Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche has formally withdrawn President Donald Trump’s plan for a fund that could have been used to compensate people prosecuted over the US Capitol riot by Trump’s supporters in 2021.

The move clears the way for Blanche to be confirmed by US senators to his job on a permanent basis.

Trump’s Republican Party previously lacked the votes for this to happen because a pair of senators were not sufficiently satisfied by verbal assurances from Blanche that the planned fund was dead.

In a post on X late on Sunday, Blanche said he had “met with committee members and Senators over the past several weeks and addressed any concerns or outstanding questions”.

Attached to Blanche’s post was a copy of the written order signed by Blanche. The text says: “This Order establishes, beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”

The proposed $1.8bn “anti-weaponisation” fund was announced earlier this year to settle a lawsuit by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leak of his tax returns.

It would have allowed Trump allies to claim compensation for what they say were politically motivated prosecutions by previous administrations.

A second concern held by the two holdout senators was that the deal also shielded the president, his family and their businesses from IRS audits of their past tax returns. They wanted the scope of that to be narrowed.

Attached to Blanche’s post on X was an unsigned memo in which he said the IRS immunity would be limited to the “named parties in the lawsuit”. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were Trump, his two sons Donald Jr and Eric, and the Trump Organization.

The fund plan and the tax audit provision prompted alarm among Democrats – and some Republicans – who argued it could result in payment to people who were prosecuted over the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021, including those convicted of assaulting police officers.

Following the backlash, Blanche abandoned the plan. A federal judge also blocked the fund and expressed concerns that it breached ethical guidelines.

Prior to Blanche’s two posts on Sunday, Trump himself gave conflicting statements on the future of both the fund and his nomination of Blanche to be America’s top law enforcement official.

On Friday, he said the fund was “dead”, but he subsequently threatened over the weekend to put the plan back on the table if members of his party did not move to approve Blanche.

In recent days, he also said he was considering withdrawing Blanche’s nomination to be attorney general because the process was stalled.

The US Senate judiciary committee has a meeting scheduled for Tuesday, which could include a vote on Blanche’s nomination.

But Blanche’s public statements to senators that the proposal had been scrapped were not enough to satisfy the Republican holdouts.

The two senators who went on to stall Blanche’s confirmation were John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, whose terms both expire in January.

A Cornyn spokesperson said that the senator had “reached an agreement with the Department of Justice” about the fund.

Tillis has not yet commented. But in his most recent comments on the issue, which responded to Trump’s threat to revive the plan, Tillis expressed concern that the president was still harbouring a plan to set up a “payout pot for punks”.

He said the political impasse was “unfortunate” because he did consider Blanche, who is Trump’s former personal lawyer, to be qualified for the attorney general job.

By Isaac Asabor

Every time xenophobic violence erupts in South Africa, the script is almost always the same. Horrific images of foreign-owned shops being looted flood social media. Nigerians living and doing business in the country scramble for safety.

Families in Nigeria panic as they struggle to reach loved ones. The Nigerian government issues a statement condemning the attacks, calls for calm, demands justice and urges the South African authorities to act. Diplomatic consultations follow, promises are made, and after a while, silence returns, until the next cycle of violence begins. This repetitive pattern has become both predictable and unacceptable.

It raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: How many more times must Nigerians be subjected to xenophobic attacks before Nigeria changes its diplomatic strategy? It is perhaps time for Abuja to abandon excessive diplomatic niceties and embrace what many Nigerians would describe as “Roforofo diplomacy”, a more robust, assertive and reciprocal engagement that makes it unmistakably clear that attacks on Nigerians abroad will carry diplomatic consequences.

The phrase “roforofo,” borrowed from the popular Nigerian expression for mud wrestling, symbolizes a no-holds-barred confrontation rather than physical aggression. In diplomatic terms, it means abandoning excessive restraint in favour of firm, unapologetic and interest-driven engagement. It means matching rhetoric with action.

For decades, Nigeria has approached South Africa as an elder brother. During the anti-apartheid struggle, Nigeria invested enormous political, financial and diplomatic capital in the liberation of South Africa. Successive Nigerian governments contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to liberation movements. Nigerian workers voluntarily paid into the Southern African Relief Fund. Scholarships were awarded to South African students. Nigerian passports carried restrictions against visiting apartheid South Africa in solidarity with the oppressed majority.

Many Nigerians still remember these sacrifices with pride. Ironically, many younger South Africans appear either unaware of this history or indifferent to it. Instead, Nigerians have increasingly become convenient scapegoats for South Africa’s deep-seated socio-economic challenges.

