A Hong Kong court on Thursday handed prominent pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong an additional 10-year prison term under the national security law imposed by Beijing, a ruling critics say reflects the sweeping crackdown on the city's once-vibrant democracy movement.

Wong, 30, rose to prominence as a teenage leader of student protests and later campaigned internationally for Hong Kong's democracy movement. He was already serving a sentence of four years and eight months after pleading guilty in the city's largest national security case, and had been scheduled for release in January.

Collusion charge under 2020 security law

In 2025, Wong was hit with a new charge of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security, an offense created by the 2020 security law. He pleaded guilty earlier this year.

Judge William Tam found that Wong and fellow activist Nathan Law worked with foreign officials and other overseas actors to seek measures against China and Hong Kong. The judge cited Washington's revocation of Hong Kong's preferential treatment as a special administrative region, along with U.S. sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials, as examples of the hostile steps the two had sought.

"The punishment must fit the gravity of the crime committed," Tam wrote, adding that the court also needed to convey the community's strong condemnation of the collusion.

Tam said he began with a 13-year starting point before reducing the term in light of Wong's guilty plea and mitigating factors. The remaining two months of Wong's first national security sentence will run concurrently with the new term.

U.S. condemns the sentence

The United States sharply criticized the ruling and called for Wong's immediate release. In a statement, the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong said Wong had been unjustly held since late 2020 and that the case showed how far Beijing is willing to go to silence advocates for fundamental freedoms in the city.

Supporters fill the courtroom

Wong, dressed in a dark shirt at the High Court, nodded to supporters and pro-democracy activists in the public gallery before the hearing began. He remained composed as the judge delivered the sentencing remarks and thanked supporters as he was led out.

Seating was limited, and dozens of people lined up outside the court for a place in the gallery, some arriving as early as Tuesday, with attendees taking turns inside. Tiffany Chin, a former member of Scholarism, the now-disbanded student group Wong once led, was in tears after the sentence was announced. A resident named ET Wong said the activist had taken a hard road for Hong Kong's future, human rights and the student movement, and should never have been imprisoned.

Wong's statement

In a statement written from prison, Wong said he had believed he was acting lawfully and was not directly calling for sanctions when he shared other people's social media posts or urged foreign companies to consider ending business with the Hong Kong police. He said he later came to see that his judgment had been wrong.

A Minnesota restaurant owner has been sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for his role in a massive fraud scheme that stole millions of dollars from a government-funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Salim Said, the operator of Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, was convicted of participating in a scheme that submitted fraudulent claims for meals that were never served to children. Federal prosecutors said Said was responsible for approximately $44 million in fraudulent reimbursements, including funds obtained through other participants he recruited into the operation.

According to federal prosecutors, Said repeatedly submitted false reimbursement claims that dramatically inflated the number of meals his restaurant and associated distribution sites supposedly provided to underprivileged children.

In one particularly striking example, Said claimed his operation distributed approximately 6,000 meals per day. However, FBI surveillance cameras recorded only about 40 people collecting food daily at the monitored location.

Prosecutors said the discrepancy demonstrated the extent of the fraudulent reporting used to obtain federal funds.

For 21 consecutive months, Said submitted thousands of fraudulent reimbursement claims, falsely representing that meals had been provided to children in need. Investigators determined that children listed in many of the reimbursement records were entirely fictitious.

The scheme exploited temporary changes to federal child nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. When schools closed, the federal government expanded meal distribution programs to allow restaurants and other organizations to provide food to children outside traditional school settings.

Prosecutors said Said and other participants took advantage of the relaxed program requirements by fabricating meal distribution records and collecting millions of dollars in government reimbursements.

Federal investigators also uncovered substantial personal purchases made with proceeds from the fraudulent operation.

According to prosecutors, Said purchased a $1.2 million residence, invested in commercial real estate, and acquired an $87,000 pickup truck while benefiting from the scheme.

During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel condemned Said for using taxpayer-funded assistance intended for vulnerable children to enrich himself.

The judge said his actions had not only deprived taxpayers of millions of dollars but had also damaged Minnesota's reputation.

