International And Domestic Impact Of The Maldives-Mauritius Dispute Over The Chagos Islands – Analysis


A B-2 bomber takes off, with B-52 bombers on tarmac on Diego Garcia. Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Nathan G. Bevier


February 9, 2026
By P. K. Balachandran



The revival of the Maldives-Mauritius dispute over the Chagos Islands and the waters around them has significant implications for the strategic interests of the US, UK, and India in the Indian Ocean, as well as for President Muizzu’s standing among the Maldivian electorate.

The Maldivian President, Dr Mohamed Muizzu, has taken a belligerent stance against Mauritius, following the UK and Mauritius’ agreement in May 2025, under which Mauritius will acquire sovereignty over the Chagos Islands but lease Diego Garcia to the UK for 99 years. The UK, in turn, will allow the US to continue using its base in Diego Garcia. Maldives protested against the deal as it says that the Chagos Islands should have been transferred to it because-

1. The islands are closer to it than they are to Mauritius – Diego Garcia is only 310 miles from Malé, the Maldivian capital, while it is 1,300 miles from Port Louis, the capital of Mauritius.

2. Historically, Maldivian fishermen had been visiting the island, proof of which still exists.

“The Maldives has historical connections to the Chagos Islands – known to us as Foalhavahi – which lie south of Maldivian waters,” President Muizzu told the Daily Express, a British tabloid, in January. “These connections are based on documentary evidence, and we believe gives the Maldives a greater claim than any other country,” he argued.

Maldivians knew of the Chagos Islands centuries before colonial powers arrived in the Indian Ocean. Maldivian ancestors named it in the Dhivehi language, Muizzu said, and cited mentions in Maldivian navigation documents about Maldivians “going fishing there day-to-day with ease.”

There are 900-year-old gravestones on Chagos etched in the Maldivian language, Dhivehi, predating the arrival of people in Mauritius. Mauritius was uninhabited before the 17th century when Dutch, French, and British colonialists arrived. There is a 16th Century patent from a Maldivian King asserting sovereignty over the islands. DNA evidence showed that modern Chagossians have Maldivian and Creole heritage.

Timeline of Events

In February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that continuing British occupation of the Chagos Islands is illegal. After this, the UN General Assembly, through a non-binding resolution, called upon Britain to cede Chagos to Mauritius within six months. The Maldives voted against the resolution, along with the UK, US, Australia, Israel, and Hungary, because it could undermine a 2010 bid to establish the outer limits of the continental shelf between the Maldives and Chagos.

In April 2023, an International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) apportioned 47,232 square kilometres to the Maldives and 45,331 square kilometres to Mauritius.

Bolstered by the ICJ opinion on the issue, Mauritius asked ITLOS to delimit the maritime boundary in the overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).

Subsequently, Maldives toned down its opposition to the transfer of Chagos Islands to Mauritius. In October 2022, the Maldivian Attorney General, Ibrahim Riffath, said that President Ibrahim Solih had informed the Mauritius Prime Minister in August that the Maldives would vote in favour of Mauritius on a General Assembly resolution about the return of the Chagos Isands to Mauritius.

Solih’s backing down from a traditional Maldivian stand on the issue, unleashed a political firestorm in the Maldives. The opposition accused the Solih administration of “treason” and “selling” Maldivian territorial waters. Former President Abdulla Yameen alleged bribery, while former President Mohamed Nasheed called asked Solih to reject the transfer directive.

Muizzu took office in November 2023 with a pledge to reclaim the Chagos islands and the waters around them. The Attorney General formed a three-member committee to review the case and to recover the forfeited territory from the “Maldivian sea.”

Based on the advice of international experts, President Muizzu asked the Attorney General Ahmed Usham to present a position paper to the cabinet. Legal proceedings were initiated thereafter.

Muizzu reversed the previous administration’s recognition of Mauritius’s sovereignty over the archipelago.

He told parliament on Thursday that Maldives does not recognise any changes to the territories already defined in the country’s Constitution. He rejected the maritime boundary drawn between the Maldives and the Chagos Islands by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLS) in 2023, which had divided the Exclusive Economic Zones.

He said that the government will revise the Maritime Zones Act of 1996 to this effect. He also announced plans to amend the law to formally designate a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as sovereign “Maldivian territory.”

The government has since formally communicated its decision to withdraw the August 2022 letter written by President Solih to the Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Kumar Jugnauth. Muizzu’s letter notes that the sudden and unexplained change in the position made by the previous Solih administration, midway through the ITLOS proceedings, had hurt the Maldives’ interests in the case. Furthermore, the government held that this shift was “unreasonable, unjustified, and made without due process.”

Muizzu said that he had brought the matter to the attention of the British Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy during a phone call on December 15, 2025, and sought talks on the issue. The Maldives had formally objected to the British government on November 8, 2024 and again on January 18, 2026.

