Australian leaders promised Monday to immediately overhaul already-tough gun control laws after a mass shooting targeted a Hanukkah celebration on Sydney’s Bondi Beach. At least 15 people died in the attack, which has fueled criticism that authorities are not doing enough to combat a surge in antisemitic crimes.

Among the new measures proposed would be a limit on the number of guns someone can own and a review of licenses held over time. Those and other actions would represent a significant update to the landmark national firearms agreement, which virtually banned rapid-fire rifles after a gunman killed 35 people in Tasmania in 1996, galvanizing the country into action.

“The government is prepared to take whatever action is necessary. Included in that is the need for tougher gun laws,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.

The violence erupted at the end of a summer day when thousands had flocked to Bondi Beach, an icon of Australia’s cultural life. They included hundreds gathered for the Chanukah by the Sea event celebrating the start of the Jewish festival with food, face painting and a petting zoo. Albanese called the massacre an act of antisemitic terrorism that struck at the heart of the nation.

Police shot the two suspected gunmen, a father and son. The 50-year-old father died at the scene. His 24-year-old son remained in a coma in hospital on Monday, Albanese said. Police won’t reveal their names.

At least 38 other people are being treated in hospitals.

Among those is a man who was captured on video appearing to tackle and disarm one apparent assailant, before pointing the man’s weapon at him, then setting the gun on the ground.

The man was identified by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke as Ahmed al Ahmed. The 42-year-old fruit shop owner and father of two was shot in the shoulder.

Al Ahmed, an Australian citizen who migrated from Syria in 2006, underwent surgery on Monday, his family said.

Al Ahmed’s parents, who moved to Australia in recent months, said their son had a background in the Syrian security forces.

“My son has always been brave. He helps people. He’s like that,” his mother, Malakeh Hasan al Ahmed, told Australian Broadcasting Corp. through an interpreter.
Authorities had investigated one of the suspected gunman

Albanese confirmed that Australia’s main domestic spy agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, had investigated the younger suspected gunman for six months in 2019.

The ABC reported that the agency had examined the son’s ties to a Sydney-based Islamic State group cell. Albanese did not describe the associates, but said the agency was interested in them rather than the son.

“He was examined on the basis of being associated with others and the assessment was made that there was no indication of any ongoing threat or threat of him engaging in violence,” Albanese said.

The horror at Australia’s most popular beach was the deadliest shooting in almost three decades since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. The removal of rapid-fire rifles has markedly reduced the death tolls from such acts of violence since then.

Albanese’s proposals to limit the number of guns someone can own and review licenses were announced after the authorities revealed that the older suspected gunman had held a gun license for a decade and amassed his six guns legally.

Leaders of the federal and state governments on Monday also proposed restricting gun ownership to Australian citizens, a measure that would have excluded the older suspect, who came to Australia in 1998 on a student visa and became a permanent resident after marrying a local woman. Officials wouldn’t confirm what country he had migrated from.

His son, who doesn’t have a gun license, is an Australian-born citizen.

The government leaders also proposed the “additional use of criminal intelligence” in deciding who was eligible for a gun license. That could mean the son’s suspicious associates could disqualify the father from owning a gun.

Chris Minns, premier of New South Wales where Sydney is the state capital, said his state’s gun laws would change, but he could not yet detail how.

“If you’re not a farmer, you’re not involved in agriculture, why do you need these massive weapons that put the public in danger and make life dangerous and difficult for New South Wales Police?” Minns asked.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that could make it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled.

The justices are taking up an appeal from Alabama, which wants to put to death a man who lower federal courts found is intellectually disabled and shielded from execution.

The Supreme Court prohibited execution of intellectually disabled people in a landmark ruling in 2002.

Joseph Clifton Smith, 55, has been on death row roughly half his life after his conviction for beating a man to death in 1997.

The issue in Smith’s case is what happens when a person has multiple IQ scores that are slightly above 70, which has been widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. Smith’s five IQ tests produced scores ranging from 72 to 78. Smith had been placed in learning-disabled classes and dropped out of school after seventh grade, his lawyers said. At the time of the crime, he performed math at a kindergarten level, spelled at a third-grade level and read at a fourth-grade level.

