USA

By Sabiu Abdullahi

A shooting disrupted a high school hockey game in Pawtucket, United States, leaving one person dead and several others injured.

The incident occurred on Monday afternoon at Lynch Arena, an ice rink known as the home venue of the hockey team of Johnson & Wales University, according to NYPost.

Authorities confirmed that the suspect involved in the daytime attack died at the scene. Officials, however, did not immediately provide a confirmed figure for the number of injured victims as emergency responders transported the wounded to nearby hospitals.

Eyewitnesses recounted moments of panic inside the arena. Students, parents, and other spectators ran for safety after gunshots suddenly echoed during a match between rival schools, Coventry and Blackstone Valley.

An employee of a nearby Walgreens store told local media that terrified individuals rushed into the shop in search of protection shortly after the shooting started. Staff members were asked to close the store and evacuate, while some people remained hidden inside as emergency services were alerted.

Branden Mello, a local sports editor who followed the situation, said the shooting started from the spectator stands behind the Blackstone Valley team’s bench. The development sparked fear across the facility.

He added that a parent at the venue reportedly confronted the attacker and succeeded in wrestling a firearm away from him. Reports indicated that the suspect possessed another weapon at the time, which heightened the danger before order was eventually restored.

The shooting has again raised concerns about gun violence in public places across the United States, particularly at school-related events where families and students usually gather.

Law enforcement authorities have opened an investigation into the incident. Officials are also monitoring the medical condition of those who sustained injuries.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

A review of court records has shown that judges across the United States have repeatedly ruled against the detention practices of immigration authorities under President Donald Trump’s administration.

According to Reuters, findings indicate that since October, courts have issued more than 4,400 rulings that deemed the detention of immigrants by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unlawful. The decisions represent a major legal setback for the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policy. Despite this, detentions have continued in many instances.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston of West Virginia criticised the government’s position in one of the cases. He wrote, “It is appalling that the Government insists that this Court should redefine or completely disregard the current law as it is clearly written,” while ordering the release of a Venezuelan detainee.

Many of the rulings stem from the administration’s shift away from a long-standing interpretation of federal law. For nearly three decades, immigrants already residing in the United States could seek release on bond while pursuing their cases in immigration courts. The policy change has triggered widespread legal challenges.

In response, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the administration is “working to lawfully deliver on President Trump’s mandate to enforce federal immigration law.”

Data shows that the number of people held in ICE custody has surged to about 68,000 this month. That figure represents an increase of roughly 75 percent since Trump assumed office last year.

However, the administration recorded a legal victory at an appeals court in New Orleans. U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones ruled that earlier administrations’ limited use of detention powers did not eliminate the authority to expand their application. She stated that prior restraint “does not mean they lacked the authority to do more.”

Government officials argue that the spike in lawsuits was expected. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the trend came as “no surprise” and added, “especially after many activist judges have attempted to thwart President Trump from fulfilling the American people’s mandate for mass deportations.”

Court filings show that detained immigrants have submitted more than 20,200 federal lawsuits seeking release since Trump took office. Judges have ruled in at least 4,421 of those cases that ICE held detainees unlawfully.

One example involved Joseph Thomas, an 18-year-old Venezuelan student arrested during a traffic stop in Wisconsin alongside his father. Both men were asylum seekers with legal work authorisation. Their lawyer, Carrie Peltier, argued they were targeted for “driving while brown.” Judges later ordered their release.

Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz ruled that Joseph’s detention was illegal. He cited a lack of proof that ICE possessed a warrant at the time of arrest. In a separate decision, U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud affirmed that the teenager’s father qualified for a bond hearing. He wrote, “This raises an issue of statutory interpretation that courts in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.”

Legal experts say habeas corpus petitions have become the primary legal route for detainees seeking freedom. The constitutional mechanism allows individuals to challenge unlawful detention in court.

The wave of litigation has placed pressure on the justice system. More than 700 Justice Department attorneys are now assigned to immigration detention cases. Some have appeared in over 1,000 lawsuits each.