Following the President’s address on Thursday, the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) started patrolling the disputed maritime zone.
Trump’s Somersault

Following the UK-Mauritius agreement of May 2025, US President Donald Trump condemned the deal in harsh terms. Presumably, he feared that a pro-Chinese or a pro-Indian government in Mauritius could terminate the lease and the US would lose Diego Garcia base.

The Maldivians were happy with Trump’s castigation. But joy was short-lived because Trump and the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made up. Trump then described the deal as the best under the circumstances for the UK and the US .

Be that as it may, President Muizzu decided not to slacken his stance. He continued to press the Maldives’ claim, exploiting popular support over the issue. Support on this could yield votes for his party, the Peoples’ National Congress (PNC), in the March 28 local body elections. These elections are crucial for Muizzu, whose ratings have come down because of his inability to manage Maldives’ debts. A recent poll had found that former President Abdulla Yameen was the single most popular leader. Yameen topped the rankings with an average score of 5.6 out of 10, placing him clearly ahead of the other leaders.
Nasheed’s Speculation

Meanwhile, former President Mohamed Nasheed stated that Muizzu’s stepped- up actions on the Chagos issue could be having the prior but tacit consent of the UK and the US.

In a post on X, Nasheed said that Trump’s concurrence with the UK’s decision did not necessarily mean that he actually agreed with ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

“The US and UK can now state that the Maldives’ claim should be investigated. They can say Chagos cannot be handed over to Mauritius,” Nasheed said.

He also maintained that recent operations in the EEZ by the Maldivian Coast Guard could have been conducted with the tacit approval of the UK and US.
Muizzu’s Offer to US

Interestingly, Muizzu, a pro-China leftist, has moved close to the US. In an interview to Newsweek, he had offered to let the US maintain its military presence on Diego Garcia if sovereignty was transferred to the Maldives.

“President Trump clearly seeks to protect and secure the continuation of the use of Chagos for the US Naval Support Facility at Diego Garcia,” Muizzu said, adding that he would “seek approval of this through the Maldivian parliament as per our constitution, to facilitate the continuation of the status quo.”
Implications of India’s Support for Mauritius

The Maldives-Mauritius dispute has great implications for India, an Indian Ocean power. India has been a consistent supporter of Mauritius, mainly because 70% of the people of Mauritius are of Indian origin, who are mainly from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in North India, the centre of power in India lies.

The foreign and security policies of Mauritius have been heavily influenced by India. Its National Security Advisor has always been an Indian nominee. There has never been a threat of Mauritius becoming pro-China, which cannot be said of the Maldives. In fact, President Abdulla Yameen and Mohamed Muizzu had led an “India Out” campaign.

No wonder an Indian External Affairs Ministry statement said, after the transfer of sovereignty over Chagos to Mauritius, that India has consistently supported Mauritius’ legitimate claim over the Chagos Archipelago in keeping with its principled position on decolonisation, respect for sovereignty, and the territorial integrity of nations.

“As a steadfast and longstanding partner of Mauritius, India remains committed to working closely with Mauritius and other like-minded countries to strengthen maritime security and regional stability and ensure peace and prosperity in the Indian Ocean region,” the Indian statement said.

The Maldives and Mauritius are different kettles of fish. Unlike Mauritius, Maldives is a 100% Muslim country, and India is 80% Hindu.

However, President Solih’s regime was markedly pro-India. An not surprisingly, Solih had told the Mauritian PM that the Maldives would support Mauritius’ case on the Chagos Islands.

Muizzu’s stand on Chagos Islands against Mauritius could well strain Indo-Maldivian ties. How New Delhi will handle the dispute now will be keenly watched in the Indian Ocean region. What the UK and the mercurial Donald Trump will do in the months to come will also have a great impact on Male, Port Louis and New Delhi.



P. K. Balachandran

P. K. Balachandran is a senior Indian journalist working in Sri Lanka for local and international media and has been writing on South Asian issues for the past 21 years.

Berlin Rally Backs Iran’s Democratic Revolution, Rejects Dictatorship, Turnout Estimated At Over 100,000 – OpEd


Iranian Resistance Berlin Rally February 7, 2026. Photo Credit: PMOI


February 9, 2026
By Matin Karim

Under the freezing skies of Berlin, with temperatures dropping well below zero, more than 100,000 Iranians and international supporters gathered at the historic Brandenburg Gate, according to the Express. Undeterred by the biting cold and logistical hurdles, including widespread flight and train cancellations, the massive crowd turned the heart of Germany into a resounding stage for the Iranian Resistance.

The rally, held to mark the anniversary of Iran’s 1979 anti-monarchical revolution, took on a distinct and urgent gravity this year. It convened in the immediate aftermath of a nationwide uprising that swept across Iran in late December 2025 and early January 2026. This recent explosion of public anger saw the clerical regime respond with unprecedented brutality, leaving thousands of protesters dead.

