United News of Bangladesh

Officials in northern Thailand are working urgently to control a disease outbreak that has killed 72 captive tigers in Chiang Mai this month. The animals, housed in facilities across the region, began showing symptoms earlier in February. Authorities have since launched emergency measures, including disinfecting enclosures and preparing vaccinations for the remaining tigers. While the precise cause of death remains under review, a statement from the Chiang Mai Region 5 Livestock Office said the tigers were infected with canine distemper virus, with mycoplasma bacteria identified as a secondary infection. However, Somchuan Ratanamungklanon, director-general of the Department of Livestock Development under Thailand’s agriculture ministry, previously told local media outlet Matichon that the animals had contracted feline panleukopenia. He noted that diagnosing and treating tigers is far more complex than caring for domestic pets. “Dogs and cats live closely with humans, so when symptoms appear, treatment can begin immediately. Tigers do not. By the time signs of illness are detected, the disease may already be severe,” he said. The outbreak has impacted facilities in two Chiang Mai districts — Mae Rim and Mae Taeng — both known for their mountainous terrain. Reports indicate that dozens of tigers first fell ill on 8 February. Following the deaths, Tiger Kingdom Chiang Mai — a well-known tourist destination where visitors can interact closely with tigers — has temporarily shut its doors. Kritsayarm Kongsatri, director of Chiang Mai’s wildlife conservation office, described the scale of the deaths as highly unusual. Similar incidents have occurred in the region in recent years. Between August and October 2024, 47 tigers and three leopards died in southern Vietnam after contracting bird flu. In October 2004, an avian influenza outbreak at the Sriracha Tiger Zoo in Chonburi province, eastern Thailand, led to the deaths or euthanasia of 147 out of 441 tigers, with contaminated chicken carcasses believed to be the source of infection. Authorities are continuing efforts to prevent the virus from spreading further while investigations into the outbreak remain ongoing. Source: The Guardian   END/UNB/MAS

Students from several Iranian universities have staged anti-government demonstrations—the largest since last month’s deadly security crackdown. The BBC has verified footage showing protesters marching across the campus of Sharif University of Technology in Tehran on Saturday. Clashes were later reported between demonstrators and pro-government supporters. Other demonstrations included a sit-in at Shahid Beheshti University in the capital and a rally in the northeast city of Mashhad. Students were commemorating those killed in mass protests in January. Meanwhile, the US has been increasing its military presence near Iran, and President Donald Trump has indicated that a limited military strike is under consideration. The US and European allies have expressed concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which Tehran continues to deny. US and Iranian officials met in Switzerland on Tuesday, reporting progress in negotiations aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Nevertheless, Trump later warned that the world would know within about ten days whether a deal would be reached or if military action would follow. He has previously expressed support for Iranian protesters, even suggesting that “help is on its way.” Verified footage from Sharif University shows hundreds of students, many waving Iranian flags, marching peacefully while chanting slogans such as “death to the dictator,” directed at Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Nearby, supporters of a pro-government rally were also present, and confrontations reportedly broke out between the two groups. Similar demonstrations were verified at Amir Kabir University of Technology, and in Mashhad, students reportedly shouted “Freedom, freedom” and “Students, shout for your rights.” Additional protests were reported in other locations, with calls for further rallies on Sunday. There are no immediate reports of arrests. The protests last month, initially sparked by economic grievances, escalated into the largest demonstrations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. According to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (Hrana), at least 6,159 people were killed during that period, including 5,804 protesters, 92 children, and 214 government-affiliated individuals, with investigations continuing into another 17,000 reported deaths. Iranian authorities have acknowledged more than 3,100 deaths, mostly security personnel or bystanders, blaming “rioters” for the fatalities. Saturday’s protests come amid heightened tensions, with Iranian authorities preparing for potential conflict with the US. Exiled opposition groups have urged Trump to take action against the Iranian government, while other factions oppose foreign intervention. Both sides have also engaged in social media campaigns, attempting to shape international narratives about the will of the Iranian people. Source: BBC