Judges have also faulted authorities for failing to comply with release orders. In Minnesota, Schiltz said the government violated 96 court orders across 76 cases. A federal prosecutor in the district later described the caseload as an “enormous burden” on government lawyers.

In New York, U.S. District Judge Nusrat Choudhury ruled that ICE violated two “clear and unambiguous orders” after transferring a detainee while misrepresenting his location to the court.

The Justice Department has defended its actions. Spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said the administration “is complying with court orders and fully enforcing federal immigration law.” She added, “If rogue judges followed the law in adjudicating cases and respected the government’s obligation to properly prepare cases, there wouldn’t be an ‘overwhelming’ habeas caseload or concern over DHS following orders.”

Advocacy groups continue to assist detainees. Lawyers often wait outside immigration courts to file emergency petitions that prevent transfers to distant detention centres.

Still, many immigrants struggle to access legal relief due to cost or lack of awareness. Judy Rall, the U.S. citizen wife of a Venezuelan detainee, said she could not afford the legal fees required to file a habeas petition. Her husband remains in detention despite having no criminal record. Reflecting on their situation, she said, “Our home burnt down, and I had told them I needed him to come help,” adding, “I assume that is the reason.”

The growing number of lawsuits continues to test the capacity of the courts as legal battles over immigration detention intensify nationwide.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) has dismissed reports suggesting that lawmakers in the United States are considering sanctions against the group, insisting that it remains a peaceful and law-abiding body.

National President of the association, Baba Othman Ngelzarma, made the position known during an interview with Trust TV. He said there was no basis for the U.S. Congress to contemplate branding the umbrella body of herders as a terrorist organisation.

Ngelzarma expressed surprise over the development. He disclosed that leaders of the association had previously held engagements with officials of the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria.

“We received the news with the greatest shock because we don’t know what the association has done to deserve such a sanction,” he said.

He explained that MACBAN was founded 42 years ago as a trade association. According to him, the body was established as a non-violent and non-religious platform to defend the interests of cattle breeders nationwide, regardless of ethnic or religious identity.

“It is a producer association created to protect the interests of cattle breeders. It is the only democratic pastoralist group we have in the country because its leadership emerges through elections,” he said.

The MACBAN president insisted that the association does not bear arms and has no link with criminal activities.

“This is an association that has never taken responsibility for any crime, has never supported criminality and is not cooperating with any group of criminals,” he stated.

He added that the organisation has maintained collaboration with security agencies in efforts to tackle crime. He noted that the partnership has come at a cost, as some of its leaders lost their lives in the process.

“As a result of this cooperation, many leaders of the association have lost their lives. So, we are really surprised that this association is still being considered for sanction,” he said.

Ngelzarma further stressed that MACBAN operates openly. He said the association runs offices across the 36 states and in local government areas, functioning within legal frameworks.

“We work with the Nigerian government at the state, local and federal levels. We also collaborate with all security agencies,” he added.

He called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to safeguard members of the association from what he described as an existential threat.

By Uzair Adam

Five members of the United States Congress have introduced a bill requiring the US Secretary of State to submit a comprehensive report on efforts to address ongoing religious persecution and mass atrocities in Nigeria.

If passed into law, the proposed legislation would mandate the Departments of State and Treasury to impose sanctions, including visa bans and asset freezes, on individuals or entities found responsible for severe violations of religious freedom in Nigeria.

Among those named in the bill for possible sanctions are a former Kano State Governor and national leader of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP), Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso; Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN); Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore; and groups described as “Fulani-ethnic nomad militias in Nigeria.”

The bill, titled Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026, was introduced on Tuesday in the US House of Representatives.

Its sponsors include Chris Smith, Riley Moore (the bill’s author), Brian Mast, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Bill Huizenga.

The lawmakers said President Donald Trump “acted justly” by redesignating Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), a classification that enables the US government to apply diplomatic and economic measures.

