By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | 17 September 2026 | Royal Family | United Kingdom

Buckingham Palace issues rare response

Buckingham Palace has made an unusually direct response to a claim by Earl Spencer, the younger brother of the late Princess Diana, concerning an alleged conversation with the then-Prince Charles shortly after Diana’s death in 1997.

The allegation appears in Spencer’s forthcoming memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, which is due to be published on 22 September 2026. Spencer says that, during a dispute about whether Diana’s sons should walk behind their mother’s coffin, Charles told him: “Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough.”

Buckingham Palace did not directly confirm or deny that the conversation took place. Instead, a palace spokesperson said King Charles was mindful that “the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory” many years after a loss.

The wording represents a rare intervention by the Palace because the Royal Family generally declines to comment on claims contained in books.

Full Transcript of Princess Diana Eulogy – Earl Spencer’s Eulogy for Princess Diana

What Earl Spencer says happened

According to extracts reported from Spencer’s memoir, the disagreement took place in the period between Diana’s death and her funeral in September 1997.

The central issue was whether Prince William and Prince Harry, then aged 15 and 12 respectively, should walk behind their mother’s coffin during the funeral procession.

Spencer says he opposed the idea and believed Diana would not have wanted her young sons to endure such a public ordeal.

He describes a heated telephone conversation with Charles. According to Spencer’s account, Charles argued that his sons should participate and referred to his own experience walking in the funeral procession following the assassination of his great-uncle Lord Mountbatten.

Spencer says he responded that Charles had been an adult when Mountbatten died, whereas William and Harry were children.

It was during the argument, Spencer claims, that Charles made the remark about Diana eventually being forgotten.

The allegation remains Spencer’s recollection

An important distinction is that the alleged conversation was private and occurred nearly three decades ago.

The Palace’s response does not provide a competing account of the conversation. Instead, it raises the possibility that Spencer’s recollection may have been affected by the grief surrounding his sister’s death.

There is therefore no independently established record in the reporting currently available that proves exactly what was said during the alleged telephone conversation.

The Heartbreaking Real-Life Royal Moment ‘The Crown’ Shouldn’t Have Left Out | Vogue

The decision to have William and Harry walk behind Diana’s coffin

The dispute described by Spencer concerns one of the most memorable moments of Diana’s funeral.

On 6 September 1997, William and Harry walked behind their mother’s coffin as it travelled from St James’s Palace to Westminster Abbey.

The decision has subsequently been discussed by both brothers.

In a 2017 BBC documentary marking the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death, William described the decision as a collective family decision and acknowledged that it had not been easy.

Harry later discussed the experience in his 2023 memoir, Spare. His account included his recollection that several adults had objected to the boys walking behind the coffin, including Spencer.

This provides some contemporary retrospective context for Spencer’s newly published account, although it does not independently establish the exact words Spencer attributes to Charles.

Why the Palace’s statement is significant

The Palace’s response is notable primarily because of its rarity.

Royal households traditionally avoid becoming involved in disputes surrounding books about members of the Royal Family. ITV reported that the Palace decided to respond in this instance despite that general practice.

The statement also carefully avoids directly accusing Spencer of deliberately fabricating his account.

Instead, it focuses on the possible effects of grief on memory and judgment.

That distinction matters. The Palace has not publicly produced evidence demonstrating that Spencer’s account is false, while Spencer presents the conversation as his personal recollection of events.

Spencer’s stated purpose for writing the book

Spencer has said that his purpose in writing Swan Song is to provide an account of Diana from the perspective of her brother.

Before publication, he said:

“The aim of this book is to tell the truth about Diana from her brother’s perspective.”

He also connected the project with the eulogy he delivered at Diana’s funeral, saying he wanted to speak on her behalf.

The book is expected to address Diana’s marriage to Charles, her relationship with the Royal Family and events surrounding her death and funeral.

Diana’s death and the continuing public interest

Diana died on 31 August 1997, aged 36, after the Mercedes carrying her and Dodi Al-Fayed crashed in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris while being pursued by photographers.

Her death generated an enormous public reaction in Britain and internationally.

Nearly three decades later, memories of the events surrounding her death and funeral remain subjects of considerable public interest. Spencer’s memoir is therefore likely to reopen discussions about a period that remains emotionally significant for members of the Royal Family and the wider public.

What is known and what is disputed?

