Syria swears in new transitional government months after Assad's removal
The 23-member Cabinet, which is religiously and ethnically mixed, is the first in the country's five-year transitional period and replaces the interim government that was formed shortly after Bashar Assad was removed from power in early December.
The Cabinet does not have a prime minister since according to the temporary constitution signed by interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa earlier this month, the government will have a secretary general.
The government that was announced ahead of Eid el-Fitr, the feast that marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan that starts in Syria on Monday, includes new faces apart from the ministers of foreign affairs and defense. They kept the posts they held in the interim government. Syria's new Interior Minister Anas Khattab was until recently the head of the intelligence department.
'The formation of a new government today is a declaration of our joint will to build a new state,' al-Sharaa said in a speech marking the formation of the government.
Defense Minister Murhaf Abu Qasra said his main goal will be to build a professional army 'from the people and for the people.'
The government did not include members of the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces or the autonomous civil administration in northeast Syria. Al-Sharaa and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi signed a breakthrough deal earlier this month in Damascus on a nationwide ceasefire and the merging of the US-backed force into the Syrian army.
Among the new ministers whose names were announced late Saturday night were Hind Kabawat, a Christian activist who was opposed to Assad since the conflict began in March 2011. Kabawat was named minister of minister of social affairs and labor.
Another minister is Raed Saleh, who for years headed the Syrian Civil Defense, also known as White Helmets, and was named minister for emergency disasters. A Damascus-based Syrian Kurd, Mohammed Terko was named minister of education.
Mohammed al-Bashir, who has headed Syria's interim government since Assad's fall, was named minister of energy whose main mission will be to restore the electricity and oil sectors that were badly damaged during the conflict.
The new government's main mission is to try to end the war and bring stability to the country that witnessed clashes and revenge killings earlier this month in the coastal region that is home to members of the minority Alawite sect. The violence left more than 1,000 people, mostly Alawites, dead. Assad is an Alawite.
Most of Syria's insurgent groups now running the country are Sunnis, but the presence of members of minority sects, including one woman and members of minority sects including an Alawite, is a message from al-Sharaa to Western countries that have been demanding that women and minorities be part of Syria's political process.
The announcement of a religiously mixed government aims to try to convince Western countries to lift crippling economic sanctions that were imposed on Assad more than a decade ago. The UN says that 90% of Syrians are below the poverty line, while millions face cuts in food aid as a result of the war.
Hours before the government was announced, the US State Department cautioned U.S. citizens of the increased possibility of attacks during the Eid el-Fitr holiday, which it said could target embassies, international organizations and Syrian public institutions in Damascus. It added that methods of attack could include, but are not limited to, individual attackers, armed gunmen, or the use of explosive devices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'This is a power grab': What boxing insiders really think about planned revisions to Ali Act
More than a dozen insiders in boxing — from promoters to fighters, coaches, and experts across the business in logistics, broadcast and law — are divided over a fast-moving piece of federal legislation that could reshape the sport in the U.S. Some told Uncrowned it's a long-overdue modernization that boosts fighter welfare and injects fresh capital into a stagnating market. Most, though, warn it's a Trojan horse for monopoly power, designed to strip away the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act's core protections while concentrating control in the hands of a single promoter. That promoter is likely TKO Group Holdings, parent company of the UFC, which supports a bill co-sponsored by the U.S. Representatives Brian Jack (R-GA) and Sharice Davids (D-KS), a former MMA fighter. They've pitched the Muhammad Ali American Revival Act as a way to give boxers 'more opportunities, better pay, and greater safety standards.' A UFC spokesperson told ESPN in July that it's a 'thoughtful solution' that offers 'more choices and opportunities, greater health and safety protections, and better pay for up-and-coming fighters.' On a later investor call, TKO executives insisted the Ali Act remains intact — but said the bill introduces a new category alongside the existing sanctioning bodies: The Unified Boxing Organization, or UBO. A UBO would run its own rankings, crown its own champions, and stage its own events — a self-contained circuit that could, in theory, sit alongside the WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF. All sources that Uncrowned spoke to received anonymity to speak freely. 