JOHANNESBURG, South Africa – The Biden Administration has been blasted by the incoming Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho., for ‘waiting’ until the outgoing President had only 13 days left in office before declaring rebel actions in Sudan, a country torn apart by 21 months of bitter war, to be ‘genocide.’

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that members of the Sudanese rebel group, the Rapid Support Forces or RSF, ‘have committed genocide in Sudan.’ 

In a statement, Blinken said, ‘The United States is committed to holding accountable those responsible for these atrocities. We are sanctioning RSF leader Mohammad Hamdan Daglo Mousa, known as Hemedti, for his role in systematic atrocities committed against the Sudanese people.’

Blinken made his rulings, he stated, because ‘the RSF and RSF-aligned militias have continued to direct attacks against civilians, have systematically murdered men and boys—even infants—on an ethnic basis, and (have) deliberately targeted women and girls from certain ethnic groups for rape and other forms of brutal sexual violence.’

The Secretary continued, ‘Those same militias have targeted fleeing civilians, murdering innocent people escaping conflict, and prevented remaining civilians from accessing lifesaving supplies.’

Blinken added that the African nation is suffering through ‘a conflict of unmitigated brutality that has resulted in the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe, leaving 638,000 Sudanese experiencing the worst famine in Sudan’s recent history, over 30 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, and tens of thousands dead.’

Risch has held out that the situation in Sudan has been catastrophic for well over a year, and called into question the timing of Blinken’s declaration. In a statement earlier this week, he wrote, ‘It has been nearly a year since I introduced a resolution calling the atrocities in Sudan what they are: a genocide. Additionally, I first called for Global Magnitsky sanctions to be imposed against the RSF and Hemedti 263 days ago – and yet these sanctions still have not been leveraged.’

Risch spoke to Fox News Digital, declaring, ‘The Biden Administration waited until it has less than two weeks in office to sanction RSF-affiliated companiesand Hemedti for their crimes and to call atrocities in Sudan a genocide.’

Risch said, ‘This neglect to address the crisis in Sudan weakened America’s influence in the region and the world years ago. If the Biden Administration backed its rhetoric with action, Sudan would be in a better position today, more lives would be saved, and the foreign proxies exacerbating this conflict would be kept at bay.’

Risch added, ‘This war must end. Further instability in Sudan will only breed terrorism and regional turmoil, threatening global security. The U.S. and our allies must seek to end the killing and atrocities, end the malign actions by proxies, manage migration pressures from mass displacement and protect strategic interests like the Red Sea corridor.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan, Thomas Perriello, said ‘Making an atrocity determination is an immense responsibility that the Secretary takes seriously.  Such determinations are based on a careful review of the facts and the law. It requires information not only of certain acts but also that those acts were done with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a racial, ethnic, national, or religious group. Information demonstrating intent is often difficult to find and assess.’
 
‘Since the start of the conflict the United States has taken repeated action to promote accountability of the RSF for its atrocities conduct. The U.S. already had sanctioned five RSF leaders, including two of Hemedti’s brothers. We also determined in December 2023 that members of the RSF committed ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. So the designation of Hemedti and the genocide determination reflect a consistent effort to document and call out atrocities, acknowledge the suffering of victims and survivors, and pursue justice and accountability.’

In his declaration, Blinken announced new sanctions stating, ‘We are also sanctioning seven RSF-owned companies located in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and one individual for their roles in procuring weapons for the RSF.’

The Treasury Department also sent out a statement, virtually simultaneously to the one from State, saying ‘the RSF’s ability to acquire military equipment and generate finances continue to fuel the conflict in Sudan.’ Treasury stated one particular company in the UAE, owned by a Sudanese national  ‘has provided money and weapons to the RSF.’  

Other UAE companies sanctioned this past week have been accused by the Treasury Department of handling financial transactions, of being ‘an essential part of the RSF’s efforts to finance its operations’, and of importing IT and security equipment .

One gold company in the UAE has been sanctioned because it has allegedly ‘purchased gold from Sudan, presumably for the benefit of the RSF, and subsequently transported it to Dubai.’ Additionally, Treasury claimed ‘the RSF’s procurement director and brother of RSF leader Hemedti maintained access to (the gold company’s) bank account in the UAE, which held millions of dollars.’

