After more than 40 days of a federal government shutdown, the U.S. Senate on Monday (Nov. 11) passed a temporary funding bill by a vote of 60 to 40, marking a key step toward reopening government operations. The bill extends federal funding through January 30 next year and guarantees back pay for affected federal employees. It must still pass the House of Representatives before being signed into law by President Donald Trump.

The bill’s success in the Senate hinged on seven Democratic senators and one Democratic-aligned independent crossing party lines to support the measure, allowing Republicans to reach the 60-vote threshold needed for passage. The House, currently in recess, is scheduled to reconvene on Wednesday. Speaker Mike Johnson has urged lawmakers to return to Washington promptly to vote on the bill, though with Republicans holding only a slim majority, its passage remains uncertain.

The shutdown has left 1.4 million federal workers either furloughed or working without pay, and disrupted numerous government services nationwide.

Under the bipartisan agreement, the bill not only provides short-term funding but also allocates full-year budgets for the Department of Agriculture, military construction, and Congressional operations. It further extends funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through September next year, a program supporting roughly one in eight Americans.

However, some Democrats voiced frustration over their party leadership’s decision to decouple healthcare subsidy negotiations from the funding talks, arguing that the shutdown should have been used as leverage to secure an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies. Lawmakers warned that if Congress fails to renew the subsidies expiring in January, future funding negotiations could again stall — potentially triggering another shutdown.

Chinese national Qian Zhimin, dubbed the “Bitcoin Queen,” has been sentenced to 11 years and 8 months in prison by a UK court for orchestrating a massive international Ponzi scheme and laundering billions through cryptocurrency. The case is regarded as one of the largest money-laundering and crypto seizure operations in British history.

Prosecutors said that between 2014 and 2017, Qian masterminded an investment fraud in China involving around 128,000 investors and a total of 40 billion yuan (≈£4.3 billion), embezzling over 6 billion yuan. After the scheme collapsed, she fled China in 2017, traveling through several Southeast Asian countries before entering the UK under a false passport and assuming the alias “Zhang Yadi.”

Once in London, Qian allegedly laundered her illicit gains through Bitcoin, converting stolen funds into cryptocurrency before purchasing luxury goods, jewelry, and properties. A 2018 police raid uncovered over 61,000 bitcoins, then valued at about £300 million, which have since risen in value to nearly £5 billion. Authorities also seized gold, cash, and crypto hardware devices.

Judge Sally-Ann Hales described Qian as “the architect and driving force of the entire criminal enterprise,” adding that her actions were “motivated purely by greed.”

Qian initially claimed political persecution by the Chinese government but later pleaded guilty in September to charges of possessing and transferring criminal proceeds. The UK Crown Prosecution Service has launched civil proceedings to use the seized bitcoins for victim compensation, though the final valuation and distribution will depend on future court rulings due to cryptocurrency price volatility.

The U.S. government has come under fire after reports revealed it paid $7.5 million to Equatorial Guinea in exchange for the country’s agreement to accept non-citizen migrants deported from the United States. The deal has sparked outrage among U.S. lawmakers and human rights groups, who question both the ethical and practical implications of funding an authoritarian regime with a poor human rights record.

According to The Guardian, the payment was drawn from the Migration and Refugee Assistance Fund, an emergency reserve established by Congress to address global refugee crises and resettlement efforts. However, under the Trump administration, the fund was redirected to support deportation and repatriation initiatives, a move critics say contradicts the fund’s original humanitarian purpose.

Public data from the U.S. State Department shows that the money was transferred directly to the Equatorial Guinean government, led by President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who has ruled since 1979 and is often described as one of Africa’s most entrenched autocrats. His son and vice president, Teodorin Obiang, has been convicted of corruption and money laundering in multiple countries, raising concerns that U.S. funds could be misused or siphoned off.

Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, denouncing the payment as “highly irregular.” She cited Equatorial Guinea’s long-standing record of human trafficking, corruption, and political repression, and demanded clarification on whether deportees were receiving protection from abuse or exploitation upon arrival.

Sources indicate that the Trump administration had approached at least 58 nations with similar proposals—offering financial incentives or diplomatic pressure to accept third-country migrants expelled from the U.S. Many of these countries, including Eswatini, South Sudan, and El Salvador, have been cited in U.S. human rights reports for systemic rights violations.

A State Department spokesperson defended the move, stating that implementing the administration’s immigration policies remains “a top priority,” emphasizing the government’s commitment to “ending illegal and large-scale migration while strengthening border security.”

The controversy highlights a growing debate over the ethics of outsourcing immigration enforcement to foreign governments—especially those accused of corruption or abuse—raising fundamental questions about U.S. accountability and moral leadership in global migration policy.