The Supreme Court has held in cases in 2014 and 2017 that states should consider other evidence of disability in borderline cases because of the margin of error in IQ tests.

Alabama appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled that Smith is intellectually disabled. The justices had previously sent his case back to the federal appeals court in Atlanta, where the judges affirmed that they had taken a “holistic” approach to Smith’s case, seemingly in line with the high court ruling.

But the justices said in June they would take a new look at the case.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said Smith hasn’t met his burden of showing an IQ of 70 or below, and the state wrote in its brief that the discussion of a holistic approach is an unjustified expansion of the Supreme Court rulings.

“He has multiple scores in the 70s,” Marshall said in a phone interview. He said the question is about how to address a continuum of scores. “I don’t think picking and choosing those at the bottom are the way that the court will ultimately go,” Marshall said.

President Donald Trump’s administration and 20 states are supporting Alabama in the case. Smith “did not meet his burden of proving his IQ was likely 70 or below,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the Republican administration.

Smith’s lawyers argue the lower courts followed the law in conducting a “holistic assessment of all relevant evidence” in a case with borderline IQ scores.

Rights groups focused on disabilities wrote in a brief supporting Smith that “intellectual disability diagnoses based solely on IQ test scores are faulty and invalid.”

Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for the beating death of Durk Van Dam in Mobile County. Van Dam was found dead in his pickup truck. Prosecutors said he had been beaten to death with a hammer and robbed of $150, his boots and tools.

A federal judge in 2021 vacated Smith’s death sentence, though she acknowledged “this is a close case.”

Alabama law defines intellectual disability as an IQ of 70 or below, along with significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior and the onset of those issues before the age of 18.

A top European Union official on Monday warned the United States against interfering in Europe’s affairs and said only European citizens can decide which parties should govern them.

European Council President Antonio Costa’s remarks came in reaction to the Trump administration’s new national security strategy, which was published on Friday and paints European allies as weak while offering tacit support to far-right political parties.

It’s “good” that the strategy depicts European countries as an ally, but “allies don’t threaten to interfere in the domestic political choices of their allies,” Costa said.

“What we can’t accept is the threat of interference in European political life. The United States cannot replace European citizens in choosing what the good or the bad parties are,” he said in Paris at the Jacques Delors Institute, a think tank.

Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive at the European Policy Centre think tank, said that stridently nationalist parties in Europe will be emboldened by the strategy document and “will intensify efforts to hollow out the EU from within.”

“Pro-European liberal forces need to finally wake up: Trump’s America is not an ally but an adversary to Europe’s freedoms and fundamental values. His objective is to replace our democratic system with the illiberal populism now entrenched in the U.S.,” Zuleeg said.

The strategy was also critical of European free speech and migration policy. U.S. allies in Europe face the “prospect of civilizational erasure,” the document said, raising doubts about their long-term reliability as American partners.

But Costa, who chairs summits of the 27 national EU leaders, said Europe’s “history has taught us that you can’t have freedom of speech without freedom of information.”

The former Portuguese prime minister also warned “there will never be free speech if the freedom of information of citizens is sacrificed for the aims of the tech oligarchs in the United States.”

Speaking to reporters in Berlin, German government spokesperson Sebastian Hille underlined that “Europe and the U.S. are historically, economically and culturally linked, and remain close partners.”

“But we reject the partly critical tones against the EU,” he said. “Political freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression, belong to the fundamental values of the European Union. We view accusations regarding this more as ideology than strategy.”

The security strategy is the administration’s first since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. It breaks starkly from the course set by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, which sought to reinvigorate U.S. alliances.

It comes as the U.S. seeks an end to Russia’s nearly 4-year-old war in Ukraine, a goal that the national security strategy says is in America’s vital interests.

But the text makes clear that the U.S. wants to improve its relationship with Russia after years of Moscow being treated as a global pariah and ending the war is a core U.S. interest to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said the document “absolutely corresponds to our vision.” Over the course of the war, Russia has worked to drive a wedge between NATO allies, particularly between the U.S. and Ukraine’s main backers in Europe.