Prominent European and American dignitaries joined Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), to declare that the era of theocratic rule in Iran is drawing to a definitive close. The event underscored a shift in global perspective, moving away from appeasement and toward a recognition of the Iranian people’s right to self-defense and regime change.
Maryam Rajavi: The Countdown to Overthrow Has Begun

In her keynote address, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi set the tone for the event by drawing a direct line between the 1979 revolution against the Shah and the current uprising against the mullahs. She described the recent unrest as a turning point that has shattered the regime’s perceived stability.

“The January uprising turned crimson, but with the blood of a galaxy of martyrs and thousands of devoted souls and with the fury of a heroic nation, it shook Iran and the world,” Mrs. Rajavi declared. She emphasized that the sheer scale of the sacrifice has made the regime’s downfall an inevitability visible to the entire world. “For years and years, we said: overthrow, overthrow. And now, everyone sees it is approaching with their own eyes and hears its footsteps.”



Mrs. Rajavi outlined a specific path forward, rejecting both the current theocracy and any return to the monarchical dictatorship of the past. She presented a comprehensive six-point demand to world leaders, calling for the recognition of the Iranian people’s struggle, the prosecution of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for crimes against humanity, the closure of regime embassies, and immediate UN action to halt the execution of uprising detainees. Her speech culminated in a vow that the democratic revolution, fueled by the “Resistance Units,” would inevitably triumph where the 1979 revolution was hijacked.
The January Uprising: A Revolution in Blood and Fire

A central theme of the conference was the recognition of the recent December 2025 and January 2026 protests not merely as civil unrest, but as a full-scale revolution. Speakers provided harrowing details regarding the intensity of the conflict and the regime’s lethal response.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo provided a stark assessment of the death toll, highlighting the severity of the regime’s crackdown. “The massacre of January 8th and January 9th killed at least 20,000, perhaps twice that many,” Pompeo stated, describing the events as a “murderous rampage” by a regime nearing its death. He noted that while protests have occurred before, the recent events represent a “hinge point” in history where the Iranian people have definitively signaled the end of the Islamic Republic.

This sentiment was echoed by Mrs. Rajavi, who lamented the loss of young lives, noting that “14- and 15-year-old girls continue to be gunned down in the streets.” She described the uprising as a “lightning assault” that showed the path to freedom, driven by a generation unwilling to submit to tyranny.

Peter Altmaier, former German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs, addressed the heroes of the uprising directly, acknowledging those who lost their lives or are currently languishing in prisons. He emphasized that the regime has “lost all legitimacy” by treating its citizens with a level of cruelty unmatched globally. “During the various uprisings, the mullahs’ regime shot tens of thousands; tens of thousands were executed, and tens of thousands are sitting in prisons,” Altmaier observed, reinforcing the scale of the humanitarian crisis.
Rejecting the “Hijackers”: No to Shah, No to Mullahs

A significant portion of the rally was dedicated to clarifying the political identity of the uprising. Speakers were unified in their rejection of the “two dictatorships”—the deposed Pahlavi monarchy and the current religious tyranny. This dual rejection was presented as the guiding principle of the current revolution.

Charles Michel, former President of the European Council, delivered a stinging critique of attempts by the remnants of the Shah’s regime to co-opt the current movement. He warned against those seeking to “steal your dreams and aspirations,” specifically pointing to the son of the Shah.

“Being the son of a dictator should inspire shame and humility,” Michel argued. He accused the remnants of the shah regime of using “industrial artificial intelligence bots” and massive financial resources to manufacture a fake image of support. “He seeks to create a fake image of support to manipulate and attempt to hijack the future of the Iranian people once again,” Michel said, drawing a sharp contrast between the “organized resistance” that seeks democracy and those who feel entitled to rule by lineage.

Mrs. Rajavi reinforced this narrative, categorizing the political landscape into three sides: the rebels sacrificing for freedom, the murderous clerics, and the “remnants of the Shah.” She described the slogan “Long Live the Shah” as “ultra-reactionary” and a tool that ultimately serves the current Supreme Leader by dividing the opposition and justifying suppression. “Anyone who imagines they can hijack Iran’s new democratic revolution… are gravely mistaken,” she affirmed.

Mike Pompeo also weighed in, stating that the Iranian people have made their preferences “abundantly clear” through repeated uprisings: “They do not want theocracy, they do not want autocracy, and they do not want a monarchy.”
The Organized Resistance and the “Third Option”

Countering the narrative that the alternative to the Iranian regime is chaos, the speakers highlighted the role of the NCRI and the PMOI/MEK as a viable, organized democratic alternative. They argued that the “Third Option”—neither foreign war nor appeasement—relies on empowering the Iranian people and their organized resistance.

Charles Michel articulated this explicitly: “There is an alternative! There is the mobilization of the people of Iran… The Ten-Point Plan is the right recipe to move from tyranny to democracy.” He praised the plan for its commitment to a secular system, gender equality, and the abolition of the death penalty. “The Ten-Point Plan is a solid bridge from oppression to liberty,” Michel concluded.

