US president to sign order lifting sanctions on Syria
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said that sanctions remain in place on associates of the former regime, human rights violators, drug traffickers, individuals associated with chemical weapons activities, and ISIS and its affiliates.
Leavitt added that the US President is committed to supporting a stable and unified Syria at peace with itself and its neighbours, referring to Trump's meeting with Syrian President Ahmad Al Sharaa during his recent visit to the Middle East.
She continued by saying that this is another promise this president has made, and kept, to promote peace and stability in the region.
Last May, Trump announced that he would lift sanctions on Syria as part of measures to help the country rebuild.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Turning point or pointless turn: Will DR Congo-Rwanda deal bring peace?
Cape Town, South Africa – Five months ago, with a single social media post, United States President Donald Trump put half a million people in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) at risk when he announced the closure of USAID – the single biggest aid donor in the country. A few days ago in Washington, DC, the same administration claimed credit for extricating the Congolese people from a decades-long conflict often described as the deadliest since World War II. This year alone, thousands of people have died and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. While the White House may be celebrating its diplomatic triumph in brokering a peace deal between tense neighbours DRC and Rwanda, for sceptical observers and people caught up in conflict and deprivation in eastern DRC, the mood is bound to be far more muted, experts say. 'I think a lot of ordinary citizens are hardly moved by the deal and many will wait to see if there are any positives to come out of it,' said Michael Odhiambo, a peace expert for Eirene International in Uvira in eastern DRC, where 250,000 displaced people lost access to water due to Trump's aid cutbacks. Odhiambo suggests that for Congolese living in towns controlled by armed groups – like the mineral-rich area of Rubaya, held by M23 rebels – US involvement in the war may cause anxiety, rather than relief. 'There is fear that American peace may be enforced violently as we have seen in Iran. Many citizens simply want peace and even though [this is] dressed up as a peace agreement, there is fear it may lead to future violence that could be justified by America protecting its business interests.' The agreement, signed by the Congolese and Rwandan foreign ministers in Washington on Friday, is an attempt to staunch the bleeding in a conflict that has raged in one form or another since the 1990s. At the signing, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called it a 'turning point', while his Congolese counterpart, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, said the moment had 'been long in coming'. 'It will not erase the pain, but it can begin to restore what conflict has robbed many women, men and children of – safety, dignity and a sense of future,' Wagner said. Trump has meanwhile said he deserves to be lauded for bringing the parties together, even suggesting that he deserves a Nobel prize for his efforts. While the deal does aim to quell decades of brutal conflict, observers point to concerns with the fine print: That it was also brokered after Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi said in March that he was willing to partner with the US on a minerals-for-security deal. Experts say US companies hope to gain access to minerals like tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium that they desperately need to meet the demand for technology and beat China in the race for Africa's natural resources. But this has raised fears among critics that the US's main interest in the agreement is to further foreign extraction of eastern DRC's rare earth minerals, which could lead to a replay of the violence seen in past decades, instead of a de-escalation. M23 and FDLR: Will armed groups fall in line? The main terms of the peace deal – which is also supported by Qatar – require Kinshasa and Kigali to establish a regional economic integration framework within 90 days and form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days. Additionally, the DRC should facilitate the disengagement of the armed group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), after which Rwanda will lift its 'defensive measures' inside the DRC. According to the United Nations and other international rights groups, there are about 3,000 to 4,000 Rwandan troops on the ground in eastern DRC, as Kigali actively backs M23 rebels who have seized key cities in the region this year. Rwanda has repeatedly denied these claims. M23 is central to the current conflict in eastern DRC. The rebel group, which first took up arms in 2012, was temporarily defeated in 2013 before it reemerged in 2022. This year, it made significant gains, seizing control of the capitals of both North Kivu and South Kivu provinces in January and February. Although separate Qatar-led mediation efforts are under way regarding the conflict with M23, the rebel group is not part of this agreement signed last week. 