According to the sponsors, the United States should deploy “all available diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, and security tools to pressure the Government of Nigeria to end impunity for perpetrators of mass atrocities and religious persecution and protect Christian communities, clergy, and other targeted religious minorities.”

The bill also directs the Secretary of State to determine whether certain Fulani-ethnic militias in Nigeria meet the criteria for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

Part of the proposed legislation states that the US should provide humanitarian assistance — co-funded by the Nigerian government — through trusted civil society and faith-based organisations operating in Nigeria’s Middle Belt states.

It further urges the Departments of State and Treasury to impose targeted sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act on those responsible for serious religious freedom violations or report to Congress why such measures have not been applied.

Representative Moore, who authored the bill, has consistently maintained that Christians in Nigeria face systemic persecution. He visited Nigeria in November 2025 in connection with the issue.

In November 2025, President Trump redesignated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern, a move that paved the way for possible diplomatic and economic actions.

He also authorised coordinated strikes with the Nigerian government against suspected militants on Christmas Day 2025.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Tensions between the United States and Iran have escalated after US President Donald Trump warned that Washington could resort to military action if Tehran fails to comply with its demands on key security issues.

In remarks made to Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 and published on Tuesday, Trump suggested that the United States was prepared to act forcefully if ongoing efforts to reach an agreement with Iran collapse.

“Either we reach a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough,” Trump told the news outlet.

His warning came at a time when Iran’s security chief, Ali Larijani, held talks with Oman’s Sultan, Haitham bin Tariq Al Said. Their meeting focused on the outcome of recent discussions between American and Iranian officials.

In the past few weeks, Trump has highlighted the expansion of US military deployments around the region. He disclosed that a “massive armada” had been dispatched to nearby waters. The deployment includes the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Reports by Channel 12 and Axios also indicated that Washington is weighing the option of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East.

The growing military presence has raised fears of a possible US strike on Iran. Critics argue that such action could further destabilise an already fragile region. Earlier on Monday, the United States issued fresh guidance to commercial vessels flying its flag. The advisory urged them to remain “as far as possible” from Iranian territorial waters.

‘With Speed And Violence’

Since January, Trump has intensified pressure on Tehran. He warned that the US military is “locked and loaded and ready to go”.

He drew parallels between Iran and Venezuela, where a US military mission on January 3 led to the removal of former President Nicolas Maduro.

“Like with Venezuela, [the US military] is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary. Hopefully Iran will quickly ‘Come to the Table’ and negotiate a fair and equitable deal,” Trump wrote on social media on January 28.

Toward the end of last month, the Trump administration outlined three broad conditions for Iran. These include halting uranium enrichment, cutting ties with regional proxy groups, and restricting its ballistic missile arsenal. Israel has long pushed for such limits.

During his first presidency, Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear agreement that imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

After returning to office for a second term in January 2025, he reinstated his “maximum pressure” strategy against Tehran. The campaign features sweeping sanctions and demands to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, which Iranian authorities insist is strictly for civilian energy use.

Last June, Trump approved military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities during a 12-day conflict involving Iran and Israel.

Focus On Anti-Government Protests

Trump’s renewed threats have coincided with a fresh wave of anti-government protests inside Iran.

Authorities in Tehran responded with a violent crackdown that reportedly left thousands dead. The development drew condemnation from international human rights organisations.

Reports indicated that security forces fired live rounds at demonstrators during an internet blackout.

On January 2, one day before the Venezuela operation, Trump threatened to intervene in support of the protesters and “come to their rescue”, though no such action was eventually taken.

Some analysts believe that proposed US strikes on Iran would do little to assist protesters. They argue that military action would instead align with long-standing US and Israeli objectives of weakening Iran’s military strength.

Iranian officials maintain that armed groups infiltrated the protests and attacked security personnel, leading to the deaths of hundreds of officers. Tehran has also accused foreign powers, including the United States and Israel, of backing the unrest.