Issue	Current evidence
Diana died in Paris in August 1997	Established fact
William and Harry walked behind Diana’s coffin	Established fact
Spencer opposed the boys’ participation	Documented in retrospective accounts
Spencer says Charles told him Diana would be forgotten	Claim made in Spencer’s memoir
Palace confirms Charles said those words	No
Palace says Spencer fabricated the account	No
Palace says grief can affect memory and judgment	Yes
The private conversation can be independently reconstructed	Not established from currently reported evidence
Swan Song: Diana, My Sister publication date	22 September 2026

A dispute over memory, not just history

At the heart of the controversy is a question that extends beyond the Royal Family: how reliable are memories formed during periods of extreme emotional distress, particularly decades later?

Spencer was Diana’s brother and was directly involved in the events surrounding her funeral. His account therefore represents the recollection of someone who was personally present during that period.

At the same time, the Palace has pointed to the potential influence of grief on recollection and judgment. Its statement does not establish that Spencer’s memory is inaccurate, but it makes clear that the King does not accept the account without qualification.

The disagreement is consequently about both what happened in 1997 and how that history should now be remembered.

What happens next?

Swan Song: Diana, My Sister is scheduled for publication on 22 September. More extracts are expected to emerge before the book’s release, potentially providing additional details about Spencer’s recollections of Diana, Charles and the aftermath of her death.

For now, the central allegation remains an account presented by Diana’s brother, while Buckingham Palace has responded with a carefully worded challenge focused on the effects of grief and memory.

Independent assessment

The available evidence establishes that Spencer has made the allegation and that Buckingham Palace has publicly responded to it. It does not, on its own, establish that the alleged words were spoken exactly as Spencer remembers them, nor does the Palace’s statement establish that they were not.

The most accurate distinction at this stage is therefore between documented events surrounding Diana’s funeral, Spencer’s personal recollection, and the Palace’s response to that recollection.

That distinction will remain important as the full memoir becomes available and further contemporary or retrospective evidence is examined.

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | 17 September 2026

Scientists develop part-human, part-mouse brain model

Scientists at Stanford University have created genetically engineered mice containing a large amount of lab-grown human brain tissue, in a breakthrough that could provide a new way to study neurological and psychiatric disorders.

The research, published in Nature on 16 September 2026, involves transplanting human cortical organoids—three-dimensional clusters of brain cells grown from human stem cells—into mice whose developing brains had been genetically altered so that much of the cerebral cortex and hippocampus would not form.

The resulting animals are known as xenocortical mice.

Despite headlines describing them as having “half-human brains,” the science is more specific: the animals remain mice, but much of the tissue occupying the space normally taken by the mouse cortex is derived from human cells. STAT notes that the “half-human” description refers to the brain tissue’s volume rather than meaning that half of the mouse’s neurons are human.

Researchers Develop Method to Study Brain Connectivity, Functionality – National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

How the experiment worked

The Stanford researchers began with human stem cells and guided them into becoming cortical organoids—miniature, developing pieces of human brain tissue.

The scientists then used genetic engineering to prevent particular precursor cells in newborn mice from developing the neocortex and hippocampus. This created physical space in the animals’ brains for the human-derived tissue.

The human organoids were transplanted into the mice while the animals were still very young.

Over the following months, the human tissue expanded substantially and developed different types of human cortical neurons.

According to the Nature study, the human-derived tissue occupied most of the available cortical space and produced a diversity of human cortical cell types, including layer-5 projection neurons.

Human neurons connected to the mouse nervous system

One of the most important findings was that the human cells did not simply remain as an isolated lump of tissue.

Researchers found evidence that human cortical neurons established connections with the mouse nervous system. Human neuronal projections extended through the animal’s brain and, in some cases, as far as the spinal cord.

Electrical recordings also showed organized activity within the human-derived tissue.

The researchers therefore describe the model as potentially useful for studying human neural circuits in a living organism rather than only inside a laboratory dish.

Border between a transplanted human brain organoid and mouse brain [IMAGE] | EurekAlert! Science News Releases

But the human tissue was not a normal human cortex

An important qualification is that the transplanted tissue did not develop into a completely normal human cerebral cortex.

The Nature paper reports that the graft lacked several features of mature cortical circuitry, including complete areal patterning, a well-defined cortical layer structure and a mature balance of excitatory and inhibitory neurons.