Said, who was born in Somalia, denied wrongdoing during his 2025 trial, claiming that many of the meals had been delivered to off-site locations. However, he expressed remorse during his sentencing hearing.

His defense attorney, Barry Zone, requested a 12-year prison sentence and disputed prosecutors' characterization of Said as a principal architect of the fraud. The court ultimately imposed a 30-year sentence.

The case was part of the broader Feeding Our Future scandal, one of the largest pandemic-related federal nutrition assistance fraud investigations in the United States.

Feeding Our Future, a Minnesota-based nonprofit organization, served as a central participant in the scheme. Its former leader, Aimee Bock, was convicted of organizing the operation and recruiting restaurant owners and other participants to submit fraudulent claims.

Bock received a 42-year federal prison sentence and was ordered to repay $242 million.

Dozens of individuals have been convicted in connection with the investigation, which revealed how participants exploited emergency federal assistance programs by submitting fabricated documentation, falsely reporting meal distribution numbers, and collecting payments for services that were never provided.

The scandal also raised serious questions about oversight by Minnesota state agencies responsible for administering federal nutrition assistance funds.

State auditors found that the Minnesota Department of Education had received numerous complaints concerning Feeding Our Future but frequently allowed the organization to address compliance concerns internally rather than taking stronger enforcement action.

The fraud investigation subsequently became a major political controversy.

President Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Minnesota's Democratic leadership for failing to prevent widespread misuse of federal funds. The administration also cited concerns surrounding fraud as part of its justification for expanded immigration enforcement operations in the state's largest cities.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced in January that he would not seek reelection following sustained political criticism over the state's handling of fraud involving federally funded programs.

The case highlights the consequences of fraudulent activity involving public assistance programs, particularly those established to provide essential services to vulnerable populations during national emergencies.

Federal prosecutors emphasized that the stolen funds had been designated to feed children from low-income families, not to finance personal real estate investments, luxury purchases, or fraudulent business operations.

Said's 30-year prison sentence represents another major conviction in the continuing federal crackdown on the Minnesota child nutrition fraud scheme.

The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it will block imports from Chinese biotechnology firm BGI Group and two of its affiliates, citing alleged links to forced labor in Xinjiang, China's far-western ethnic region.

Beginning Thursday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will stop goods from BGI Group, a major player in genetic sequencing, along with BGI Genomics and MGI Tech. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the companies either source materials from Xinjiang or work with the regional government in the recruitment and movement of forced labor drawn from persecuted ethnic groups there, including Uyghurs. DHS said BGI Group holds controlling stakes in both affiliates.

DHS cites genetic testing in Xinjiang

In its announcement, DHS said credible information, including corporate and government reports, shows the three companies have supported genetic testing in Xinjiang. The department said the collection and analysis of genetic material helps Chinese authorities monitor, surveil and repress ethnic minorities, including through forced labor.

The action falls under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law at the end of 2021 in response to allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. In August, the Trump administration added 43 Chinese companies to the law's blacklist, bringing the total to 187 entities. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has pledged to protect American workers from being undercut by foreign companies that rely on forced labor.

Beijing and BGI push back

China rejected the forced labor accusations and denounced the ban as political manipulation and bullying carried out in the name of human rights. In a statement Thursday morning, China's Ministry of Commerce said the listings contradict the consensus reached by the two countries' leaders, threaten the stability of bilateral trade relations, and that China will take necessary measures to protect its interests. Beijing has long dismissed the Xinjiang allegations as false, describing its policies in the region as counterterrorism and stability efforts.

BGI Group also denied the claims, stating Wednesday that it "has not engaged in any form of forced labor" and opposes forced labor in all forms.

Biotech becomes a new front

The move highlights biotechnology as a growing area of economic and technological rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Last week, the Treasury Department proposed new limits on U.S. investment in biotechnology, artificial intelligence and supercomputing in countries such as China.

BGI Group has drawn scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and officials for years over concerns that its alleged government ties and access to vast amounts of genetic data could threaten U.S. national security and commercial interests. The company has emphasized that it is privately owned, does not serve patients in the United States and has no access to Americans' genetic data. The Pentagon has designated BGI Group, BGI Genomics and MGI Tech as Chinese military companies.