While many aspects of the protests remain difficult to independently verify, Iranian authorities have acknowledged that thousands were killed during the government response.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has criticised comments attributed to U.S. Representative Riley Moore concerning Nigeria’s unity, religious persecution, and the movement for Biafran self-determination.

In a statement released on Sunday, Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB’s Spokesperson and Media/Publicity Secretary, challenged Moore’s view that maintaining Nigeria’s territorial integrity guarantees the protection of Christians.

Moore, who recently concluded a fact-finding visit across Nigeria, warned against the country’s potential balkanisation, arguing that supporting separatist movements could endanger Christians, particularly in the North and Middle Belt regions. According to Moore, his visit included meetings with government officials, church leaders, aid organisations, and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) to examine what he described as the “rampant persecution of Christians” in the country.

IPOB, however, described Moore’s position as flawed. “With utmost respect, the position attributed to Rep. Riley Moore reflects a familiar but deeply flawed assumption: that preserving the territorial integrity of Nigeria is synonymous with protecting Christians. History proves the opposite,” the statement said. Powerful highlighted that, over the past six decades, Christians in Northern Nigeria, the Middle Belt, and parts of Yorubaland have faced “cyclical massacres, mass displacement, church burnings, and a culture of impunity enabled by the state itself.”

The group also dismissed Moore’s claim that self-determination “emboldens terrorists,” calling it “a line of reasoning born out of 9 million dollars lobbying enterprise in Washington not reason.” Powerful argued, “terror movements are not triggered by oppressed peoples seeking safety; they flourish where centralized states suppress identity, deny autonomy, and reward violence with appeasement.” He cited Afghanistan as an example where decades of military cooperation and aid collapsed while radical ideology resurged.

Referring to history, IPOB’s statement noted that persecuted religious minorities often survived because independent states provided refuge. “The religiously persecuted Huguenots did not survive Catholic France because France became tolerant. They survived because an independent Protestant England already existed — a sovereign refuge with the political will, military capacity, and moral clarity to protect them. Without Protestant England, there would have been no sanctuary for European Protestants fleeing annihilation,” it read.

Powerful linked this historical context to the current Biafran movement led by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, describing it as “not a call to violence, nor a scheme to destabilize West Africa as British/Nigerian lobbyists in Europe and USA would have us believe. It is a demand for a democratic referendum, the most peaceful conflict-resolution mechanism recognized in international law.”

The statement added that a restored Biafra “would function as a safe civilizational anchor — a homeland where Christians and people of other faiths from across Nigeria can live without fear, and from which persecuted Christians elsewhere could find refuge and protection.” IPOB also claimed that its emergence has helped reduce attacks on Igbos in Northern Nigeria, stating, “Since the emergence of the IPOB, the once-routine mass killings of Igbos in Northern Nigeria abruptly ceased. That outcome was not accidental. Collective self-assertion created deterrence where decades of appeasement failed.”

While acknowledging the value of security cooperation with the United States, IPOB argued that it addresses symptoms rather than the root causes. “Security cooperation between the United States and Nigeria may manage symptoms, but it has never cured the disease. Repeating a strategy that has failed for generations — while dismissing self-determination as dangerous — is not realism; it is historical amnesia,” the statement said.

Powerful concluded that advocacy for self-determination does not conflict with peace or countering violent extremism. “No serious advocate of peace opposes cooperation against violent extremism. But refusing to acknowledge peaceful constitutional exits, while insisting on the permanence of a demonstrably broken state, guarantees the continuation of persecution rather than its end,” he said.

The spokesperson further argued that an independent Biafra would enhance, not threaten, regional stability. “An independent Biafra, like an independent Protestant England or the State of Israel, would not threaten regional stability. It would create it — by giving persecuted peoples something they have never had within Nigeria: a sovereign place of safety.”

“True concern for Christians — and for all Nigerians — begins with intellectual honesty: forced unity has failed. Safety, dignity, and peace have always followed self-rule, not its denial,” Powerful concluded.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

President Donald Trump shared a video clip on social media that portrayed former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes. He later removed the post after strong criticism from the public and members of his own Republican Party.

