and chairman of Grupo Nación, the parent company of La Nación, said he first learned of the revocations not through official diplomatic channels, but through media reports circulating online. “I checked my email… I had no official communication,” Abreu revealed. “I searched on a U.S. government website, entered my visa information, and saw it had been revoked.”
Even more troubling, local outlets reportedly published detailed personal data—including names, dates of birth, and visa expiration dates—raising serious questions about privacy breaches and the handling of sensitive information.
Whether these latest revocations are linked to Costa Rica’s recent agreement to accept up to 25 deportees per week remains unclear. The U.S. State Department has offered no explanation.
For journalists and media institutions across the Caribbean and Latin America, the message is unsettling. When executives of a leading newspaper can be penalized without due process or transparency, it raises legitimate fears about the erosion of press freedom and the potential use of state power to intimidate independent voices.
This is no longer just a Costa Rican issue. It is a regional warning
BY: Hem Kumar 𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣
https://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.png00Editorhttps://592guardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/img_9918-300x150.pngEditor2026-05-07 10:15:182026-05-07 10:15:18“A Chilling Precedent: the US targets Media Executives in Costa Rica.”