Mike Pompeo pointed to the “Resistance Units” inside Iran as the engine of the recent uprisings. “The uprisings that we have seen in these past days didn’t come out of nowhere… They are rooted in a Resistance now four decades in the making,” he said. He emphasized that the NCRI has built the capacity for popular support and laid out a systemic plan for a transition period, stressing that this movement does not ask for foreign soldiers but for recognition.

Mrs. Rajavi detailed the mechanics of the proposed transition, reiterating the NCRI’s commitment to a Constituent Assembly elected within six months of the regime’s overthrow to draft a new constitution. She highlighted the presence of the “National Liberation Army” and the “Resistance Units” as the forces capable of preventing disorder and instability in the post-regime vacuum.
Condemnation of Human Rights Abuses and the “Wall of Fear”

The rally took place in the shadow of the Brandenburg Gate, a location invoked by several speakers to symbolize the breaking of barriers. Charles Michel compared the Berlin Wall to the “wall of fear” in Iran—a divide between oppression and freedom. “It is a reminder that no wall is eternal and that freedom cannot be defeated forever,” he told the crowd.

Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, former German Federal Minister of Justice, focused her address on the severe human rights violations occurring inside Iran’s prisons. She reminded the audience of the “torture chambers” and the reality that people are being “arrested, tortured, murdered, and executed” simply for demanding basic rights.

“What this mullahs’ regime is criminally and brutally inflicting on its own citizens in Iran cannot be accepted,” Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger stated. She highlighted the specific plight of women, noting their fight for the right to “go out on the streets without a headscarf—without having to fear disappearing into torture chambers for years.”

The speakers collectively painted a picture of a regime that has resorted to taking foreign hostages and massacring its own youth as a desperate survival tactic. As Michel noted, “Their cruelty is a desperate sign of weakness… This regime is more fragile and isolated than ever.”
Policy Demands: End Appeasement, Sanction the IRGC

A unified demand emerging from the Berlin rally was for Western governments to fundamentally alter their policy toward Tehran. The era of engagement and “appeasement” was declared dead, with speakers calling for tangible, punitive measures against the regime’s apparatus of suppression.

Peter Altmaier was emphatic in his message to Western capitals: “All hopes that this regime would modernize… were false.” He welcomed the EU’s designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization but termed it “only a first step.” Altmaier called for tougher sanctions and urged the free press to increase its coverage of the atrocities in Iran.

Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger criticized ongoing diplomatic efforts, specifically mentioning negotiations via Oman regarding the nuclear deal. “What belongs in such talks, if they are already taking place?” she asked. She insisted that no talks should proceed without the primary demand being the release of uprising detainees. “One cannot continue with negotiations and then return to business as usual,” she argued, calling for a halt to financial flows that line the mullahs’ pockets.

Mike Pompeo, drawing on his experience implementing the “Maximum Pressure” campaign, reiterated that the regime is incapable of reform. “We need a policy that is grounded in strategic and moral clarity,” he said. He expressed confidence that the U.S. administration would continue to “cut off the lifelines” of the regime, noting recent sanctions on Iranian crude oil.

Maryam Rajavi provided a specific policy roadmap for the international community. Her demands included referring the regime’s leaders to the UN Security Council for prosecution, completely cutting off the regime’s financial resources, and providing the facilities necessary to ensure the Iranian people have access to a free and open internet to bypass state censorship.

The rally in Berlin concluded with a message of profound optimism despite the grim circumstances of the recent massacres. The speakers concurred that the sheer magnitude of the January 2026 uprising, combined with the organized nature of the resistance, signaled that the clerical regime has entered its final phase.

Mike Pompeo summarized the sentiment of the day: “Today, it is unequivocal and unmistakable that we are at a hinge point in Iran’s history… The Iranian people will prove fearless.”

“The decaying forces will be swept from the stage of history,” Mrs. Rajavi quoted the slain resistance leader Moussa Khiabani, assuring that the revolution would prevail.




Matin Karim

Matin Karim writes for the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK)

The Polar Vortex: Background And Forecasting – Analysis


Polar vortex and weather impacts due to stratospheric warming. Credit: National Science Foundation, Wikipedia Commons

February 9, 2026 0 Comments

By CRS
By Eva Lipiec

In recent years, broadcast meteorologists and the media have begun using the term polar vortex to describe some instances of unseasonable temperatures and storms across the United States during the winter months. The polar vortex is a regular seasonal occurrence, and disruptions to it can cause both milder- and colder-than-average temperatures across North America.

For example, in February 2021, the South-Central United States experienced an influx of record-breaking cold air from the north with accompanying snow and ice (Figure 1), contributing to over $20 billion in economic losses and more than 220 fatalities. During that event, multiple sectors experienced damage and losses, including agriculture and water and electric utilities, resulting in nearly 10 million Texans without power at one point. Congress has shown interest in protecting life and property from extreme weather events associated with disruptions to the polar vortex and may consider whether to modify the federal government’s role in forecasting and researching such events.