‘The United States continues to call for an end to this conflict that is putting innocent civilian lives in jeopardy,’ Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo stated. ‘The Treasury Department remains committed to using every tool available to hold accountable those responsible for violating the human rights of the Sudanese people.’

In response to Fox News Digital questions involving UAE registered companies an official from its foreign ministry fired back, stating. ‘The UAE’s primary focus in Sudan remains on addressing the catastrophic humanitarian crisis. We continue to call for an immediate cease-fire and a peaceful resolution to this man-made conflict. In this regard, the UAE has already made absolutely clear that it is not providing any support or supplies to either of two belligerent warring parties in Sudan.’

The official continued, ‘the UAE takes its role in protecting the integrity of the international financial system extremely seriously. We remain committed to combating financial crime globally, enhancing international cooperation and developing strategies to address emerging risks.’

As 2025 kicked off, many Americans began their quest for a healthier year ahead by committing to more exercise, a renewed focus on mental well-being, a healthier diet, and ‘Dry January’ (that is, a month without alcohol consumption). Then U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released his latest advisory linking alcohol to an increased risk of cancer.  

Specifically, the advisory highlighted an increased risk in mouth, throat, esophagus, voice box, breast (in women), liver, and colon and rectum cancers among those who consume any amount of alcohol. Further, the report states that alcohol consumption leads to 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 cancer-related deaths in the U.S. each year, making it the third leading preventable cause of cancer after tobacco and obesity. 

I believe many of us have long suspected alcohol was not necessarily ‘good’ for us. But what I think we did not know – or perhaps did not want to fully acknowledge – was just how bad it could be for our health. In fact, 60% of Americans report being unaware of the relationship between alcohol and cancer. Hopefully, this advisory begins the process of educating the public of this important health-related link. 

Since the advisory’s publication, Americans have raised numerous questions about what the government may do next, what the findings mean for them, and how they should consider the findings in their daily lives.  

Here’s what to know and to keep in mind. 

How does alcohol cause cancer? 

From a 30,000-foot view, alcohol damages your DNA, which increases your cancer risk. This occurs through several different mechanisms. For example, our DNA can be damaged by acetaldehyde, the toxic metabolite alcohol is broken down to in our body, or by the oxidative stress alcohol causes.  

Alcohol also alters hormone levels in our body, such as estrogen, which likely explains alcohol’s relationship with increased breast cancer risk. Not only does alcohol directly damage our DNA, but it also increases the absorption of cancer-causing chemicals, or carcinogens, into the body. So, while we may think of a glass of wine or beer as calming or relaxing for our body, it – in fact – does the exact opposite, causing inflammation.  

What comes next? 

The advisory lays the groundwork for action – by the government, physicians and our fellow Americans. 

Murthy suggests that the surgeon general’s warning label on alcohol be updated to clearly note the link between alcohol and cancer. Such a labeling change would require an act of Congress, and I believe this should be done quickly on a bipartisan basis. What’s one thing we can all rally behind? Reducing cancer among our family, friends and neighbors. 

However, this is not a ‘silver bullet’ strategy. While one study assessing cigarette warning labels showed that more comprehensive, larger, and graphic labels better communicate health risks of smoking to the public, another suggested they did not have an actual effect on smoking behavior.  

So, if we extrapolate what this may mean for the future impact of an updated surgeon general’s warning label on alcohol, the effect may be nominal. Further, it is important to note that this was the result despite the cancer risk being substantially higher for cigarettes than alcohol when they’re consumed at comparable amounts. 

But updating the warning label is a start to the needed education to raise general awareness and physician ‘buy-in’ that Murthy also highlights are important ‘action items.’ We must work collaboratively to increase knowledge of the alcohol and cancer risk relationship, not only in the media but in more personal settings, such as doctors’ offices and across our local communities. A targeted strategy is needed to deliver on the potential of an education program to reduce alcohol consumption. 

Lastly, we must always make sure that policy follows the latest, up-to-date science. It’s OK to not know, but we need to be clear with the public when that is the case. For example, the current definition of moderate drinking (one drink or less per day for women and two drinks or less per day for men [one drink is 12 ounces of beer, five ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of liquor]) is relatively arbitrary and using it as a ‘scientific’ guide can be misleading and confusing. As Murthy noted, we must reassess these definition ‘cut-offs.’ 