Pakistan announced early Sunday that it had conducted strikes along its border with Afghanistan, targeting hideouts of Pakistani militants it holds responsible for a recent wave of deadly attacks inside the country. While Pakistan did not specify the exact locations of the strikes or provide further details, reports circulating on social media indicated that the operations took place within Afghan territory. Kabul has yet to comment on the strikes. In a statement posted on X before dawn, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar described the military’s actions as “intelligence-based, selective operations,” aimed at seven camps belonging to the Pakistani Taliban, also known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), as well as its affiliates. He also confirmed that an affiliate of the Islamic State (ISIS) group was targeted in the border region. Earlier in October, Pakistan had conducted similar strikes inside Afghanistan, targeting militant hideouts. Trump's Afghanistan claim sparks anger in UK Tarar emphasized that Pakistan “has always strived to maintain peace and stability in the region,” but affirmed that the safety and security of its citizens remained a top priority. These latest strikes follow a surge in violence, including a suicide bombing earlier in the week in Bajaur district, which borders Afghanistan. A vehicle laden with explosives was rammed into a security post, collapsing part of the compound and killing 11 soldiers and a child. Authorities later identified the attacker as an Afghan national. Just hours before the cross-border strikes, another suicide bombing targeted a security convoy in nearby Bannu district, killing two soldiers, including a lieutenant colonel. Following the violence, Pakistan’s military issued a stern warning, stating it would not “exercise any restraint” and would continue operations against those responsible, “irrespective of their location,” signaling growing tensions between Islamabad and Kabul. Tarar further stated that Pakistan had “conclusive evidence” linking the recent attacks — including a suicide bombing that killed 31 worshippers at a Shiite mosque in Islamabad earlier this month — to militants operating under the direction of Afghanistan-based leaders. He claimed that despite repeated requests for action, Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers had failed to take meaningful steps to prevent militant groups from using Afghan soil to stage attacks on Pakistan. Pakistan has urged the international community to press the Taliban in Afghanistan to honor their commitments under the Doha Agreement, specifically the pledge not to allow Afghan territory to be used for attacks against other countries. The surge in militant violence in Pakistan has largely been attributed to the TTP and banned separatist groups from Balochistan. While the TTP is not directly affiliated with Afghanistan’s Taliban, the two share close ties. Pakistan accuses the TTP of operating from safe havens inside Afghanistan, a claim that both the group and Kabul deny. Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have been strained since October, when deadly border clashes resulted in numerous casualties, including soldiers, civilians, and militants. These clashes followed bombings in Kabul, which Afghan officials blamed on Pakistan. Though a ceasefire mediated by Qatar has mostly held, talks in Istanbul failed to reach a formal agreement, and tensions between the two countries remain high.  

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs has introduced new complexity into U.S.-China relations, which were already fraught with tension. Both nations are maneuvering to avoid a full-blown trade war that could destabilize the global economy, while still competing for leverage in negotiations. Although the ruling appears to strengthen China’s position, analysts predict Beijing will approach this advantage cautiously, recognizing that Trump has other methods for imposing tariffs. Both sides are also keen to preserve a fragile trade truce and stabilize relations ahead of Trump’s planned trip to Beijing. “This ruling will boost China’s negotiating position with Trump’s team before the summit, but they are prepared for the scenario where no substantial changes occur,” said Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington. Trump, frustrated by the ruling, announced plans to impose a temporary 10% global tariff, later increasing it to 15%, while exploring alternative routes to impose import duties. He justified the tariffs by highlighting China as the biggest challenge to U.S. economic, technological, and military dominance. “China amassed hundreds of billions of dollars in surpluses with the U.S. They rebuilt China, including its military, with our help,” Trump told reporters on Friday. “I have a strong relationship with President Xi, but he now respects our country.” The White House confirmed Trump’s visit to China is scheduled for March 31 to April 2, where he will meet with President Xi Jinping. Xi to Focus on Relationship, Not Court Ruling Xi is unlikely to aggressively highlight the Supreme Court decision when meeting with Trump, opting instead to build a stronger personal rapport with the U.S. president, said Ali Wyne, senior advisor at the International Crisis Group. "The more Xi can strengthen this relationship, the more likely it is that the fragile trade truce between the U.S. and China will hold, and Trump may be more open to security concessions that offer China greater flexibility in Asia,” Wyne said. The Chinese Embassy's spokesperson Liu Pengyu commented that trade wars are not in the interest of either country and called for collaboration between Washington and Beijing to ensure stability in economic and trade relations, benefiting both nations and the global economy. New Uncertainty for Other U.S. Trade Partners The Supreme Court ruling has also introduced uncertainty for other U.S. trade partners, particularly in Asia, many of whom had reached trade deals to ease the turmoil caused by Trump’s tariffs. “I expect most Asian countries to proceed cautiously, with existing agreements remaining in place as both sides assess the situation in the coming weeks,” said Dan Kritenbrink, a former U.S. State Department official. He noted that Japan, a key U.S. ally, is especially important to watch ahead of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s planned visit to Washington in March, as Japan’s relationship with China has worsened in recent months. Trump’s Alternatives for Tariffs After returning to the White House early last year, Trump used emergency powers to impose 20% tariffs on Chinese goods, citing Beijing’s failure to curb the flow of chemicals used in fentanyl production. He later expanded this authority to impose reciprocal tariffs on multiple countries, including a 34% levy on China. In response, China retaliated, and tariffs soared into the triple digits before both sides backed down. Following multiple rounds of trade negotiations and a summit between Trump and Xi in South Korea in October, the two countries agreed to a one-year truce with a 10% baseline tariff. Trump also lowered the fentanyl tariff to 10%, while China resumed efforts to restrict the export of certain substances used in opioid production. Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, suggested the Trump administration could quickly implement a backup plan. The U.S. Trade Representative is investigating China’s adherence to a previous trade agreement, and if China is found to be non-compliant, tariffs could be imposed under U.S. trade law. Rep. Ro Khanna, the leading Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, urged the administration to adopt a tougher strategy that "holds China accountable for its unfair trade practices and leverages the power of our allies." Trump’s Flexibility with Tariffs Gabriel Wildau, managing director at Teneo consultancy, said Trump has already demonstrated his willingness to use various legal authorities to impose tariffs on China, much as he did during his first term. Beijing likely believes the tariffs can be maintained or reintroduced with minimal difficulty. However, Wildau added, “Beijing hopes they can persuade Trump to reduce the tariffs in exchange for guarantees or other concessions.”  