Figure 1. Mean Temperature Departures from Average, February 7-21, 2021. Average Period: 1981-2010. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information, “Monthly Climate Reports – Synoptic Discussion February 2021.”

The Arctic stratospheric polar vortex (hereinafter polar vortex) is a strong band of winds about 10 to 30 miles above the Earth’s surface that forms every winter. In typical years, a stable polar vortex and the polar jet stream (another band of strong winds, hereinafter jet stream) work together to contain cold air at higher latitudes (Figure 2). Every so often, the polar vortex weakens, shifts, or splits into multiple vortices. When this occurs, the jet stream becomes “wavy” and cold air moves south and warm air moves north, producing a disrupted polar vortex. Meteorologists sometimes identify these cold air pulses as Arctic blasts or cold air outbreaks. The polar vortex and jet stream are two of several simultaneous global atmospheric patterns created by the interaction of the Earth, its tilt, and the sun’s rays. Scientists have not observed a long-term trend or pattern in disruptions to the polar vortex. Some models predict that increased warming and reductions in sea ice cover will produce a weaker polar vortex; others predict a stronger polar vortex.
Forecasting

Congress has authorized the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Administrator, to forecast weather and issue storm warnings (15 U.S.C. §313 and §313 notes). NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters examine atmospheric conditions at the North Pole and forecast changes to the polar vortex. Forecasters generally are able to predict specific disruptions to the polar vortex a few days to about two weeks ahead of time; the disruption’s associated impacts on U.S. weather can last for weeks to months. NOAA forecasters issue watches and warnings for hazards associated with these disruptions, such as extreme cold, freezes, frosts, blizzards, winter storms (snow, ice, sleet, or blowing snow), and ice storms. Forecasters provide their predictions and other services to various stakeholders, such as emergency managers, government partners, members of the media, and the public, to help with preparedness and response efforts.


Research

Congress has directed NOAA and other federal agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration) to perform and support research that could address some outstanding research questions. These include the relationships between the polar vortex, other parts of the atmosphere, other global atmospheric patterns, and environmental conditions (e.g., surface temperature and pressure, sea ice cover), as well as the impact of climate change on those patterns and conditions. NOAA historically has funded research at its laboratories and cooperative institutes, such as the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and the Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies, as well as through competitive grants from NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).
Considerations for Congress

The Trump Administration has taken steps to change NOAA’s implementation and support of forecasting and research; Congress may consider whether to take additional steps to codify, modify, or reverse the Administration’s actions. The Administration’s actions include pausing disbursement of NOAA funds appropriated through P.L. 117-169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), in January 2025 and proposing to eliminate funding for some programs (e.g., climate labs and cooperative institutes, climate competitive research) and to dissolve OAR in FY2026. In July 2025, Congress rescinded unobligated balances of IRA funding for NOAA (P.L. 119-21 §40008). CRS was unable to identify how the Administration’s pause and congressional rescission of IRA funds may have specifically impacted NOAA’s weather and climate forecasting and research efforts. In January 2026, Congress supported “full staffing levels at all Weather Forecast Offices,” provided funding for weather and climate forecasting and research, and retained OAR, as described in the explanatory statement accompanying the FY2026 NOAA appropriations law (P.L. 119-74).

Some may assert that Congress should put greater emphasis on forecasting and researching the impacts of polar vortex disruptions. Congress could do so by directing NOAA to focus on the phenomena in existing programs or create a new standalone program for certain weather events, such as the hurricane forecast improvement program (15 U.S.C. §8514). Others may note that disruptions to the polar vortex and their impacts are already part of NOAA’s weather forecasting activities or that extreme events are rare and do not warrant additional attention.

Others may emphasize to Congress that a greater understanding of the relationships between atmospheric and other environmental components broadly could increase the lead time and accuracy of forecasts of both disruptions to the polar vortex and the resulting extreme winter weather, among other phenomena. Improved forecasts could further protect life and property. The 119th Congress is considering directing NOAA to improve weather forecasting broadly across multiple components and timescales (e.g., H.R. 5089, see CRS In Focus IF12698, Weather Act Reauthorization Act of 2025 (H.R. 3816 and H.R. 5089)) and may deliberate additional directives.

Congress also could address aspects of polar vortex-related weather forecast communication. For example, scientists have found that the term polar vortex is used by the media but that the “use of the term without adequate explanation can suggest a more dramatic change to the global [atmospheric] circulation than has actually occurred.” Poor use of the term may cause unnecessary public alarm or, alternatively, may put life and property at risk if the public and emergency managers misunderstand the potential severity of an event. Congress has previously required NOAA to assess and recommend improvements to the communication of hazardous weather events (P.L. 115-25, §406). NOAA continues to update its hazard communications (e.g., cold weather products) and to fund social science research as it relates to improving weather forecast understanding and response (e.g., FY2025 funded projects). Given how the term polar vortex is sometimes misused, Congress could direct or encourage NOAA to improve its polar vortex-related weather forecast communication and/or to provide training to its partners, among other actions, to further protect life and property.