There is no denying the fact that high unemployment, widening inequality, inadequate public services and rising crime have created fertile ground for populist narratives in South Africa, thereby creating an atmosphere of blaming foreigners for domestic hardships. Given the foregoing atmosphere, Nigerians, because of their visibility in commerce and entrepreneurship, often become easy targets. The reality, however, is that xenophobia has little to do with nationality and everything to do with governance failures. Foreigners did not create South Africa’s unemployment crisis. Foreigners did not institutionalize inequality. Foreigners did not weaken public infrastructure. Foreigners did not design policies that have left millions frustrated. Yet, instead of confronting these structural problems, mobs repeatedly vent their anger on vulnerable immigrants. Sadly, Nigerian-owned businesses have become recurring casualties.

Nigeria’s response has generally reflected the principles of diplomacy: protest notes, ambassadorial consultations, presidential phone calls, bilateral commissions and expressions of concern. These measures have achieved little. The attacks continue. This is precisely why Nigeria should reconsider its diplomatic toolkit.

A country with Nigeria’s demographic weight, economic influence and regional leadership credentials cannot continue responding to repeated assaults on its citizens with little more than carefully worded communiqués. Diplomacy should not be mistaken for weakness. Every sovereign nation has a primary obligation to protect its citizens wherever they may be. If conventional diplomacy consistently fails to achieve that objective, then more assertive measures become necessary.

Roforofo diplomacy does not mean severing diplomatic relations with South Africa. Nor does it imply encouraging retaliation against innocent South Africans living in Nigeria. Nigeria must never descend into the same lawlessness it condemns. Instead, it means adopting reciprocal diplomatic pressure.

For example, Nigeria can temporarily suspend certain bilateral engagements whenever attacks recur until measurable actions are taken by Pretoria. It can review preferential economic arrangements where necessary. It can insist on concrete timelines for prosecution of perpetrators rather than accepting endless promises. It can pursue compensation mechanisms for verified victims.

It can intensify legal action through regional and continental institutions. Nigeria can also leverage multilateral platforms such as the African Union (AU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to push for enforceable continental standards against xenophobic violence. The issue should no longer be treated merely as South Africa’s internal affair.

Persistent attacks on African migrants undermine the very ideals upon which African integration is built. The vision of the African Continental Free Trade Area depends not only on the movement of goods but also on the protection of people. Businesses cannot thrive where entrepreneurs fear for their lives. Investments cannot flourish where nationality becomes a death sentence.

Beyond diplomacy, Nigeria must also strengthen its consular protection framework. Its missions abroad should possess emergency response capacities capable of rapidly evacuating citizens where necessary, providing temporary shelters and offering legal assistance.

Technology can also play a role through digital emergency registration systems that enable embassies to locate Nigerians quickly during crises. Equally important is economic diplomacy. Nigeria remains one of South Africa’s significant African trading partners.

Major South African corporations have earned billions of naira over several decades operating successfully in Nigeria. Companies in telecommunications, banking, retail and entertainment have enjoyed enormous opportunities within Nigeria’s large consumer market. While business should never become a weapon, economic relationships should encourage mutual respect. Reciprocity remains a fundamental principle of international relations.

If Nigerians cannot operate safely in South Africa, legitimate questions will inevitably arise regarding whether South African businesses should continue enjoying a completely frictionless environment in Nigeria without corresponding guarantees for Nigerian interests.

Such questions are neither unreasonable nor unprecedented in global diplomacy. The United States routinely imposes sanctions when its citizens are threatened abroad. European nations frequently issue travel advisories and apply diplomatic pressure over human rights concerns. China aggressively protects its nationals and investments overseas. India has demonstrated increasing willingness to intervene diplomatically whenever Indians become victims of violence abroad.

Nigeria should not consider similar firmness an overreaction. It should consider it responsible statecraft. At the same time, Nigerians must resist the temptation to paint all South Africans with the same brush. Millions of South Africans reject xenophobia.

Civil society organizations, religious leaders, journalists, academics and ordinary citizens have repeatedly condemned these attacks and risked their own safety defending foreign nationals. These allies should be strengthened, not alienated. People-to-people diplomacy remains essential.

Educational exchanges, historical awareness campaigns and cultural cooperation can help younger South Africans understand Nigeria’s historic contributions to their country’s freedom. Ignorance often fuels prejudice. Knowledge can weaken it.