This means the experiment should not be interpreted as scientists having created a mouse with a fully functioning human brain.

Researchers Develop Method to Study Brain Connectivity, Functionality – National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

Did the mice start behaving like humans?

No evidence suggests that they did.

The animals remained mice, and researchers carried out behavioral tests to examine whether the human tissue altered their capabilities.

The study found differences in movement and spontaneous behavior between normal mice, mice without the normal cortex and the xenocortical animals. In some tests, the animals containing human tissue performed between the other two groups.

Researchers did not report human-like intelligence, language, human consciousness or human-style cognition.

Science News reported that experts evaluating the work emphasized that the key ethical question is not simply how much human tissue an animal contains, but what capabilities that tissue gives the animal. The researchers found no obvious evidence that the mice had acquired extraordinary cognitive abilities.

Why scientists carried out the experiment

Studying the human brain presents an enormous scientific challenge.

Researchers cannot normally observe human brain development from its earliest stages or experimentally manipulate human brain tissue in the way they can with laboratory animals.

Brain organoids provide one alternative. They allow scientists to grow human neural tissue from stem cells, but organoids grown in laboratory dishes have significant limitations.

They lack the complete environment of a living brain—including blood supply, long-distance neural connections and interactions with other organs and brain regions.

The Stanford approach attempts to overcome some of those limitations by putting human neural tissue inside a living animal.

Organoides cerebrales humanos responden a estímulos visuales al trasplantarlos en ratas

Potential medical applications

The researchers believe the model could eventually help scientists investigate conditions including:

• autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders
• epilepsy
• schizophrenia
• cerebral palsy
• intellectual disabilities
• neurodegenerative diseases
• rare disorders affecting human brain development

The advantage is that researchers can potentially observe human neurons developing and responding to physiological conditions inside a living organism.

The study also demonstrated the possibility of using the animals to examine how human neural tissue responds to injury.

A striking finding about oxygen deprivation

The research also provided evidence that human neurons inside the mice responded differently to a shortage of oxygen than the surrounding mouse tissue.

This matters because oxygen deprivation is involved in several neurological injuries and diseases.

The ability to examine human-derived neurons under such conditions in a living organism could eventually help researchers investigate why certain human brain cells are particularly vulnerable to injury.

The ethical questions

The experiment has also revived difficult questions about how far scientists should go when combining human cells with animals.

The central concern is whether increasingly sophisticated human neural tissue could eventually alter an animal’s cognitive abilities, perception or capacity to experience suffering.

The researchers anticipated these concerns.

According to the Nature paper, the project underwent review by Stanford’s stem-cell oversight committee and animal-care committee, with additional consultation involving bioethicists and an independent ethics committee. The researchers also conducted behavioral and cognitive testing to look for altered capabilities.

The authors themselves say that future experiments involving more mature human neural tissue will require continued ethical oversight.

They specifically identify questions surrounding more advanced cortical organization, mature neural networks and possible changes in animal capabilities.

What makes this experiment different?

Human brain organoids have previously been transplanted into rodents.

For example, earlier work from Stanford researchers demonstrated that human cortical organoids could integrate into developing rat brains and form functional connections.

The 2026 experiment goes substantially further.

Instead of placing a relatively small human graft alongside an intact rodent cortex, researchers removed the developmental competition for space by preventing much of the mouse cortex from forming in the first place.

This allowed the human-derived tissue to expand into most of the available cortical region. Nature describes this as a way of overcoming one of the major limitations of previous transplantation experiments.

(PDF) Maturation and circuit integration of transplanted human cortical organoids

What scientists have — and have not — created

Claim	What the evidence shows
A mouse containing human brain tissue	Yes
Human neurons integrated with mouse neural circuits	Yes
Human tissue occupied much of the available cortex	Yes
Human neurons sent projections toward the spinal cord	Yes
Human-like consciousness demonstrated	No
A mouse with a completely human brain	No
Human intelligence demonstrated	No
Fully mature human cerebral cortex created inside a mouse	No

The distinction is important because the phrase “part-human, part-mouse brain” can make the achievement sound more science-fiction-like than the underlying experiment actually is.

What happens next?

The researchers see the xenocortical mouse as a research platform rather than a finished model of the human brain.

Future work will need to determine how closely the human tissue reproduces normal human cortical development, how reliably the model reproduces human neurological diseases and whether treatments tested on the human-derived neurons accurately predict what happens in people.