Source: Rebecca Lindsey, “Understanding the Arctic Polar Vortex,” Climate.gov, March 5, 2021

.About the author: Eva Lipiec, Specialist in Natural Resource Policy

Source: This article was published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS



CRS

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.

 

Think before you ink: Research suggests tattoos could cause cancer, but how concerned should we be?

Copyright Canva

By Amber Louise Bryce

Published on 09/02/2026 -  EURONEWS

Tattoos are more popular than ever, but a growing body of research suggests a link between permanent ink and the development of certain types of cancer. How concerned should people be?

From tribal sleeves to lower-back butterflies, humans have been inking their skin for thousands of years.

For most people, the fear of future regrets is the main concern. But a growing body of research suggests tattoos could also carry more serious health risks.

Tattoos have increased in popularity over recent years, with around 13 to 21 percent of Western Europe now brandishing one, according to a study in the European Journal of Public Health.

Despite their prevalence, surprisingly little is known about the potential long-term health effects.

Previous research has found evidence that tattoo ink accumulates in human lymph nodes, which can lead to inflammation and - in rare cases - lymphoma (a type of blood cancer).

More recently, a 2025 study by the University of Southern Denmark (SDU) reported that those with tattoos have an increased risk of developing skin cancer and lymphoma.

Relate

Using a cohort of randomly selected twins, the researchers compared those who had a form of cancer with those who didn’t. The tattooed twins had nearly four times the risk of skin cancer, according to the study, which was published in the journal BMC Public Health.

It also noted that tattoo size could play a part, with anything larger than palm-sized potentially heightening risk.

“We have evidence that there is an association [between the amount of ink and risk] for lymphoma and for skin cancer,” Signe Bedsted Clemmensen, the study’s co-author and assistant professor of biostatistics at SDU, told Euronews Health.

“For lymphoma, the hazard rate is 2.7 times higher, so this is quite a lot. And for skin cancers, before it was 1.6 and now it's 2.4. This indicates that the more ink you have, the higher the risk, the higher the hazard rate,” she added.

It’s important to note, however, that these findings are still in their earliest stages - and limited due to the vast amount of contributing variables. For example, ink types, tattoo placements, cancer subtypes, and other genetic and environmental factors all need to be taken into account for a more accurate analysis.

“The bottom line is, more research is needed,” Clemmensen said, noting that future investigations require larger cohort studies across longer spans of time.

“But also, the next step I think is studying the biological mechanisms [of getting tattooed] and trying to understand what happens there.”

Related

How concerned should we be about tattoos?

There’s no concrete evidence that tattoos cause cancer, but there are still other risks to be aware of.

These include ensuring the equipment being used is sterile to avoid infection and that the inks themselves are safe.

All tattoo inks are made up of a pigment (to add colour) and a carrier fluid (to implant colour into the middle layer of the skin, known as the dermis).

Due to most tattoo inks being imported from around the world, their ingredients can be hard to keep track of - and sometimes contain harmful substances.

“Some inks contain trace amounts of heavy metals, including nickel, chromium, cobalt and occasionally lead,” Manal Mohammed, a professor in medical microbiology at the University of Westminster, wrote in a piece for The Conversation. “Heavy metals can be toxic at certain levels and are well known for triggering allergic reactions and immune sensitivity.”

In 2022, the European Union restricted more than 4,000 hazardous substances in tattoo ink and permanent make-up under its REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regulations. This includes anything classified as carcinogenic or mutagenic, with all tattoo inks requiring clear labelling.

Regulation is less strict in other countries - something the United Kingdom is currently tackling, having recently published plans to implement its own set of restrictions under UK REACH.

Ultimately, tattoos are considered safe if carried out hygienically, with the caveat that - as with most things in life - there could be a risk of long-term harm.

But we just don’t know enough yet to answer for sure, according to Clemmensen.

“It’s up to each of us how we choose to live our lives, right? But as a researcher, it’s also my job to inform people of these risks,” she said.

“Or, when it comes to tattooing, right now it's more about informing people about how little we know.”

 

Ayahuasca retreats are booming in Spain, one of the only European countries with a legal loophole

Copyright WeareAvalon

By Rebecca Ann Hughes

Published on 07/02/2026 - EURONEWS

Ayahuasca has boomed in popularity as a wellness practice in recent years.

As dark falls, Taita Isaías Muñoz Macanilla, a traditional doctor and an Indigenous activist from Putumayo, cleanses a tree-fringed outdoor clearing and the participants seated in a circle in preparation for their first ayahuasca ceremony.

But they are not in the Amazon. Instead, they are in a boutique hotel in Barcelona.

Ayahuasca, a psychoactive, plant-based brew found in South America and used in traditional medicine and shamanism, has boomed in popularity as a wellness practice in recent years.

But given that the decoction contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which induces intense visions, purging, and powerful psychological experiences in users, it is banned in most European countries.

Spain and Portugal are exceptions, however, which has given rise to a growing number of ayahuasca retreats that are much more accessible to Europeans.