Ultimately, however, no amount of cultural exchange can substitute for effective law enforcement. The greatest deterrent to xenophobic violence is certainty of punishment. Each time perpetrators escape justice, they become emboldened.

Each failed prosecution sends a dangerous signal that foreigners are expendable. That perception must end. Nigeria should therefore insist that every episode of xenophobic violence be followed not merely by arrests but by convictions, restitution and transparent judicial processes. Anything less simply postpones the next outbreak.

In fact, the relationship between Nigeria and South Africa is too important to be marred by South African vigilante groups arrogating immigration duties to themselves. Together, both nations account for a significant share of sub-Saharan Africa’s economy and diplomatic influence. Their cooperation remains indispensable for continental peace, trade, innovation and development.

Yet genuine partnership cannot exist where one partner repeatedly watches its citizens become victims. Friendship without mutual respect is unsustainable. Brotherhood without protection is meaningless. There comes a point when patience begins to resemble acquiescence. Nigeria appears dangerously close to that point. The country does not need reckless confrontation. It does not need inflammatory rhetoric. It certainly does not need retaliation against innocent South Africans.

What it needs is a foreign policy anchored firmly on reciprocity, national dignity and the uncompromising protection of Nigerian lives. That is the essence of roforofo diplomacy, not unnecessary hostility, but unmistakable firmness.

When diplomacy repeatedly produces condolences instead of security, it is time to change the diplomatic language.  Nigeria owes its citizens nothing less.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has called on governments and partners to urgently accelerate efforts to eliminate viral hepatitis as a public health threat and reduce liver cancer deaths.

WHO Director General, Dr.

Tedros Ghebreyesus, made the call in his message to mark the 2026 World Hepatitis Day, globally celebrated on July 28.

To mark World Hepatitis Day, WHO is partnering with Rotary International and the World Hepatitis Alliance to strengthen global and local advocacy.

According to Ghebreyesus this year’s campaign”Hepatitis: Let’s Break it Down” demands action to confront the rising toll of liver cancer linked to chronic hepatitis infections.

He also called for decisive steps to dismantle persistent barriers from stigma to funding gaps that continued to slow progress in prevention, testing, and treatment.

“Every 30 seconds, someone dies from a hepatitis-related severe liver disease or liver cancer. Yet we have the tools to stop hepatitis.

”Viral hepatitis types A, B, C, D, and E are major causes of acute liver infection.

”Among these only hepatitis B, C, and D can lead to chronic infections that significantly increase the risk of cirrhosis, liver failure, or liver cancer.

”Yet most people with hepatitis don’t know they’re infected. Types B, C, and D affect over 300 million people globally and cause more than 1.3 million deaths each year, mainly from liver cirrhosis and cancer.

”The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently classified hepatitis D as carcinogenic to humans, just like hepatitis B and C.

”Hepatitis D, which only affects individuals infected with hepatitis B, is associated with a two- to six-fold higher risk of liver cancer compared to hepatitis B alone.

”This reclassification marks a critical step in global efforts to raise awareness, improve screening, and expand access to new treatments for hepatitis D,” he added.

Also the incoming Director of Science for Health at WHO, Dr. Meg Doherty, said WHO has published guidelines on testing and diagnosis of Hepatitis B and D in 2024, and is actively following the clinical outcomes from innovative treatments for hepatitis D.

”Treatment with oral medicine can cure hepatitis C within two to three months and effectively suppress hepatitis B with life-long therapy.

”Treatment options for hepatitis D are evolving. However, the full benefit of reducing liver cirrhosis and cancer deaths can only be realised through urgent action to scale up and integrate hepatitis services – including vaccination, testing, harm reduction, and treatment into national health systems.

”Encouragingly, the majority of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have strategic plans on hepatitis in place and progress in national hepatitis responses is increasing,” she said.

The UN health agency said that in 2025, the number of countries reporting national hepatitis action plans increased from 59 to 123.

It noted that as of 2025, 129 countries have adopted policies for hepatitis B testing among pregnant women, up from 106 reported in 2024; adding that 147 countries have introduced the hepatitis B birth dose vaccination, an increase from 138 in 2022.

However, critical gaps remain in service coverage and outcomes, as stated in the 2024 Global Hepatitis Report.

The next challenge will be to scale up the implementation of prevention, testing and treatment coverage. Achieving WHO’s 2030 targets can save 2.8 million lives and prevent 9.8 million new infections.

With declining donor support, countries must prioritise domestic investment, integrated services, better data, affordable medicines, and ending stigma.