'This is a power grab,' one industry insider said. TKO and UFC executives have stressed that they're not changing the wording of the Ali Act, but instead amending the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. Critics say that distinction is exactly the point. By existing under a prospective 'UBO' category, a promoter could run a fully sanctioned boxing league without having to comply with the Ali Act's rules — no requirement to disclose fight purses, ticket sales or broadcast revenue to athletes, and no firewall between promoter, sanctioning body and rankings. 'UBO basically means they just get to be the UFC in boxing without having to abide by the Ali Act disclosures,' one source said. Another warned: 'If they don't have to comply [with the Ali Act], then it's an unfair advantage over every other promoter.' Not everyone sees the bill as a threat to sport, though. Andy Foster, executive officer of the California State Athletic Commission — one of the most influential regulators in the U.S. — told "The Ariel Helwani Show" last week that he believes a well-financed company with broadcast muscle entering boxing lifts the sport, rather than buries others operating within it. 'Any time you get a big corporation that is well-financed, and has good broadcast deals — that's good for fighters,' Foster said. 'I expect a broadcast deal, for it to be televised, and I expect it will be good for American boxers. It will make stars out of people we normally wouldn't have seen.' Foster pointed to the UFC's track record in MMA as proof of what sustained investment and promotion can do for athlete visibility. 'Go back to 2004 or 2005, 'The Ultimate Fighter' with Forrest Griffin and Stephan Bonnar. Go back then and see how it has progressed. If it can do 5% of that, boxing will be benefitted.' One area in which UFC progressed MMA beyond boxing is the construction of its Performance Institutes. This reporter toured the Las Vegas facility multiple times, which is open to any athlete from any sport. Uncrowned has seen boxers there, WNBA stars and football players. While other sportspeople have to pay for its use, anyone on the UFC roster gets rehabilitation, strength and conditioning, and their nutrition taken care of for free. The UFC is in the red $7 million every year for keeping the facility running, one P.I. exec said. There is nothing like this in boxing. Any boxer who joins TKO's venture would be privy to that facility and the state-of-the-art departments within it. It is a significant benefit to an up-and-coming fighter who is perhaps overlooked in, or discarded from, the current system. Foster continued by avoiding weighing in on the business-side changes or Ali Act exemptions, and strongly supports the bill's welfare provisions, especially for lower-paid boxers. 'Ali Act is decided by seven-figure boxers,' he said. 'This bill sets a national minimum, insurance requirements, medical requirements. In my view, these are good things that will help low-income boxers.' California already has the highest minimum in the country — $200 a round — a standard Foster says works fine. The proposed $600 minimum for a four-round fight is, in his view, 'more than reasonable,' and wouldn't put regional promoters out of business. 'If people should be making $150 a round, or more, and have insurance … this should happen,' Foster finished. Other industry voices echo that optimism. One Uncrowned source said the bill could push the sport toward higher standards, even if it forces smaller players to adapt, or bow out entirely. 'This law will put pressure to raise the standards, but it will be hard for a small promoter to keep a guy who can get better money, services, and insurance elsewhere,' they said. 'Fighters deserve that. They deserve more than $150 a round, really.' This source cited what they saw as parallels to how UFC built its ecosystem in MMA. 'They didn't get rid of low-level promoters — they co-opted them and fed them talent. If they're successful, they may be making opportunities for others. UFC spawned PFL — it may spawn others.' But for most of the insiders Uncrowned spoke to, the risks far outweigh the potential gains. One promoter was blunt about boxing's fragile state: 'It would be crazy to not set up boxing so you could do that,' they said. 'The sport is on life support right now.' Their biggest worry is the disappearing television deals. The sport is yet to replace the absence of premium broadcasters HBO, Showtime Sports, and most recently, ESPN. This has led the sport to a near-wasteland, if it weren't for DAZN. Top Rank is scrambling for a partner. Premier Boxing Champions is reduced to a half-dozen shows a year on Prime Video, despite a significant roster. Without television, this source said, no promoter can sustain a UFC-style system. 