Why ayahuasca travellers are swapping South America for Spain

Dozens of retreat centres now invite alternative wellness-seeking travellers to remote spots in Peru and Brazil to experience deep-rooted ayahuasca traditions.

The Indigenous practice has sparked increasing interest in the West, amplified by the rise of spiritual tourism, public disclosures by celebrities about their use of psychedelics, and broader cultural conversations around mental health and spirituality, according to Alejandro Carbó, founder of Avalon retreats.

Carbó’s programmes connect guests to traditional ayahuasca practitioners, but are part of a growing number of experiences much closer to home for Europeans.

Ayahuasca is a psychoactive, plant-based brew found in South America and used in traditional medicine and shamanism. WeareAvalon

His retreats are located in Spain and Portugal, countries which he says travellers are increasingly drawn to for a combination of practical, cultural and perceptual reasons.

“Reduced travel time and costs make these retreats far more accessible, while European standards of accommodation, food, hygiene and services provide a level of comfort many participants expect,” Carbó says.

At Avalon’s retreats, there are doctors, psychologists and integration guides on hand, for example.

“There is also greater trust rooted in familiarity with the culture, territory, food and social norms, which lowers the psychological threshold for participation,” Carbó says.

Both countries have long been favoured as holiday destinations for Europeans, plus retreats commonly integrate other wellness activities like yoga, art therapy and meditation tailored to established Western tastes.

Spain and Portugal are ‘unique permissive environments’ for ayahuasca

As interest in ayahuasca retreats in Europe grows, so do concerns around safety and cultural appropriation

“In my opinion, European retreat founders should act as bridges between two worlds: the Amazonian and the Western,” says Carbó.

Carbó’s programmes connect guests to traditional ayahuasca practitioners. WeareAvalon

“They should work in partnership with Indigenous traditions, the legitimate inheritors of this ancestral wisdom, while at the same time adapting the ritual for non-Indigenous participants, their needs, and a context (territory, legality and safety) different from its place of origin.”

Legal issues mean most European countries are off-limits for practising ayahuasca, but ​Spain and Portugal are often described as uniquely “permissive” environments, Carbó explains.

“This is not because ayahuasca is explicitly legal, but because of how their legal frameworks operate in practice. In both countries, ayahuasca as a brew is not specifically scheduled, which places it in a legal grey zone rather than under a clear prohibition,” he says.

Relate

In Spain, this permissiveness is largely shaped by jurisprudence, where courts have tended to distinguish private, non-commercial use from trafficking or public harm.

In Portugal, the country’s permissive reputation is closely linked to the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use in 2001 and the resulting public-health-oriented approach to enforcement, according to Carbó.

“That said, this permissiveness is inherently fragile, as it relies on discretion and context rather than on explicit legal protection, and can quickly shift in response to political pressure or adverse events,” he adds.

 

'Nobody gives us any incentive': A family's solitary fight to save endangered plants in the Amazon

Copyright AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa

By Gonzalo Solano with AP

Published on 09/02/2026 - EURONEWS

Pucha and his family have spent years building a 'living laboratory' and a vital seed bank in the Ecuadorian Amazon jungle.

On a recent journey into the Ecuadorian Amazon jungle, Ramón Pucha realized he was being trailed. Fresh puma tracks now lined the path alongside his own footprints. Unfazed, he continued his trek, focused entirely on the precious cargo he carried – seeds from some of the world’s most endangered plant species.

Pucha and his family have spent years recreating their own piece of jungle with rescued species on a 32-hectare farm called El Picaflor in the Indigenous Quichua community of Alto Ila, 128 kilometres southeast of the capital, Quito.

“I have a passion for nature, for plants, for animals,” says Pucha, 51, noting that his drive to protect the environment is so intense that many people in his community consider him “crazy.”

Ramon Pucha, his son Jhoel, and his wife Marlene cross the Alto Ila River during an expedition to search for native seeds to grow on their farm, in Ecuador's Amazon region. AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa

Saving the Amazon, one seed at a time

To save endangered plant species, Pucha ventures deep into the jungle, often alone, for up to five days at a time. On more than one occasion, he said he returned empty-handed because – as a consequence of climate change and severe droughts across the region – many of the large trees had stopped producing seeds annually.

Once the seeds reach home, Pucha’s wife, Marlene Chiluisa, takes charge. She plants them in suitable soil and compost so that they can begin to grow into plants that are then replanted in the rainforest. The family even shares the fruits of their labor, selling or gifting a percentage of the plants to neighbours committed to forest regeneration.

Related

Jhoel, the couple's 21-year-old son, has stepped into his father’s role as the family’s successor. An expert botanist, he moves through the forest identifying plants by their common, traditional and scientific names with ease. He also serves as a guide, ferrying visitors across the turbulent Ila River in a precarious craft made of wooden planks lashed to a buoy.

Yet, for all their effort, the family’s struggle remains a solitary one.