The ethical questions will also become more important if researchers succeed in producing increasingly mature and organized human neural networks inside animals. The Nature authors explicitly call for continued collaboration among scientists, ethicists, patient representatives and regulators as the technology develops.

Scientists Discover Neural Basis of Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

Independent assessment

The breakthrough is significant because it addresses a longstanding problem in neuroscience: how to study human brain cells in a living system without experimenting directly on human brains.

However, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence that scientists have created an animal with a human mind. The experiment produced a mouse whose developing cortex contains a large amount of human-derived neural tissue that can form connections with the mouse nervous system.

The technology could eventually improve research into diseases that are difficult to reproduce using conventional mice. At the same time, the more human-like these experimental brains become, the more carefully researchers will need to assess animal welfare and cognitive consequences.

For now, the study represents an important step in human brain modeling, rather than the creation of a human-animal hybrid in the science-fiction sense.

Primary scientific source: Kaganovsky et al., Nature, “Developmental xenocortication using human-derived organoids in mice,” published 16 September 2026.

Additional reporting: Stanford Medicine, Nature, Reuters and Science News.

Gaza City — 16 September 2026

Overview

At least 21 Palestinians, including eight children, were killed when a war-damaged residential building collapsed in Gaza City, according to Palestinian rescue officials and medical sources cited by international news organizations. Dozens of other people were reportedly trapped beneath the rubble as emergency crews continued searching the site on Wednesday, September 16.

The disaster occurred in an environment where large numbers of displaced Palestinians are living in buildings that were damaged during the war. The collapse has renewed concerns about the safety of structures across Gaza and the difficulties faced by rescue teams working with limited heavy equipment.

The collapse

The building was a multi-storey residential structure in western Gaza City. Reports differ slightly on its precise description, with Reuters describing it as a seven-storey building, while other reports have described it as six storeys. It had previously suffered serious damage during Israeli military operations.

According to Gaza Civil Defence officials, displaced families had been living inside the structure despite its damaged condition. The building reportedly housed several families who had limited alternatives for shelter.

The collapse occurred overnight while residents were inside. Rescue workers subsequently searched through large quantities of concrete, twisted metal and other debris for survivors.

Children among the dead

The casualty figures changed as rescuers recovered additional victims.

The Associated Press reported at least 21 deaths, including 11 children, while other early reports put the number of children among those killed at five or eight. The figures were still developing as rescue operations continued.

This discrepancy is important in reporting a developing disaster: the death toll and demographic breakdown can change as bodies are recovered and hospitals reconcile their records.

At least 14 people were reported injured in the earlier casualty updates. Dozens—and in some reports nearly 100 people—were believed to be missing or potentially trapped beneath the rubble.

Rescue operation

Emergency crews faced major difficulties reaching people beneath the collapsed structure.

Reports from Reuters and other outlets said rescue workers lacked sufficient heavy machinery and, in some places, were forced to work with basic tools or their hands. UN personnel and Egypt’s relief agency were also reported to be assisting rescue efforts.

The shortage of equipment is particularly significant because concrete slabs from multi-storey buildings can weigh several tonnes. Attempting to remove them without cranes, excavators and cutting equipment can considerably slow the search for survivors.

Gaza’s Civil Defence has warned that many other damaged structures remain dangerous.

A wider structural-safety crisis

The collapse is not an isolated structural problem.

Gaza’s rescue authorities estimate that about 2,000 damaged buildings remain occupied or potentially at risk of collapse. Tens of thousands of Palestinians are reported to be living in or around damaged structures because safer housing and adequate shelter remain scarce.

The problem is particularly acute for displaced families. Some families have reportedly returned to damaged buildings because tents and other temporary shelters do not adequately protect them from weather conditions, while the availability of alternative housing is extremely limited.

UN officials have also warned about the approaching winter and the possibility that deteriorating structures could pose additional risks.

Why were people living in a damaged building?

The circumstances highlight the difficult choices facing Gaza’s displaced population.

According to Palestinian officials and residents cited by news organizations, people have continued to occupy partially damaged buildings because they have few alternatives. Some families reportedly believed that remaining inside a standing structure offered greater protection from rain and other weather conditions than temporary shelters.

The building’s previous damage meant that its structural integrity was already compromised. However, the precise technical cause of the final collapse has not been independently established in the immediate aftermath.