President Donald Trump stated on Saturday that he intends to increase global tariffs to 15%, up from the 10% he had previously announced a day earlier, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of the extensive import taxes he had imposed in the past year. Trump's social media post signals that despite the court's limitation on his powers, the Republican president remains determined to escalate tariffs in unpredictable ways. Tariffs have been a key tool for Trump to reshape global trade and exert international pressure. The Supreme Court's decision on Friday invalidated tariffs Trump had applied on nearly all countries using emergency powers. In response, Trump stated he would pursue an alternative, though more restricted, legal authority. He had already signed an executive order to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on global imports, which was set to take effect on Tuesday, the same day as his State of the Union address. However, these tariffs will last only 150 days unless extended by legislation. The White House has yet to respond to inquiries about when Trump will sign an updated order to raise tariffs to 15%. In his social media post, Trump explained that his decision was based on a "thorough, detailed, and complete review" of what he called a "ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American" Supreme Court ruling on tariffs. By a 6-3 vote, the justices declared that Trump cannot unilaterally impose and alter tariffs, as the authority to tax resides with Congress. In addition to the temporary 15% tariffs, Trump also indicated he would pursue tariffs under other sections of federal law, which require an investigation by the Commerce Department. He stated on Saturday that the Trump Administration would "determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs" in the coming months, continuing the process of "Making America Great Again." After the Supreme Court ruling, Trump launched a personal attack on the justices who voted against him, including two of his own appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. At a news conference on Friday, he called the decision "an embarrassment to their families." He continued to criticize them on social media, also attacking Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the majority opinion. On Saturday morning, Trump declared Justice Brett Kavanaugh his "new hero" for writing a dissenting opinion, and praised Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who also dissented. Tariffs have been a cornerstone of Trump’s economic policies, which he claims address issues like trade imbalances, reviving U.S. manufacturing, and pressuring foreign nations to take action on matters such as drug trafficking and international conflicts. Despite evidence to the contrary, Trump has frequently stated that foreign governments, not American consumers and businesses, would bear the cost of these tariffs. As of December, federal data showed that the Treasury had collected over $133 billion from the tariffs imposed under emergency powers. Trump has suggested that the funds could be used for purposes such as reducing the national debt or sending dividend checks to taxpayers. The Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the fate of these collected funds. Democrats quickly criticized Trump's tariff proposal. Members of the House Ways and Means Committee accused Trump of "pickpocketing the American people" with his new tariff increase. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a long-time Trump critic, added that "he does not care about you."  