The clip appeared near the end of a 62-second video that pushed conspiracy claims about irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. It featured the song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.” The post formed part of a pattern critics say reflects Mr. Trump’s history of promoting offensive imagery and language about Black Americans and other groups.

The White House initially defended the video. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the outrage in an earlier statement before the post was taken down.

“This is from an internet meme video depicting President Trump as the King of the Jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King,” she said. “Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public.”

Despite that defense, the video disappeared from the president’s social media feed hours later. Observers described the deletion as a rare reversal from Mr. Trump, who often stands by controversial online posts.

Civil rights advocates and historians noted that portraying Black people as apes draws from racist imagery used during slavery and segregation to dehumanize Black communities and justify violence.

Condemnation also came from Republican lawmakers. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only Black Republican in the Senate and a political ally of Mr. Trump, reacted on social media.

He wrote that he hoped the post was fake “because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House. The President should remove it.”

Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, also criticized the video. He said the president’s post “is wrong and incredibly offensive.” He added that it “should be deleted immediately with an apology offered.”

Mr. Trump has clashed with Mr. Obama for years. He previously promoted the false “birther” claim that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and therefore was not a legitimate U.S. president.

The latest controversy has renewed debate over rhetoric, race and political conduct as the United States approaches another election cycle.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

Prominent Nigerian Islamic scholar and critical thinker, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, has raised strong objections to the potential presence of U.S. military forces in Nigeria, calling it a dangerous move that could threaten the nation’s independence.

In a recent statement, Sheikh Gumi cautioned that powerful foreign forces often play a role in creating or fueling conflicts, only to later intervene under the guise of providing assistance. This pattern, he argued, can eventually lead to a loss of national sovereignty and control.

Gumi emphasized that Nigeria must prioritize protecting its sovereignty. He expressed confidence that, if properly equipped and supported, the Nigerian military is capable of addressing the country’s security challenges without foreign military intervention.

The warning comes amid ongoing debates over international security cooperation in Nigeria’s fight against insurgency and banditry. While some advocate for foreign support, Gumi’s remarks highlight a growing concern among certain circles about the long-term implications of external military presence on Nigeria’s self-determination.

By Anas Abbas

The United States has deployed a small contingent of military personnel to Nigeria in a move officials say is intended to strengthen cooperation against extremist violence in the West African country.

Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson, commander of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), confirmed the deployment on Tuesday, saying the team arrived after discussions between U.S. and Nigerian authorities on intensifying efforts to counter threats from Boko Haram, the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) and other armed groups.

The deployment is the first acknowledgment of U.S. forces on the ground in Nigeria since America carried out airstrikes there on Christmas Day, targeting fighters linked to the Islamic State. While details about the size, exact mission and location of the U.S. team have not been released, military officials describe their role as focused on intelligence support, coordination and enhancing Nigerian capabilities rather than leading combat operations.

Nigeria faces persistent insecurity across its north and northwest, where Boko Haram and ISWAP factions have intensified attacks on military convoys and civilian communities. These groups have waged an insurgency for nearly two decades, displacing millions and forcing the government to seek varied forms of assistance to suppress the violence.

The move follows growing diplomatic engagement between Abuja and Washington. In recent months, U.S. officials have reportedly urged Nigeria to take stronger action against extremist violence, even as the Nigerian government rejects accusations that it is failing to protect vulnerable populations. Nigerian authorities emphasize that operations target all armed groups that threaten security, irrespective of the victims’ religious identities.

The U.S. has also conducted surveillance flights over Nigeria from bases in neighboring countries, a precursor to the December airstrikes. Those strikes reportedly killed multiple militants in Sokoto State, conducted in coordination with Nigerian forces.

While the current deployment is limited in scope, it marks a notable shift toward deeper military cooperation between the two countries at a time when Nigeria’s security challenges remain acute.

Newly released documents have revealed email exchanges between late financier Jeffrey Epstein and an associate, David Stern, over a possible business venture involving Nigeria’s crude oil.