That distinction matters: the building had previously been damaged during the war, but the available reports do not establish through an independent structural investigation exactly what caused the final failure.

Reconstruction and access to equipment

The disaster has also drawn attention to the wider reconstruction crisis in Gaza.

Reuters reported that UN and Palestinian officials attributed the shortage of heavy machinery partly to restrictions affecting the entry of equipment into Gaza. Israel has said restrictions are necessary to prevent materials and equipment from being diverted to armed groups.

The result is a difficult operational environment for civil-defence teams: damaged buildings remain standing but unstable, while rescuers may lack the machinery needed both to demolish them safely and to recover people trapped inside.

The ceasefire context

The collapse comes amid a fragile ceasefire that has reduced, but not eliminated, violence in Gaza.

Reuters reported that more than 1,300 Palestinians had been killed in Gaza since the ceasefire took effect, according to Gaza health officials, while Israel reported the deaths of four soldiers during the same period. Both Israel and Hamas have accused the other of violating the ceasefire.

The building collapse demonstrates that the physical consequences of the war continue even when active fighting decreases. Structures damaged months or years earlier can remain dangerous, while displaced people continue to live among damaged infrastructure.

Key facts at a glance

The casualty figures are developing and should be treated as provisional. Different news organizations and authorities have reported different numbers as rescuers continue recovering victims.

Independent assessment

The immediate facts point to two overlapping humanitarian emergencies: a deadly building collapse and a broader shortage of safe accommodation for displaced families.

The collapse itself occurred in a structure that had already been damaged during the war. The continuing use of such structures reflects the lack of sufficient safe housing and shelter options. At the same time, the limited availability of rescue equipment has complicated efforts to determine how many people remain trapped and to recover victims.

Further investigation would be required to establish the precise structural mechanism that caused the building to fail and whether additional factors contributed to its collapse.

For now, the most immediate concern remains the people still missing beneath the rubble and the safety of residents occupying other damaged structures across Gaza.

Sources: Reuters, Associated Press, The Independent, Al Jazeera and other international reporting published on 16 September 2026.

Image note: The accompanying images are illustrative rescue-scene photographs from Gaza and are not necessarily photographs of the specific building involved in this incident.

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | September 16, 2026
Washington, D.C. / International

Executive Summary

U.S. federal authorities have accused a network linked to Russian intelligence services of organizing a campaign of targeted killings and attacks against people regarded by Moscow as opponents, including individuals in the United States and people in European countries supporting Ukraine.

The allegations were made public on 15 September 2026, when the U.S. Department of Justice announced charges against five people it says were working with Russian intelligence services. Prosecutors allege that the network recruited people to conduct surveillance and carry out killings, while also planning attacks against civilian and military infrastructure in European countries aligned with Ukraine.

The allegations remain allegations: the five defendants are at large, and the Justice Department itself notes that an indictment is not proof of guilt and that defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

FBI Director Kash Patel to Move HQ From Dilapidated Hoover Building to Ronald Reagan Building Amid Removal Predictions | DeepNewz US Gov Appointments

What the United States alleges

According to the unsealed indictment, the alleged Russian Intelligence Services network has operated since at least 2024. U.S. prosecutors say its activities initially focused on Russian dissidents and defectors but increasingly included individuals and countries perceived as supportive of Ukraine.

The case centers on five defendants:

• Yuri Khrameev, 63, described by prosecutors as a former Russian intelligence colonel.
• Kirill Khrameev, 27, described as an officer in Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB.
• Oemis Romagoza Durruthy, 35, a Cuban national living in Russia.
• Yaidel Delgado Suarez, 35, a Cuban national whom prosecutors describe as a recruiter.
• Angel Eduardo Castro, 22, a Venezuelan national.

All five face a charge of conspiracy to finance terrorism. Three—Yuri Khrameev, Suarez and Castro—also face conspiracy-to-commit-murder-for-hire charges.

Department of Justice in Washington DC USA

An alleged assassination plot in Washington

One of the most significant allegations concerns a Russian dissident whom the network believed was living in the United States.

Prosecutors allege that a U.S.-based individual was recruited during the summer of 2026 to conduct surveillance of the intended victim. According to the indictment, the individual received locations connected with the target and was offered between $1,000 and $1,500 for surveillance work.