South Korean trade officials scrambled Saturday to assess the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to invalidate some Trump administration tariffs, as business and governments around the world pored over the possible fallout from moves in Washington on the global economy. The emergency meeting announced by the Trade Ministry in Seoul came as officials from South Korea to South America and beyond acknowledged tariffs would remain on some specific exports to the U.S., like automobiles and steel, that aren't affected by the U.S. high court decision. It marked yet another swoon in the U.S. tariff posture since President Donald Trump returned to office 13 months ago, upending dozens of trading relationships with the world's biggest economy. In Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron hailed the checks and balances in the United States, praising the “rule of law. during a visit to a Paris agricultural fair: “It’s a good thing to have powers and counter-powers in democracies. We should welcome that.” But he cautioned against any triumphalism. Officials were going over the language of bilateral or multilateral deals struck with the U.S. in recent months, even as they braced for new swings. Trump said Friday he plans new 10% global tariffs, under different rules. “I note that President Trump, a few hours ago, said he had reworked some measures to introduce new tariffs, more limited ones, but applying to everyone,” Macron said. “So we’ll look closely at the exact consequences, what can be done, and we will adapt.” Businesses brace south of the border — and beyond Alluding to the new 10% tariff threat, Sergio Bermúdez, head of an industrial parks company in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, along the Texas border, said Trump “says a lot of things, and many of them aren’t true. All of the businesses I know are analyzing, trying to figure out how it’s going to affect them." The impact could be felt especially in Juarez: Much of its economy depends on factories producing goods to export to consumers in the U.S., the result of decades of free trade between the U.S. and Mexico. The policy swoons in the United States over the last year have made many global business leaders cautious, as they struggle to forecast and see investment take a hit. Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard on Friday said Mexico was watching the tariffs with a “cool head,” noting that 85% of Mexico’s exports face no tariff, largely because of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement. He plans a trip to the U.S. to meet with economic officials next week. CEO Alan Russell of Tecma, which helps American businesses set up operations in Mexico, has seen his job grow increasingly complicated over the past year — his company's workload has surged as much as fourfold as it grapples with new import requirements. He worries the last U.S. moves will only make things more difficult. “We wake up every day with new challenges. That word ‘uncertainty’ has been the greatest enemy,” said Russell, who is American. “The difficult part has been not being clear what the rules are today or what they’re going to be tomorrow. Looking for a piece of possible tariff refunds Some U.S. importers who paid what may turn out to be excess tariffs are looking for possible refunds — likely a very complex process — and some foreign companies may want to get their piece, too. Bernd Lange, chairman of the European Parliament’s trade committee, insisted on Deutschland radio that excess tariffs “must be refunded.” He estimates German companies or their U.S. importers alone overpaid more than 100 billion euros ($118 billion). Swissmem, a top technology industry association in Switzerland, hailed a “good decision” from the Supreme Court, writing on X that its exports to the U.S. fell 18% in the fourth quarter alone -- a period when Switzerland was facing much higher U.S. tariffs than most neighboring countries in Europe. “The high tariffs have severely damaged the tech industry," Swissmem President Martin Hirzel said on X, while acknowledging the dust is far from settled. “However, today’s ruling doesn’t win anything yet.”

At least 50 people were killed and a significant number of others abducted after a group of armed men launched a brutal attack on a village in Nigeria's northwestern state of Zamfara, a local lawmaker said. The raid on Tungan Dutse village, located in the Bukkuyum Local Government Area, reportedly began Thursday evening and continued into Friday morning, Hamisu Faru, a lawmaker representing the affected area at the Zamfara State House of Assembly, told local media on Saturday. The attackers arrived on more than 150 motorcycles, moving through the community, shooting indiscriminately at residents and razing some buildings, Faru said, citing a preliminary assessment of the incident. "The attackers invaded the village in large numbers, leaving at least 50 people dead," the local official said, noting that the exact number of people abducted during the attack remained unclear, as many fled into nearby bushes for safety. The victims of the attack included traders and farmers, with many of the abducted reported to be women and children, according to Faru. No security agency has so far confirmed the incident. 