'I don't see how the sport is sustainable without TV,' that source said, adding that disappearing broadcast revenue across the board is a far greater problem for boxing than whatever TKO has planned. And even if a company like TKO secures a lucrative broadcast deal, smaller promoters already feel squeezed out by the cost of staging shows. 'Buying slots on other promoters' cards is cheaper than running your own card,' this source said. 'It's a huge problem.' Others frame the bill's supposed welfare improvements as a marketing sleight-of-hand. A veteran boxing coach dismissed the minimum pay and insurance provisions as window dressing: 'Every fight you do already has insurance,' this source said. 'Are you putting lipstick on a pig? It's still a pig!' A boxing manager Uncrowned spoke to was unimpressed by the proposed floor of $150 per round because, as they said, '$150 is low. We can make more money than that in a four-round fight [for our lower-level fighters].' One millionaire boxer, who has yet to take part in a title fight, told Uncrowned their own experience under their current promoters has been exemplary. 'My promoter has paid me very well,' they said. 'I'd have no intention to leave for the payment scale TKO is suggesting.' For others, the issue is less about pay and more about power. A legal expert said the bill's creation of Unified Boxing Organizations would remove the single biggest check on a promoter's influence — the Ali Act's transparency requirements. The same source flagged an even deeper concern — that a UBO could merge the role of promoter and sanctioning body: 'Who decides who fights who [in this scenario]?' They said the bill is 'tailored to let the UFC do to boxing what it does in MMA — without obeying the Ali Act.' They then questioned whether this would help the U.S. market at all, particularly if fighters progressed through a TKO league, only for finals to end up on Riyadh Season, far away from the States. 'How does this help American boxing? How does it revive the American market?' That sentiment — that this is more about control than reform — came up repeatedly in Uncrowned's conversations. One boardroom executive said flatly that legislative changes only serve to 'benefit the people who have put the changes in, obviously, for their own benefit.' They questioned why a UBO would be exempt from disclosing revenues to fighters: 'Why? That's why that model, that business, is so much more successful than boxing — because 80% or more of the revenue isn't going out the window from the get-go.' They predicted the UFC's 'take-it-or-leave-it' negotiating style will come with it into boxing. 'If you don't like it, then don't fight.' That, they said, is a fundamental shift from how boxing contracts currently work: 'In our contracts, minimums are just where you start. No one actually fights for the minimum.' Another industry veteran called the bill 'a problem in search of a problem,' adding: 'I fail to see anything good about it. Even the four-rounders [with major promoters] are getting $6,000–$10,000 … so $150 a round is an embarrassment.' This source said that removing the firewall between promoters, rankings, and managers would allow promoters to control who gets title shots, and who doesn't. When it's 'completely within the promoters' control' it becomes 'an illusory process,' they said. In this source's view, fighters would be giving up their only protections in exchange for scraps at the table. 'Trading [existing] protections for $150 a round and $25,000 of insurance doesn't make sense.' And if the structure mirrors UFC's in MMA, they warned, boxing will be 'UFC-ified' within five years, and lead to 'all-consuming control of a fighter's career by the promoter.' From the legal side, the most troubling detail for multiple sources is that a UBO could bypass key provisions in the Muhammad Ali Act. Under the Ali Act, promoters must disclose to fighters 'the amounts of any compensation, all fees and charges,' as well as purse and gate figures. To qualify that point, Uncrowned has heard from key decision-makers time and again at numerous marquee Las Vegas events, from Saul "Canelo" Alvarez's shows, to Errol Spence vs. Terence Crawford and heavyweight spectacles, that even a media budget — from hiring a room for press conferences and other activations throughout the week, to food and beverages — are signed off by the headlining fighters. Those athletes have complete oversight and awareness of what all costs are related to their events, and where every dollar goes. That requirement — found in Section 13 of the Ali Act — would not apply to a UBO. The same expert pointed to Section 11, which grants fighters the right to appeal rankings decisions. UBOs, he said, would not have to honor that. 'The promoter also being the sanctioning body — [this is the] biggest problem people have' because there are appeals processes in the Ali Act, but 'a UBO is not going to have to do that.' Without those protections, this source warned, rankings could be manipulated to lock fighters into long-term deals, with those same fighters being told by an UBO: 'Look, you're getting paid what it says [and] not a penny more.' This source argued that fighter pay minimums under the bill are meaningless in practice: '$25,000 medical [is a] modest improvement, at best; $150 a round [is] inconsequential. You can't even get opponents for that.' And the business model, this source suggested, is designed to dominate the top of the sport. 