“If we read closely the part about Ukraine, we can understand why Moscow shares this vision,” Costa said. “The objective in this strategy is not a fair and durable peace. It’s only (about) the end of hostilities, and the stability of relations with Russia.”

“Everyone wants stable relations with Russia,” he added, but “we can’t have stable relations with Russia when Russia remains a threat to our security.”

Top EU officials and intelligence officers have warned Russia could be in a position to launch an attack elsewhere in Europe in three to five years should it defeat Ukraine.

Former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández, sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for his role in helping drug traffickers move hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States, was released from prison following a pardon from President Donald Trump, his wife announced Tuesday.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons inmate website showed that Hernández was released from U.S. Penitentiary, Hazelton in West Virginia on Monday and a spokesperson for the bureau on Tuesday confirmed his release.

His wife Ana García thanked Trump for pardoning Hernández via the social platform X early Tuesday.

“After almost four years of pain, of waiting and difficult challenges, my husband Juan Orlando Hernández RETURNED to being a free man, thanks to the presidential pardon granted by President Donald Trump,” García’s post said. She included a picture of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons listing for Hernández indicating his release.

On Sunday, Trump was asked about why he pardoned Hernandez by reporters traveling with him on Air Force One.

“I was asked by Honduras, many of the people of Honduras,” Trump said.

“The people of Honduras really thought he was set up, and it was a terrible thing,” he said.

“They basically said he was a drug dealer because he was the president of the country. And they said it was a Biden administration set-up. And I looked at the facts and I agreed with them.”

Hernández was arrested at the request of the United States in February 2022, weeks after handing over power to current President Xiomara Castro.

Two years later, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison in a New York federal courtroom for taking bribes from drug traffickers so they could safely move some 400 tons of cocaine north through Honduras to the United States.

Hernández maintained throughout that he was innocent and the victim of revenge by drug traffickers he had helped extradite to the United States.

During his sentencing in New York, federal Judge P. Kevin Castel said the punishment should serve as a warning to “well educated, well dressed” individuals who gain power and think their status insulates them from justice when they do wrong.

Hernández portrayed himself as a hero of the anti-drug trafficking movement who teamed up with American authorities under three U.S. presidential administrations to reduce drug imports.

But the judge said trial evidence proved the opposite and that Hernández employed “considerable acting skills” to make it seem that he was an anti-drug trafficking crusader while he deployed his nation’s police and military, when necessary, to protect the drug trade.

Hernández is not guaranteed a quick return to Honduras.

Immediately after Trump announced his intention to pardon Hernández, Honduras Attorney General Johel Zelaya said via X that his office was obligated to seek justice and put an end to impunity.

He did not specify what charges Hernández could face in Honduras. There were various corruption-related investigations of his administration across two terms in office that did not lead to charges against him. President Xiomara Castro, who had Hernández arrested and extradited him to the U.S., will remain in office until January.

The pardon promised by Trump days before Honduras’ presidential election injected a new element into the contest that some said helped the candidate from his National Party Nasry Asfura, one of the leaders as the vote count proceeded Tuesday.

The Supreme Court is meeting in private Friday with a key issue on its agenda — President Donald Trump ’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The justices could say as soon as Monday whether they will hear Trump’s appeal of lower court rulings that have uniformly struck down the citizenship restrictions. They have not taken effect anywhere in the United States.

If the court steps in now, the case would be argued in the spring, with a definitive ruling expected by early summer.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term in the White House, is part of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown. Other actions include immigration enforcement surges in several cities and the first peacetime invocation of the 18th century Alien Enemies Act.

The administration is facing multiple court challenges, and the high court has sent mixed signals in emergency orders it has issued. The justices effectively stopped the use of the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without court hearings, while they allowed the resumption of sweeping immigration stops in the Los Angeles area after a lower court blocked the practice of stopping people solely based on their race, language, job or location.

The justices also are weighing the administration’s emergency appeal to be allowed to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area for immigration enforcement actions. A lower court has indefinitely prevented the deployment.

Birthright citizenship is the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. Trump’s order would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or most likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.