After photographs and videos were provided to the alleged recruiters, prosecutors say the individual was offered $40,000 to kill the dissident. The person refused to carry out the killing, after which the alleged recruiters sought other people who might undertake the operation.

The FBI said its Washington and New York offices, together with other agencies, disrupted the alleged operation before the planned killing occurred.

EU-Weinexport nach Russland fällt auf 20-Jahres-Tief | wein.plus Wein-Nachrichten

A second alleged target in Lithuania

The indictment describes an earlier operation involving a person in Lithuania.

U.S. prosecutors allege that in 2025, Kirill Khrameev recruited an American to travel to the Lithuanian target’s purported address and take photographs. After the surveillance was completed, Yuri Khrameev allegedly offered the individual approximately $25,000 to kill the target.

The recruit declined. Prosecutors say the alleged recruiter subsequently proposed other forms of sabotage, including attacks against property and infrastructure.

This allegation is significant because it illustrates the broader pattern described by U.S. prosecutors: the alleged network was not limited to Russian dissidents but also sought to target people and infrastructure in countries supporting Ukraine.

European dimension

The U.S. indictment also alleges that members of the network helped organize operations in Europe.

Prosecutors say Durruthy coordinated travel and logistics connected to alleged attacks in Prague in 2024 and Lithuania later that year. The Justice Department characterizes these activities as part of a wider effort involving attacks against civilian and military infrastructure in countries aligned with or perceived to be aligned with Ukraine.

The allegations come amid broader Western concerns about Russian intelligence activity in Europe.

An Associated Press investigation published in May reported that Western intelligence officials had linked a series of suspected assassination and sabotage operations to Russian security services. Those cases included alleged plots involving Ukrainian supporters, Russian activists and people connected to Ukraine’s war effort.

Why the case matters

The allegations extend beyond the traditional battlefield in Ukraine.

If the U.S. allegations are substantiated in court, they would indicate an effort to use recruited intermediaries—including people with no obvious connection to Russian intelligence—to conduct surveillance, killings and acts of sabotage abroad.

That approach can provide intelligence services with distance from the people carrying out an operation, while making investigations more difficult. The U.S. indictment alleges that recruiters offered money to individuals in the United States and Europe rather than personally carrying out every operation.

The case therefore illustrates a broader security problem facing countries supporting Ukraine: the conflict’s effects can extend beyond conventional military operations in Ukrainian territory.

Russia’s response

The allegations have been disputed by Russia.

Reuters reported on 16 September that Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the allegations pending what he described as credible evidence. Russia has previously denied involvement in killings and attempted killings of opponents abroad.

That means the central allegation—that the defendants were acting on behalf of Russian intelligence services—remains a matter to be established through evidence and legal proceedings rather than simply accepted on the basis of the charges.

What is established and what remains alleged

Broader context

The allegations are part of an increasingly international security environment surrounding Russia’s war against Ukraine. Western officials have previously accused Russian intelligence-linked networks of conducting sabotage, arson, surveillance and assassination operations across Europe.

In May 2026, the Associated Press reported that intelligence officials from several Western countries believed Russia had increased efforts to target opponents and supporters of Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The report also documented alleged plots in France, Lithuania, Germany and Poland.

The latest U.S. case is notable because alleged operations reached into U.S. territory itself, according to the indictment.

Conclusion

The U.S. Justice Department’s case presents an allegation of a Russian intelligence-linked network that sought to recruit people overseas to conduct surveillance, assassinations and attacks against individuals and infrastructure associated with countries supporting Ukraine.

The most immediate alleged operation involved surveillance of a Russian dissident in the United States and an offer of $40,000 for the person’s killing. Prosecutors say that operation was disrupted before the assassination occurred.

The allegations are serious but remain subject to judicial scrutiny. The five defendants have not been convicted, and Russia disputes the U.S. account. The forthcoming legal proceedings and any additional evidence will be important in determining which elements of the U.S. government’s allegations can ultimately be established.

Primary sources: U.S. Department of Justice indictment announcement; Associated Press reporting; Reuters reporting.

Image sources shown above include Wikimedia Commons and Getty Images search results; the FBI headquarters image is identified as CC BY 2.0 on Wikimedia Commons.

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | September 16, 2026

U.S. President Donald Trump is returning to North Carolina on Wednesday to campaign for Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley, as Republicans work to consolidate support ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.