“Nobody gives us any incentive – not the government, not foundations, not anyone,” says Chiluisa.

Ecuador's Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock recognises the importance of the family's work, calling El Picaflor a “living laboratory” and a vital seed bank in an area scarred by 50 years of constant logging.

But while Ecuador was the first country to enshrine the “rights of nature” in its constitution, that reputation is now at risk. Environmentalists and Indigenous groups warn that President Daniel Noboa’s decision to merge the Ministry of Environment with the Ministry of Energy and Mines threatens the very landscape the family is fighting to save.

Ramon Pucha shows seeds and plant materials he has collected from the forest near his family farm in Alto Ila, in Ecuador's Amazon region, Feb. 3, 2026. AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa)

‘That is my legacy’

As he walks across the property that was once barren pastureland, Pucha pauses to observe the plants, describing the unique purpose of each one.

His eyes light up as he points to a small, growing tree, which he says is now rare in the area – a type of fine wood that will reach maturity in 100 years. Though he knows he will never see it fully grown, he remains committed to his mission.

“That is my legacy for my children and for humanity,” he says, noting that these species are essential to the Amazon’s survival, serving as medicine for humans and a food source for the animals that naturally replant the forest.

 

The world has pledged to triple climate financing for poorer countries. Is the UK about to U-turn?

Copyright Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

By Liam Gilliver

Published on 07/02/2026 - EURONEWS

The UK government tells Euronews Green it is “modernising” its approach to international climate financing – but declined to comment on alleged cuts.

The UK has been warned that cutting climate financing for poorer countries would be an “act of self-harm” that would hinder its global influence and damage food security.

According to UK newspaper The Guardian, ministers plan to cut climate finance for the “developing world” from £11.6 billion (around €13.37 billion) over the past five years to £9 billion (€10.37 billion) in the next five. When factoring in inflation, this would mean a proposed cut of around 40 per cent in spending power since 2021.

At the UN COP29 Summit in 2024, almost 200 nations – including the UK – agreed to triple finance to developing countries to $300 billion (around €254.5 billion) annually by 2035.

A year later, at COP30 in Belém, developing countries called for more support for adaptation to help protect people from climate change by building infrastructure such as flood defences and drought-resistant water systems. However, parties only agreed to call for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035 – reiterating a previous commitment without further progress.

Is the UK about to cut its climate financing?

A government spokesperson tells Euronews Green that it is “modernising” its approach to international climate financing to focus on “greater impact” – making sure that every pound delivers for the UK taxpayer and the people it supports.

“The UK remains committed to providing International Climate Finance, playing our part alongside other developed countries and climate finance providers to deliver our international commitments,” they add. “The UK is on track to deliver £11.6 billion in International Climate Finance by the end of this financial year.”

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, which has historically never commented on leaks, did not confirm whether the alleged cuts are going ahead, or respond to criticism that has already ensued.

‘Damaging trust’ in the UK

Gareth Redmond-King of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) describes such a move as an “act of self-harm” for the UK – if it goes ahead.

“We import two-fifths of our food from overseas, much of which is grown in countries being hit hardest by extremes of heat and flood,” he says.

“The UK’s climate finance helps farmers in these countries to adapt their farming to maintain both their livelihoods and our food security.”

Related

Redmond-King argues that going back on climate commitments would also damage trust in the UK’s position at a time when it has made real progress in cutting emissions and striving towards net zero targets.

“With China potentially offering forms of climate finance to poorer nations which need it, the longer-term risk is to the UK’s relative power and influence around the world.”

A ‘national security’ risk

The report comes just weeks after the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published a 14-page document warning that the collapse of global ecosystems is a direct threat to the country’s national security and prosperity.

With alleged involvement from MI5 and MI6, the report found that the world is also experiencing the impacts of biodiversity loss such as crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks

However, without “major intervention”, the report says these threats will increase alongside environmental degradation.

Officials highlighted the UK’s reliance on global markets for its food and fertiliser, with around 40 per cent of its food – such as vegetables, sugar and soy for animal farming – coming from overseas.

“Biodiversity loss, alongside climate change, is amongst the biggest medium- to long-term threats to domestic food production – through depleted soils, loss of pollinators, drought and flood conditions,” the report states.

“Ecosystem collapse would place the UK’s agriculture system under great stress, leaving it struggling to pivot to the new approaches and technologies that would be required to maintain food supply.”

Disruption to the international markets caused by ecosystem collapse would put UK food security at risk. This paves the way for organised crime to “exploit” scarce resources and could push more people into poverty, the report warns.

As more people cross the threshold into food insecurity, migration will rise. According to a landmark 2021 report by the Council on Strategic Risks, even a one per cent increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9 per cent more people to migrate.

The report also highlights growing political polarisation and instability in food and water-insecure areas, which could trigger a spike in disinformation.

“Conflict and military escalation will become more likely, both within and between states, as groups compete for arable land, food and water resources,” the report adds. “Existing conflicts will be exacerbated.”