Congress did not pass a bill that would have barred BGI from working with federally funded medical providers, but late last year it approved a similar measure that did not name specific companies and instead called for a list of biotechnology companies of concern.

The latest trade action comes ahead of an expected meeting next month between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump in Shenzhen, where BGI Group is headquartered. Xi may also travel to Florida in December for the Group of 20 leaders summit, which would mark a fourth meeting between the two leaders this year as they seek to keep relations steady under a trade truce.

The Trump administration on Wednesday filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to set aside a lower court order that has stopped construction of border barriers through the Big Bend region of Texas.

The order is a significant obstacle for one of President Donald Trump's signature initiatives. The administration has been moving quickly to build walls and related infrastructure along the southern border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

Local opposition and the October injunction

In Big Bend, the project has drawn pushback from ranchers, residents, business owners and environmental groups. They contend that the plan, which combines walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology, wastes money in a region where illegal crossings have historically been low, and that construction threatens the area's landscapes. Opponents have brought several lawsuits challenging the work.

In one of those cases, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone on Oct. 2 issued a preliminary injunction halting construction across the roughly 500-mile project area while the litigation continues. The order covers Big Bend National Park as well as state-owned and privately owned land upriver and downriver from the park. Opposition had been building for months but intensified in August, when bulldozers were seen clearing land inside the national park.

The waiver dispute

At the center of the case are broad waivers issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security that let U.S. Customs and Border Protection skip environmental and other regulatory requirements that would otherwise slow a project of this size.

The government maintains that Big Bend sees a high level of illegal entry and that a 1996 law expressly gives the secretary authority to waive such rules when needed to build barriers and roads near the border. Challengers counter that Congress limited that power to areas of high illegal entry, and that the remote, rugged Big Bend region does not qualify.

Judge Cardone agreed with the challengers, finding that they "are likely to succeed on the merits of their major questions doctrine claim that the Big Bend Waivers were issued in excess of the Secretary's authority."

What is at stake

Trump has long promised a wall along the approximately 2,000-mile southwest border. Last summer, congressional Republicans provided the Department of Homeland Security with $46 billion to complete it, using a combination of 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance systems.

The administration warns that if Big Bend remains one of the few stretches without barriers, illegal crossings could shift there. Opponents respond that drones, surveillance towers and similar tools would be equally effective at a far lower cost than a wall.

Federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges against two former FBI officials, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, accusing them of giving false statements to Congress about their role in the bureau's handling of the Hunter Biden laptop matter before the 2020 presidential election.

Both previously helped lead an FBI task force focused on foreign interference in U.S. elections, a unit that has since been disbanded. Prosecutors allege that when questioned by lawmakers, the two denied taking part in FBI investigative work involving Biden, and that those denials were untrue.

The pair made their first appearance in federal court in Washington on Friday. Their lawyers asked the court to move quickly so they can challenge the allegations.

The case stands out for several reasons. Criminal prosecutions of former FBI employees by the Justice Department are uncommon. The charges were also brought by criminal complaint rather than grand jury indictment, a route prosecutors usually take when they need to detain someone quickly, for example because of flight risk or danger to the public. Both the defense and the judge commented on that choice in court. The Justice Department has had trouble in recent high-profile cases persuading grand juries in the capital to return indictments.

Timing has also drawn attention. The complaint came less than two weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, as part of a wider review under FBI Director Kash Patel of past bureau episodes that have long been criticized by President Donald Trump's supporters. Patel was a vocal critic of the FBI before he took over the agency.

Lawyers for both defendants rejected the charges. Floris's attorneys described her as a career FBI intelligence officer with nearly two decades of service and argued the case was driven by politics rather than evidence, pointing to its timing so close to an election. Benavides's legal team called the complaint baseless and politically motivated, and said they expect the court process to clear him.

Because the case was filed by complaint, prosecutors have not yet presented it to a grand jury. Both defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.