'This deal does not concern M23. M23 is a Congolese issue that is going to be discussed in Doha, Qatar. This is a deal between Rwanda and DRC,' Gatete Nyiringabo Ruhumuliza, a Rwandan political commentator, told Al Jazeera's Inside Story, explaining that the priority for Kigali is the neutralisation of the FDLR – which was established by Hutus linked to the killings of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. 'Rwanda has its own defensive mechanisms [in DRC] that have nothing to do with M23,' Ruhumuliza said, adding that Kigali will remove these mechanisms only once the FDLR is dealt with. But the omission of M23 from the US-brokered process points to one of the potential cracks in the deal, experts say. 'The impact of the agreement may be more severe on the FDLR as it explicitly requires that it ceases to exist,' said Eirene International's Odhiambo. 'The M23, however, is in a stronger position given the leverage they have from controlling Goma and Bukavu and the income they are generating in the process.' The US-brokered process requires the countries to support ongoing efforts by Qatar to mediate peace between the DRC and M23. But by including this, the deal also 'seems to temper its expectations regarding the M23″, Odhiambo argues. Additionally, 'M23 have the capacity to continue to cause mayhem even if Rwanda decided to act against it,' he said. 'Therefore, I think the agreement will not in itself have a major impact on the M23.' In terms of the current deal's effect on the two countries, both risk being exposed for their role in the conflict, he added. 'I think that if Rwanda manages to prevail on the M23 as anticipated by the deal, it may prove the long-suspected proxy relationship between them.' For DRC, he said Kinshasa executing the terms of the agreement will not augur well for the FDLR, but suggested calls to neutralise them may be a tall order. 'If [Kinshasa] manage to do it, then they remove Rwanda's justification for its activities in the DRC. But to do so may be a big ask given the capacity of the FARDC [DRC military], and failure to do so will feed into the narrative of a dysfunctional and incapable state. Therefore, I think the DRC has more at stake than Rwanda.' On the other hand, Tshisekedi's government could score political points, according to Jakob Kerstan, DRC country director for the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Foundation (KAS), which promotes democracy and the rule of law. 'The sentiment … of the Congolese population, it's very much like the conflict has been left behind: No one really cares in the world; the Congo is only being exploited, and so on. And the fact that there is now a global power caring about the DRC … I think this is a gain,' he said. He feels there is also less pressure on Kinshasa's government today than earlier this year when M23 was first making its rapid advance. 'There are no protests any more. Of course, people are angry about the situation [in the east], but they kind of accept [it]. And they know that militarily they won't be able to win it. The Kinshasa government, they know it as well.' 'Peace for exploitation'? Although Kinshasa appears to have readily offered the US access to the country's critical minerals in exchange for security, many observers on the continent find such a deal concerning. Congolese analyst Kambale Musavuli told Africa Now Radio that reports of the possible allocation of billions of dollars worth of minerals to the US, was the 'Berlin Conference 2.0″, referring to the 19th-century meeting during which European powers divided up Africa. Musavuli also bemoaned the lack of accountability for human rights abuses. Meanwhile, Congolese Nobel laureate Denis Mukwege called the agreement a 'scandalous surrender of sovereignty' that validated foreign occupation, exploitation, and decades of impunity. An unsettling undertone of the deal is 'the spectre of resource exploitation, camouflaged as diplomatic triumph', said political commentator Lindani Zungu, writing in an op-ed for Al Jazeera. 'This emerging 'peace for exploitation' bargain is one that African nations, particularly the DRC, should never be forced to accept in a postcolonial world order.' Meanwhile, for others, the US may be the ones who end up with a raw deal. KAS's Kerstan believes Trump's people may have underestimated the complexities of doing business in the DRC – which has scared off many foreign companies in the past. Even those who welcome this avenue towards peace acknowledge that the situation remains fragile. Alexandria Maloney, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's US-based Africa Center, praised the Trump deal for combining diplomacy, development and strategic resource management. However, she warned against extraction without investment in infrastructure, skills and environmental safeguards. 