What are some of the limits of what we know? 

While the current research overwhelmingly shows a link between alcohol consumption and cancer, the details of what we do not know also matter. The evidence suggests that cancer risk is directly proportional to the amount of alcohol consumed, meaning that if you drink more alcohol, your risk of cancer increases. This makes sense – alcohol is a toxin and the more toxins you put in your body, the worse it should be for you. 

But is it only the quantity that matters? Does the risk differ by alcohol ‘quality’ (for example, a natural wine or high-quality wine versus one with more additives) or type of alcohol? Is there a ‘safe’ limit? What role does genetics play? Do other preventative measures, such as healthy, clean eating and exercise, ‘offset’ your cancer risk from alcohol use, and – if so – by how much?   

These questions highlight only some of what we do not know, and it is important to note that they do not discredit the central fact – alcohol and cancer are directly linked. But what it does show is that there is more research to be done, especially to reduce some of the bias, or confounders, in the current data used to date. This makes sure the most complete evidence is available to guide education and policy making.

From a 30,000-foot view, alcohol damages your DNA, which increases your cancer risk. 

So, what does all of this mean for you? 

We should commend Murthy for bringing this information into the national spotlight. Information is empowering, and now – after reading this piece – I’m confident you can make a more knowledgeable decision for yourself about how much and how often to drink alcohol. 

From my perspective, I strongly believe that moderation is key, and I will continue to stress this as a physician and follow this approach in my own life. While many may stop drinking alcohol altogether after this advisory was published, I urge all others to strive to moderate their intake.  

Personally, I will still enjoy a social beer here or a glass of wine there. At the same time, however, I plan to decrease my alcohol consumption overall. It’s an individual decision, and as a cancer survivor (testicular cancer) myself, I still want to ‘live my life’. 

Ultimately, I challenge all of us to take a step each day to be a bit healthier – eat better, drink less, work out more and support our mental and spiritual health and well-being. 

The opinions, thoughts, and ideas expressed in this article are those of the author only and not necessarily those of any employers or institutions of which he is affiliated.

After President-elect Trump mused about using ‘economic force’ to acquire Canada as the 51st state during his Mar-a-Lago news conference on Tuesday, outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded on social media that ‘there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.’

However, as Trudeau announced on Monday his plan to resign as prime minister once the Liberal Party that he leads chooses his successor, the biggest pushback to Trump’s pitch to annex Canada – and his planned 25% tariffs on exports from the country – has come from the premier of Canada’s most populous province, Ontario.

Doug Ford, a former businessman and conservative like Trump who has served as Ontario’s 26th premier since 2018, told Fox News Digital in an interview that the president-elect’s targeting Canada is both ‘crazy’ and ‘ridiculous.’

He said the bilateral focus should be on ‘strengthening’ what the Canadian government calls a nearly trillion-dollar two-way trade relationship to ‘make the U.S. and Canada the richest and most prosperous jurisdiction in the world.’

At a Toronto news conference on Monday following Trudeau’s resignation announcement, Ford chided Trump with a ‘counteroffer’ to his Canada-as-a-51st state idea. 

‘How about if we buy Alaska and throw in Minnesota?’ the premier said at Queen’s Park, Ontario’s legislature.

Ford jokingly told Fox News Digital that he heard from Canadians after making those remarks that he should have chosen ‘somewhere warmer, like Florida or California.’

‘California never votes for him anyway,’ he added.

At his Monday news conference, Ontario’s premier said that ‘under my watch,’ annexing Canada ‘will never, ever happen.’  

Ford is also taking Trump’s tariff threat seriously.

Last month, his Progressive Conservative government launched a multimillion-dollar U.S. ad campaign on television and streaming apps touting Ontario as an ‘ally’ to generate ‘more workers, more trade, more prosperity, more security.’

‘You can rely on Ontario for energy to power your growing economy, and for the critical minerals crucial to new technologies,’ says the 60-second ad.

Ford said the 25% tariff against Canada, which Trump plans to implement on his first day in office on Jan. 20, would hurt millions of American and Canadian workers.