'Antitrust is when you control all top fighters and the title — that's monopoly.' The endgame, the source said, is for a TV deal paid by boxing financier Turki Alalshikh, a key partner for TKO in boxing, for which TKO get a flat fee. The same source predicted that if the bill passes, other promoters might rush to form their own UBOs — flooding the sport with new titles and further diluting championships. 'What's to stop every other promoter from forming one? Twenty UBO belts is even crazier [than the situation we have right now].' And even if the first UBO is built in the U.S., he said, the real business plan may lie overseas. It is contrary to a revival of American boxing if the biggest bouts from this prospective venture heads to Riyadh, the source said. For this source, and for many of the bill's critics that Uncrowned spoke to, the bottom line is simple: 'Anyone on the business side who is for this is either delusional, ignorant … or getting something,' one source said. Whether the Muhammad Ali American Revival Act becomes law may depend less on the boxing industry's divided opinion than on the political and financial momentum behind it. TKO Group Holdings has the resources, relationships and lobbying muscle to push the bill through Congress, and multiple sources told Uncrowned they doubt there's enough organized opposition to stop it. 'No way this bill won't pass without major uproar,' one source said, 'and not enough people care,' they finished. If passed, the legislation could open the door to a new kind of promotional monopoly in boxing — one that mirrors the UFC's model in MMA, where a single company controls matchmaking, titles, rankings and broadcast rights. To some, that's a nightmare scenario that undermines decades of hard-fought protections for fighters. To others, it's a chance to inject stability, marketing muscle and mainstream visibility into a fragmented sport struggling to connect with casual fans. The split in opinion reflects a deeper truth about boxing in 2025 — this is a sport that is independent but vulnerable. Its best nights still generate global attention and life-changing purses. But those nights are few and far between as the business is too fractured, and the financial stakes make it an irresistible target for corporate consolidation. Whether the bill ushers in a new era of opportunity or accelerates the sport's decline will depend on how — and by whom — the first Unified Boxing Organization is built. If history is any guide, the fighters who step through the ropes will feel the consequences long before the rest of us do.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's USCIS Cranks Up Citizenship Vetting With ‘Good Moral Character' Evaluation
The Trump administration has directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to intensify scrutiny of immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship by emphasizing a more subjective evaluation of 'good moral character.' A USCIS memo dated August 15 calls for a 'rigorous, holistic and comprehensive' approach to assessing naturalization applicants, defining 'good moral character' as an individual's 'behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions.' Officers are instructed to evaluate applicants on a case-by-case basis, considering not only the absence of misconduct but also 'positive attributes' such as family caregiving, sustained community involvement, educational attainment, stable employment, and tax compliance. 'GMC findings must go beyond the absence of disqualifying acts, it must reflect a genuine positive assessment of who the alien is and how they have lived in their community,' the memo states, using an abbreviation for good moral character. The directive also allows officers to deny applications based on 'any other acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens' in the applicant's community, even if technically legal, such as reckless or habitual traffic infractions or soliciting. Applicants with conditional bars, like multiple DUI convictions, must provide 'affirmative evidence of reform,' such as compliance with court orders or payment of overdue taxes. 'In assessing conditional bars officers have authority — and now explicit directive — to weigh all relevant evidence, both adverse and favorable, before granting or denying naturalization,' the memo reads. Experts warn that the vague language could lead to inconsistent and arbitrary decisions. Jane Lopez, an associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University specializing in immigration policy, noted that while evaluating good moral character is not new, the memo emphasizes officers' ability to 'impose their subjective interpretations of this fuzzy concept.' She added that the policy could 'make it harder for noncitizens to obtain legal belonging in the United States' since officers 'must evaluate something they cannot consistently describe or define,' per The Washington Post. Good moral character has been a requirement for citizenship since the Naturalization Act of 1790, typically met by the absence of serious crimes like murder or aggravated felonies. The new guidance, however, shifts the burden to applicants to demonstrate positive contributions. Between 600,000 and 1 million immigrants have been naturalized annually since 2015, with naturalized citizens comprising over half of the U.S. foreign-born population in 2023, according to USCIS data. Solve the daily Crossword
Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Eyes Non-Governance Role in Intel
00:00 Is this a good thing for Intel? It's a life saver. They were on an unclear path before the government decided to renegotiate its deal. Let's not forget that the U.S. government already had a deal with Intel. It's we're going to give you $6 billion and we're going to get a colored profit share down the line. What this administration is doing is just renegotiating the deal. It's saying that's not good enough. We want to take an equity stake. And by the way, Intel is different because part of this deal is a big Department of Defense component. Let's not forget, we're we're going to want Intel to manufacture chips for our F-35 and other important weapons systems. So the government has a different type of relationship, for instance, than it does with TSMC, where we're just talking about making chips for data centers. So the government renegotiated the deal and now when it's done that it's not a coincidence that Lee Boutin can go to his friend, his son, and say, okay, this is the time for SoftBank to invest as well and maybe line up some arm demand for those 14 chips down the line. I'm so interested in the ARM architecture side of this. How do you see these working hand in hand going forward? How more cemented could a relationship become? Well, clearly, it could be part of the deal. And more importantly for Intel, as of a week ago, they had no customers for a for the 14 architecture. And they said they may not even proceed with it. Now, they might have one lined up. Let's not forget, the Department of Defense is a customer that's now more likely to be lined up for that, and then they can go and talk to the other companies. And even if the government doesn't have it doesn't go ahead and twist some arms, let's not forget. And Nvidia has committed half a trillion dollars of investment in the US. So can the government now can President Trump call Jensen Huang and say, Hey, this is part of how I want to see the investment play out. I need for you to be a customer of 14. That's not inconceivable at this point. And again, remember, this is national security. So the rules of the game change. Once we say this is national security, the rules of the game are often blurred by frenemy lines. Gil And what's so interesting is Masa has had a long term relationship with the CEO of In Video. Of course, Jensen Huang. But also in some ways wants to build a competing architecture in some ways. What's the take on NVIDIA in terms of A.I. chips? Could he do that with Intel's help? It's one way for him to participate in an even more broad fashion in the growth of AI, which he's doing now. He he regrets selling in video when he did. He's buying some of it back, but he's also making a set of other investments in air infrastructure. Let's not forget, Stargate is probably the the flag bearer of of his effort combining with open A.I. and Oracle to build again at least $100 billion worth of datacentre capacity. And for that it would make sense to diversify and not only buy in video chips. Now that's going to take a while. And Nvidia not only has a lead, but continues to extend its lead every year. But it does make sense for for him and for other companies to try to diversify away from in video. What's interesting is how a lot, Nic, the commerce secretary had said, look, we will be we confirm that we're looking at taking an equity stake, didn't say how much, but it wouldn't be with a governance role. Now, more broadly, how are you starting to analyze companies that are getting closer and closer to the US government and how much well, is it interference or is it positive help that is being led by a US government here? Well, the U.S. government has an ability to to make to give preferential treatment to some of these companies to to change the rules of the road. And it wants equity participation when it does that. And again, it's not doing it broadly. It's doing it when it's a matter of national security. Let's not forget, it's already very involved with Nvidia. It's limiting their chip sales to China. It's already very involved with open air. This may be quiet, but it's pretty safe to assume the Department of Defense gets briefs from open air very frequently about where the models are. So the government is involved because it's national security. In Intel's case, it's a matter of if this is this century's nuclear arsenal, we need somebody to make the shell casings domestically. We have. We can't have a Taiwanese company and a Korean company make our shell casings for our nuclear arsenal. So in Intel's case, it's a much deeper involvement. And I wouldn't be surprised if there are if there is input into where the investments go, what the governance is, even if it's not explicit.