'Fragile governance structures in eastern DRC, particularly weak institutional capacity and fragmented local authority, could undercut enforcement or public trust,' Maloney told the think tank's website. Furthermore, China's 'entrenched footprint in the DRC's mining sector may complicate implementation and heighten geopolitical tensions', she added. For analysts, the most optimistic assessments about the US's role in this process appear to say: Thank goodness the Americans stepped in; while the least optimistic say: Are they in over their heads? Overall, this Congo peace agreement seems to have few supporters outside multilateral diplomatic fora such as the UN and the African Union. For many, the biggest caution is the exclusion of Congolese people and civil society organisations – which is where previous peace efforts have also failed. 'I have no hopes at all [in this deal],' said Vava Tampa, the founder of grassroots Congolese antiwar charity Save the Congo. 'There isn't much difference between this deal and the dozens of other deals that have been made in the past,' he told Al Jazeera's Inside Story. 'This deal does two things really: It denies Congolese people – Congolese victims and survivors – justice; and simultaneously it also fuels impunity,' he said, calling instead for an international criminal tribunal for Congo and for perpetrators of violence in both Kigali and Kinshasa to be held accountable. 'Peace begins with justice,' Tampa said. 'You cannot have peace or stability without justice.'
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump might ‘take a look' at possible Elon Musk deportation
Trump might 'take a look' at possible Elon Musk deportation NewsFeed 'DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon.' Donald Trump said he would 'take a look' at the possibility of Elon Musk being deported. Musk has criticised Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' for what he called 'insane spending' and renewed his call for a new political party. Video Duration 00 minutes 55 seconds 00:55 Video Duration 00 minutes 27 seconds 00:27 Video Duration 00 minutes 51 seconds 00:51 Video Duration 02 minutes 40 seconds 02:40 Video Duration 01 minutes 29 seconds 01:29 Video Duration 01 minutes 28 seconds 01:28 Video Duration 01 minutes 13 seconds 01:13
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why is the US dollar falling by record levels in 2025?
The United States dollar has had its worst first six months of the year since 1973, as President Donald Trump's economic policies have prompted global investors to sell their greenback holdings, threatening the currency's 'safe-haven' status. The dollar index, which measures the currency's strength against a basket of six others, including the pound, euro and yen, fell 10.8 percent in the first half of 2025. President Trump's stop-start tariff war, and his attacks that have led to worries over the independence of the Federal Reserve, have undermined the appeal of the dollar as a safe bet. Economists are also worried about Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill, currently under debate in the US Congress. The landmark legislation is expected to add trillions of dollars to the US debt pile over the coming decade and has raised concerns about the sustainability of Washington's borrowing, prompting an exodus from the US Treasury market. Meanwhile, gold has hit record highs this year, on continued buying by central banks worried about devaluation of their dollar assets. What has happened to the dollar? On April 2, the Trump administration unveiled tariffs on imports from most countries around the world, denting confidence in the world's largest economy and causing a selloff in US financial assets. More than $5 trillion was erased from the value of the benchmark S&P 500 index of shares in the three days after 'Liberation Day', as Trump described the day of his tariffs announcement. US Treasuries also saw clear-outs, lowering their price and sending debt costs for the US government sharply higher. Faced with a revolt in financial markets, Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs, except for exports from China, on April 9. While trade tensions with China – the world's second-largest economy – have since eased, investors remain wary of holding dollar-linked assets. Last month, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) announced that it had cut its US growth outlook for this year from 2.2 percent in March to just 1.6 percent, even as inflation has slowed. Looking ahead, Republican leaders are trying to push through Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act through Congress before July 4. The bill would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, slash healthcare and welfare spending and increase borrowing. While some legislators believe it could take until August to pass the bill, the aim would be to raise the borrowing limit on the country's $36.2 trillion debt pile. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it would raise Federal debt by $3.3 trillion by 2034. That would significantly raise the government's debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio from 124 percent today, raising concerns about long-term debt sustainability. Meanwhile, annual deficits – when state spending exceeds tax revenues – would rise to 6.9 percent of GDP from about 6.4 percent in 2024. So far, Trump's attempts to lower spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency have fallen short of expectations. And though import tariffs have raised revenue for the government, they've been paid for – in the form of higher costs – by American consumers. The upshot is that Trump's unpredictable policies, which prompted Moody's rating agency to strip the US government of its top credit score in May, have slowed US growth prospects this year and dented the demand for its currency. The dollar has also trended down on expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates to support the United States' economy, urged on by Trump, with two to three reductions expected by the end of this year, according to levels implied by futures contracts. Is the US becoming a 'less attractive' destination? Owing to its dominance in trade and finance, the dollar has been the world's currency anchor. In the 1980s, for instance, many Gulf countries began pegging their currencies to the greenback. Its influence doesn't stop there. Though the US accounts for one-quarter of global GDP, 54 percent of world exports were denominated in dollars in 2023, according to the Atlantic Council. Its dominance in finance is even greater. About 60 percent of all bank deposits are denominated in dollars, while nearly 70 percent of international bonds are quoted in the US currency. Meanwhile, 57 percent of the world's foreign currency reserves – assets held by central banks – are held in dollars, according to the IMF. But the dollar's reserve status is supported by confidence in the US economy, its financial markets and its legal system. And Trump is changing that. Karsten Junius, chief economist at Bank J Safra Sarasin, says 'investors are beginning to realise that they're over-exposed to US assets.' Indeed, foreigners own $19 trillion of US equities, $7 trillion of US Treasuries and $5 trillion of US corporate bonds, according to Apollo Asset Management. If investors continue to trim their positions, the dollar's value could continue to come under sustained pressure. 'The US has become a less attractive place to invest these days… US assets are not as safe as they used to be,' Junius told Al Jazeera. What are the consequences of a lower-value dollar? Many within the Trump administration argue that the costs of the US dollar's reserve status outweigh the benefits – because that raises the cost of US exports. Stephen Miran, chair of Trump's Council of Economic Advisers, has said high dollar valuations place 'undue burdens on our firms and workers, making their products and labour uncompetitive on the global stage'. 'The dollar's overvaluation has been one factor contributing to the US's loss of competitiveness over the years, and… tariffs are a reaction to this unpleasant reality,' he added. At first blush, a lower dollar would indeed make US goods cheaper to overseas buyers and make imports more expensive, helping to reduce the country's trade deficits. However, these typical trade effects remain in flux due to ongoing tariff threats. For developing countries, a weaker greenback will lower the local currency cost of repaying dollar debt, providing relief to heavily indebted countries like Zambia, Ghana or Pakistan. Elsewhere, a weaker dollar should boost commodity prices, increasing export revenues for countries exporting oil, metals or agricultural goods such as Indonesia, Nigeria and Chile. Have other currencies done well? Since the start of Trump's second term in office, the greenback's slide has upended widespread predictions that his trade war would do greater damage to economies outside the US, while also spurring US inflation – strengthening the currency against its rivals. Instead, the euro has risen 13 percent to above $1.17 as investors continue to focus on growth risks inside the US. At the same time, demand has risen for other safe assets like German and French government bonds. For American investors, the weaker dollar has also encouraged equity investments abroad. The Stoxx 600 index, a broad measure across European stocks, has risen roughly 15 percent since the start of 2025. Converted back into dollars, that gain amounts to 23 percent. Meanwhile, inflation – again belying predictions – has come down from 3 percent in January to 2.3 percent in May. According to Junius, there is no significant threat to the dollar's status as the world's de facto reserve currency anytime soon. But 'that doesn't mean that you can't have more of a weakening in the US dollar,' he said. 'In fact, we continue to expect that between now and the end of the year.'