‘Nine million Americans produce products for Ontario alone every single day,’ he said. ‘The problem is China shipping goods into Mexico and Mexico slapping a made-in-Mexico sticker.’

Ontario is ready to take retaliatory measures ‘that will really send a message to the U.S.’ in response to the imposition of U.S. tariffs, said Ford, who was involved in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement during the first Trump administration, but would now like Canada to have separate deals with the U.S. and Mexico.

‘It’s unfortunate because retaliation is not good for either country,’ he offered, noting that Ontario is the top exporter to 17 states and the second largest to 11 others. 

‘The last thing I want to do is hurt those people,’ said Ford. ‘I want to create more jobs in the U.S., more jobs in Canada. And we can do that by making sure that we toughen up and put tariffs on places like China.’

By way of example, he said that ‘someone in Texas who purchased a GM pickup truck made in Oshawa, [Ontario] might have paid between $50,000 and $60,000,’ and with a tariff, ‘would be paying 70 some-odd thousand.’

‘It just doesn’t make sense whatsoever,’ Ford said. 

He would like to have a face-to-face meeting with Trump and said he has reached out to U.S. senators and governors to make that happen. A sit-down with SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk – whom Trump appointed to co-lead, with former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, the proposed ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ – is also on Ford’s wish-list.

Ford said Trump ‘doesn’t realize’ that Ontario is the U.S.’s third-largest trading partner, amounting to about US$344 billion in 2023, ‘split equally down the center.’

Ontario’s premier said he wants to ship more electricity and critical minerals to the U.S., which ‘needs us like we need them.’ 

In 2012, the premier and his late brother, Rob, who was mayor of Toronto at the time, met Trump, along with his daughter, Ivanka, when they were in the city to open the former Trump International Hotel and Tower, now unaffiliated with The Trump Organization and known as The St. Regis Toronto.

Ford, who ran a Toronto-based family business, Deco Labels & Flexible Packaging, before entering municipal politics as a city councilor in 2010, considers Trump ‘a shrewd operator’ and ‘a smart businessperson.’

The incoming president ‘knows about Ontario,’ the premier said.

‘Not one senator, not one governor, not one congressperson or businessperson, has said that Canada is a problem,’ said Ford, who opened a Deco branch in Chicago in 1999.

He said Trump has not set his sights on such other U.S. allies as the United Kingdom and France, but ‘wants to target’ the U.S.’s ‘closest friend,’ Canada. 

‘I’m not too sure if it’s personal against Trudeau, but Trudeau is on his way out, so hopefully we’ll have a better conversation,’ said Ontario’s premier, who added that he would consider taking a run at federal politics in the future.

On Monday, Trump posted on Truth Social that ‘the United States can no longer suffer the massive Trade Deficits and Subsidies that Canada needs to stay afloat.’ 

‘Justin Trudeau knows this, and resigned,’ said the next, and 47th, U.S. president.

But Trudeau is still the prime minister, and Ford and the premiers of the other nine provinces and three territories will meet with him next Wednesday in Ottawa to address the Trump tariff issue.

Despite his departure as prime minister sometime over the next two months when the next Liberal leader is expected to be chosen, Trudeau should not think ‘he’s off the hook’ and Canadian premiers ‘will hold his feet to the fire’ in ensuring that Canada is ready to respond to the Trump administration’s imminent and punitive trade measure, said Ford.

He chairs the Council of the Federation – a gathering of Canada’s premiers, which has kept Canada-U.S. relations top of mind and has made avoiding U.S. tariffs ‘a priority,’ according to a statement issued last month.

‘Canada and the U.S. form one of the largest integrated markets in the world, with more than C$3.5 billion [about US$2.4 billion] worth of goods and services crossing the border each day. The U.S. sells more goods and services to Canada than it sells to China, Japan and Germany combined.’

To help assuage Trump’s concerns over border security, Ford’s government launched on Tuesday ‘Operation Deterrence,’ to crack down on illegal crossings, and drugs and guns – 90% of which are entering Ontario from the U.S., the premier told Fox News Digital.

On drugs, he said his government is also collaborating with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to identify the source of fentanyl ingredients – and whether they originated in ‘China or Mexico or the U.S.’

Last month, the Trudeau government announced its own border-security plan.