The Pentagon and the Energy Department have airlifted a small nuclear reactor from California to Utah for the first time, showcasing the United States’ ability to quickly deploy portable nuclear power for military and civilian use. The nearly 700-mile flight on a C-17 military aircraft on Feb. 15 carried a 5-megawatt microreactor without nuclear fuel. Officials say the move highlights the Trump administration’s push to expand nuclear energy to meet rising electricity demand from artificial intelligence and data centers, as well as to strengthen energy security at military bases. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Defense Undersecretary Michael Duffey described the airlift as a breakthrough that could help speed up licensing and deployment of next-generation microreactors. President Donald Trump has strongly backed nuclear power as a reliable, carbon-free energy source, even as his administration prioritizes fossil fuels and takes a cautious stance on renewables. The portable reactor, about the size of a minivan, is designed to generate up to 5 megawatts of electricity, enough to power roughly 5,000 homes. Officials said at least three such reactors are expected to reach operational capability later this year. Microreactors are intended to provide flexible power in remote areas, including military installations that may need to operate independently from the civilian grid. The reactor flown to Utah will undergo testing at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab, with fuel expected to be supplied from a federal site in Nevada. However, some experts have raised safety and cost concerns, questioning whether the technology is economically viable or secure once fueled and transported. Critics also say long-term plans for handling nuclear waste remain unresolved. Despite the concerns, US officials say the project marks a major step toward faster, more mobile nuclear power deployment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a major portion of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, triggering positive reactions from analysts, economists and international media, while leaving questions over the future course of US trade policy. In a 6–3 ruling, the court said the executive branch overstepped its legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The judges found that the law does not allow the president to impose sweeping, across-the-board tariffs without clear approval from Congress. Political analyst Sandile Swana of South Africa said the decision reaffirmed that taxation powers belong to Congress, not the executive. He added that the tariffs mainly hurt US businesses and consumers rather than foreign exporters. Croatian economist Ljubo Jurcic described the ruling as a serious blow to what he called a misguided economic approach. He said the tariff policy damaged the US economy and warned that companies affected could now seek refunds worth billions of dollars. Jurcic also argued that unilateral trade measures failed to deliver real benefits while increasing costs for Americans. European markets reacted positively. France’s leading business daily Les Echos reported a rally across regional markets, noting that the CAC 40 briefly crossed the 8,500-point mark for the first time. Greece’s financial outlet OT also cited gains, driven by investor hopes of easing trade tensions. Portuguese analyst Rui Cardoso called the verdict a “complete defeat” for Trump, saying countries that had accepted what he described as unfair trade deals with Washington might now push for renegotiation. He also criticised the European Union for taking an overly soft position, arguing recent developments showed it had conceded more than necessary. Trump imposes new 10% tariff after court blocks global import taxes In Africa, economists said the ruling could bring limited relief to exporters, though the impact would differ by sector and country. Andre Thomashausen, professor emeritus of international law at the University of South Africa, said the decision could open the door for refund claims and help restore fairer competition. South African economist Chris Harmse said industries such as automobiles and agriculture could benefit if tariff barriers are lifted. Rwandan economist Teddy Kaberuka said the tariffs had unsettled the global economy by fuelling a trade war and straining relations with key partners, also weighing on financial markets. He warned that continued uncertainty could slow growth, especially in Africa, where economies remain highly vulnerable. Analysts cautioned that risks have not disappeared. Edward Fishman, a former US State Department and Treasury official, said the ruling may limit the use of tariffs as a quick geoeconomic weapon, though they could still be applied through other legal mechanisms during trade talks. Observers agree that while the court has curbed the recent tariff drive, the long-term direction of US trade policy remains uncertain, keeping global markets and trading partners on edge.

President Donald Trump reacted angrily Friday after the Supreme Court struck down his signature global tariffs, a move that included dissent from two of the three justices he appointed. Trump, who has long expected personal loyalty from his appointees, criticized the court sharply, saying he was “ashamed” of the justices who opposed him and questioning their courage. Speaking in the White House briefing room, he singled out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, calling their votes “an embarrassment to their families.” Vice President JD Vance also condemned the ruling on X, describing it as “lawlessness from the Court,” though he avoided personal attacks. Legal challenges to the tariffs had come from groups across the political spectrum, including the libertarian Liberty Justice Center and business-friendly organizations like the Chamber of Commerce. The decision highlights the ongoing tension between Trump’s aggressive use of presidential powers—covering trade, immigration, and other policy areas—and the Supreme Court’s role as a check on executive authority. Trump’s fraught relationship with the court is not new. During his first term, he won a major ruling protecting him from prosecution over efforts to overturn the 2020 election and secured repeated emergency appeals to enforce parts of his immigration agenda. But the court has also rebuked him publicly, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, though Trump did not name him in Friday’s remarks. Presidential criticism of Supreme Court decisions has historical precedent. Thomas Jefferson opposed the landmark Marbury v. Madison ruling, Franklin Roosevelt tried and failed to expand the court over New Deal frustrations, and Barack Obama openly criticized the Citizens United decision in 2010. Experts note, however, that Trump’s personal attacks on justices—especially those he appointed—cross a line. “It’s fine to criticize a ruling, but demagogic to claim justices lack courage,” said Ed Whelan, former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. Past presidents have privately regretted appointing certain justices, including Dwight D. Eisenhower after Brown v. Board of Education, but none aired such criticisms publicly during live broadcasts. Trump and members of the court are expected to be in the same room Tuesday for his State of the Union address, a setting likely to be tense given the recent clash.