The visit is Trump’s first major campaign appearance since the Republican Party’s midterm convention and forms part of his effort to make the congressional elections a referendum on his presidency. Whatley, a former Republican National Committee chairman, is seeking the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Senator Thom Tillis.

Donald Trump campaigns in North Carolina ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Focus on voters who backed Trump in 2024

North Carolina was one of the closely contested states in the 2024 presidential election, when Trump won the state. The current Senate campaign is putting particular attention on voters who supported Trump in that election but have not necessarily committed to the Republican Senate nominee.

An August Elon University poll cited by Reuters found that 72% of North Carolina voters who said they voted for Trump in 2024 supported Whatley, while 10% supported Democratic candidate Roy Cooper and 14% remained undecided. Among voters who said they backed Kamala Harris in 2024, 93% supported Cooper.

The figures illustrate a distinction between presidential and down-ballot voting: some people who supported Trump in 2024 are not automatically supporting the Republican Senate candidate in 2026.

Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley is seeking to consolidate support among voters who backed Trump in 2024.

Focus on voters who backed Trump in 2024

North Carolina was one of the closely contested states in the 2024 presidential election, when Trump won the state. The current Senate campaign is putting particular attention on voters who supported Trump in that election but have not necessarily committed to the Republican Senate nominee.

An August Elon University poll cited by Reuters found that 72% of North Carolina voters who said they voted for Trump in 2024 supported Whatley, while 10% supported Democratic candidate Roy Cooper and 14% remained undecided. Among voters who said they backed Kamala Harris in 2024, 93% supported Cooper.

The figures illustrate a distinction between presidential and down-ballot voting: some people who supported Trump in 2024 are not automatically supporting the Republican Senate candidate in 2026.

North Carolina’s large unaffiliated electorate remains a major focus of the 2026 Senate campaign.

Affordability emerges as a central issue

Economic conditions are another major theme of the campaign.

Reuters reported that concerns about affordability are affecting Trump’s support among some moderate voters, while gasoline prices have become a prominent issue. The national average price for regular gasoline was reported at $4.33 per gallon on September 15, while diesel reached $6.27, according to AAA figures cited by Reuters.

Trump has continued to emphasize issues including crime and immigration, while the Whatley campaign has sought to connect those issues to the broader Republican agenda.

North Carolina’s unaffiliated voters

Unaffiliated voters are particularly important in North Carolina. Reuters reported that they make up approximately 40% of the state’s registered electorate, making them the largest registration category.

The state’s political balance means campaigns from both parties are seeking support beyond their traditional bases. The discussion has consequently focused on issues such as household costs, the economy and the performance of the Trump administration.

North Carolina’s State Board of Elections reported that more than 5.7 million people voted in the state’s 2024 general election, underscoring the size of the electorate involved in the state’s political contests.

Polling snapshot

A recent Elon University poll cited by Reuters put Cooper at 49% and Whatley at 38% among likely voters. The same survey found that 54% of North Carolina respondents disapproved of Trump’s job performance, while 31% approved. These are measurements from a particular survey and date, rather than forecasts of the eventual election result.

Nationally, a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted during the previous week put Trump’s approval rating at 35%, compared with 33% in the preceding survey. The poll also found Democrats ahead of Republicans 44% to 37% on its generic congressional ballot question.

Trump makes the midterms personal

Trump has urged Republicans to approach the 2026 elections as a judgment on his administration, telling Republicans at last week’s convention to “pretend that I’m on the ballot,” despite not being a candidate in the November elections.

His North Carolina appearance reflects that strategy, with Trump using his national profile to campaign for candidates running in competitive states.

Democrats, meanwhile, are also seeking to make the Senate contest about Trump’s record and policies. The competing approaches mean the North Carolina race is being fought not only around the individual candidates but also around voters’ assessments of the administration’s economic and domestic policies.

What to watch

The North Carolina campaign is likely to continue focusing on several groups of voters: Republicans who supported Trump in 2024, unaffiliated voters, and voters whose concerns are centered on inflation, fuel prices and household affordability.

The state’s official election calendar lists October 9, 2026, as the voter-registration deadline and October 15–31 as the in-person early-voting period for the November general election.

For the Republican campaign, Trump’s appearance provides an opportunity to mobilize his existing supporters while addressing concerns among voters who supported him previously but remain undecided about the Senate contest.