A Russian drone strike on a civilian bus in Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy region has left nine people dead and four others injured, in what Ukrainian officials are calling a deliberate attack on non-combatants.

The assault took place early Saturday in the town of Bilopillia, located roughly 10 kilometers from the Russian border. According to regional authorities, the drone hit a passenger bus, killing mostly elderly civilians. Three of the four wounded are reported to be in serious condition and are receiving treatment at a hospital in Sumy city.

The Sumy Regional Administration condemned the strike in a statement on Telegram, calling it “another war crime by Russia — a deliberate strike on civilian transport that posed no threat.”

The attack came just hours after Ukrainian and Russian delegations held face-to-face discussions in Turkey — the first direct peace talks in several years. While seen as a potential diplomatic breakthrough, the negotiations ended without a ceasefire agreement.

Photos released by Ukraine’s national police showed the charred remains of the bus and the surrounding area littered with debris, highlighting the devastating impact of the strike. Authorities are working to identify the deceased, many of whom are believed to be elderly women traveling within the region.

In response to the tragedy, local officials in Bilopillia declared a period of mourning until Monday. Yurii Zarko, head of the local community, described the day of the strike as “Black Saturday,” reflecting the grief and anger felt throughout the region.

The drone attack is part of a broader pattern of strikes on civilian infrastructure across Ukraine, as fighting continues along the front lines in the east and south of the country. Kyiv has repeatedly accused Moscow of targeting non-military sites in violation of international law — accusations the Kremlin denies.

The incident underscores the fragility of the current diplomatic efforts and the escalating toll on civilians as the war stretches into its third year. Despite renewed international calls for de-escalation, both sides remain deeply entrenched, with little sign of a breakthrough on the horizon.

The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a fresh blow to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration agenda, blocking the swift deportation of a group of Venezuelan detainees held in a North Texas facility. The court’s decision marks another setback in the administration’s push to accelerate removals of undocumented immigrants.

In a ruling issued Friday, the justices sided with attorneys for a group of Venezuelan men accused by immigration authorities of gang affiliation — a classification the administration argues makes them eligible for expedited removal under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The court emphasized that individuals must be granted the opportunity to contest their deportation, though it did not address the broader legality of invoking the centuries-old law in the case.

The Supreme Court had previously issued a temporary stay on the deportations last month, citing concerns that removals were imminent. This latest ruling reinforces the requirement for due process in immigration proceedings, a principle Trump and his allies have often criticized as a barrier to swift enforcement.

In response to the decision, former President Donald Trump expressed his frustration on Truth Social, writing, “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”

At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security has made an unprecedented request for 20,000 National Guard troops to assist in immigration enforcement efforts nationwide. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the Pentagon is reviewing the request, which would involve deploying state-based Guard units to support deportation operations beyond the southern border.

According to DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin, the move is part of Trump’s mandate “to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens.” Unlike previous deployments focused on the U.S.-Mexico border, these troops would operate across the interior of the country, raising questions about federal overreach and state authority.

Currently, around 10,000 troops are stationed along the border, where they provide logistical support, surveillance, and limited law enforcement assistance. While some have begun accompanying border agents in the newly militarized zones, direct detention of migrants remains the responsibility of immigration authorities.

The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the legal and political complexities surrounding Trump’s immigration crackdown, as courts, civil liberties groups, and local governments continue to push back against sweeping federal enforcement strategies.

Sanctions imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its senior officials have severely disrupted the tribunal’s ability to function, staff members say, complicating its mission to investigate and prosecute war crimes around the world.

The sweeping measures, issued via executive order in February, were introduced in response to the ICC’s controversial arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, announced in late 2024. The sanctions specifically targeted ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, barring him from entering the United States and freezing his personal assets.

ICC officials now report that the sanctions have gone beyond symbolic gestures, severely limiting their operational capabilities. Staff say basic tasks have become “near impossible,” with work across various investigations — including ongoing probes in Sudan and Ukraine — now effectively stalled.

The court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has reportedly lost access to essential services, including his official Microsoft email account. Additionally, several of his personal bank accounts in the United Kingdom have been blocked. The U.S. order threatens fines and prison time for individuals or institutions providing Khan with any financial, material, or technological support. American nationals working for the court have also been warned they may face arrest if they return to the U.S.

The investigation into war crimes in Sudan, including charges of genocide against former President Omar al-Bashir, has also been paused. The prosecutor overseeing the case, Eric Iverson, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. seeking legal protection from the sanctions. His attorney, Allison Miller, said the restrictions have made it impossible for him to perform “basic lawyer functions.”

Three lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts by ICC-affiliated staff and consultants, arguing the sanctions infringe upon their constitutional rights, including freedom of expression.

The ICC’s challenges have been compounded by a separate scandal involving allegations of sexual misconduct against Khan himself. A Wall Street Journal report revealed accusations from a Malaysian staffer who alleged coercion and sexual assault across several ICC missions. Khan’s legal team has denied all claims, calling them “categorically untrue.”

Further scrutiny has followed, with allegations that Khan retaliated against staff members who supported the accuser. An internal UN oversight investigation into the claims is reportedly underway, with findings expected in the coming months.

As the ICC faces mounting external and internal pressures, its future credibility and capacity to pursue international justice may hang in the balance.