The materials are reportedly part of a broader set of records made public by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

According to Premium Times in Nigeria, an email dated 20 September 2010 showed Mr Stern informing Mr Epstein of what he described as a lucrative opportunity in brokering or flipping Nigerian crude oil.

The correspondence said a contact identified as “PA” suggested meetings with individuals who had access to buy the oil and resell it to China, with projected profits running into millions of dollars.

“PA has asked me to see a guy who has access to Nigerian oil, and when selling it to China (or somebody else), F. can make around $6m.”

Despite the promise of high returns, doubts were clearly expressed in the exchange.

“This seems very fishy (as my boss JEE would say),” Mr Stern wrote.

Nigeria, which remains Africa’s largest oil producer, has long battled problems of opacity in its oil sector. Illegal trading on the black market has persisted for decades, while attempts by successive governments to enforce transparency have recorded limited success. The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited only began publishing audited accounts in recent years.

The email conversation between Mr Epstein and Mr Stern was among several communications uncovered in the newly released files. Before his death in July 2019, Mr Epstein exchanged messages with members of his wealthy and influential circle on business interests, investment prospects, and planned visits. Nigeria featured in several of these discussions.

In another exchange from 2010, Mr Epstein received a message from George Reenstra, founder of Aircraft Service Group, an American aircraft servicing firm. Mr Reenstra informed him of an urgent trip to Nigeria to meet then-President Goodluck Jonathan.

“I unexpectedly must leave this evening for Nigeria. I have tried hard to delay this trip but it is with the the country President and I have no alternative,” Mr Reenstra wrote on 27 September 2010, about four months after Mr Jonathan assumed office. There is no confirmation that the meeting with the Nigerian president eventually took place.

Mr Reenstra also assured Mr Epstein that arrangements for their ongoing business discussions had been delegated.

“I have passed all the documentation to my partner, Jon Parker, and he will be able to assist you in completing the transaction. I will have email access but not the ability to open attachments. Hopefully we can resolve the contract issues and get the funds into deposit early this week per our telephone and e-mail exchanges of last week,” he added.

Mr Epstein was awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, to which he pleaded not guilty, when he died in custody in 2019. His death, ruled a suicide, intensified public pressure for the release of records detailing his activities and associations.

The calls grew louder after President Donald Trump returned to office, as many believed the public deserved a full account of the financier’s network. The latest documents indicate that several figures linked to Mr Trump had interacted with Mr Epstein over the years. Mr Trump has acknowledged knowing Mr Epstein but insists he severed ties long before the financier’s arrest.

The files also reference prominent global figures, including former US President Bill Clinton, technology billionaire Elon Musk, and Britain’s Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Mr Epstein maintained close ties with many wealthy and powerful individuals.

Among the documents is correspondence showing an invitation for Mr Epstein to dine at Buckingham Palace. In another exchange, he offered to introduce Prince Andrew to a 26-year-old Russian woman. Photographs in the files appear to show the prince kneeling over an unidentified woman lying on the floor.

Prince Andrew previously claimed he had no contact with Mr Epstein after a visit to the financier’s New York residence in December 2010. However, the documents indicate emails were exchanged in February 2011.

Mr Musk’s name also appeared multiple times, including messages from 2012 to 2013 in which he discussed the possibility of visiting Mr Epstein’s Caribbean island. In 2019, the Tesla chief publicly distanced himself from Mr Epstein, describing him as “obviously a creep” who “tried repeatedly to get me to visit his island.” He said he declined the invitations.

The records further revealed that the current US Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, arranged a visit to Mr Epstein’s island in 2012. They also showed cordial exchanges between Mr Epstein and Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Mr Trump.

In a January 2019 email, Mr Epstein asked Mr Bannon if he had received an Apple Watch sent as a Christmas gift. Days later, he invited him to “come join” him in New York.

The latest disclosures have renewed scrutiny of Mr Epstein’s far-reaching connections and the extent of his dealings across business, politics, and international networks.