[Breaking news update, published at 8:53 a.m. ET]

The Russian national was onboard the plane when Delta refused to fly her, according to the official.

“We are going to try to send her back again with a French escort,” the official said.

[Previous story, published at 8:33 a.m. ET]

The woman, who got past multiple security checkpoints at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and boarded a plane to Paris, will be traveling on a flight setting off from France at 2.30 p.m. local time (8.30 a.m. ET), the official said.

She was scheduled to be on a flight to the US on Saturday afternoon but French authorities removed her from the aircraft after she started screaming, according to the official.

“She kept on saying ‘I do not want to go back to the USA. Only a judge can make me go back to the USA,’” Gary Treichler said.

The woman will be accompanied by six US marshals on Tuesday’s flight back to New York, authorities said.

Authorities in the US are continuing to investigate how the woman sneaked onto the initial Delta flight without a ticket.

“The TSA will open civil cases against passengers when there’s evidence that procedures may have been violated,” Lopez said. The TSA cannot bring criminal charges, though it can refer them to the Justice Department.

Delta has not said how the woman was able to board the plane once she made it past the TSA checkpoint.

The airline said it “is conducting an exhaustive investigation of what may have occurred,” but declined further comment.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved a record-breaking defense budget, setting aside a staggering third of the government’s total spending as the war in Ukraine drains resources from both sides nearly three years on.

The budget for 2025, which was published Sunday, allocates about $126 billion (13.5 trillion rubles) to national defense – amounting to 32.5% of government spending.

The defense budget is about $28 billion (three trillion rubles) higher than the previous record set this year.

The new three-year budget forecasts a slight reduction in military spending for 2026 and 2027. Lawmakers in both houses of the Russian parliament approved the budget.

Russia’s war in Ukraine is the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II. Moscow is currently making gains at key spots along the front lines and fighting a counteroffensive in Kursk region – the site of Kyiv’s only major military success this year.

But the slow, grinding war – often called a war of attrition, where both sides are trying to wear down the other – has drained both countries’ resources.

Ukraine has always been on the back foot when it comes to both material and manpower, though it has received billions of dollars in help from its Western allies, including more than half a billion in new military equipment pledged by Germany on Monday.

How much aid will continue to come from the United States once President-elect Donald Trump takes office remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, Russia has more weapons, more ammunition and more personnel – but the strain on its economy and population is growing.

Russia has massively increased its military spending over the past two years and its economy is showing signs of overheating: inflation is running high, and companies are facing labor shortages. Trying to control the situation, the Russian Central Bank raised interest rates to 21% in October, the highest in decades.

Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to receive significant military assistance from its allies.

On Monday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz arrived in Kyiv for the first time in more than two years, where he pledged more than 650 million euros ($684 million) in military equipment for Ukraine.

Scholz announced that Germany would deliver additional air defenses – including the US-made Patriot system – to Ukraine next year.

Scholz’s visit came after he rankled Ukrainian officials last month by calling Vladimir Putin, ending a years-long European effort to isolate the Russian president following his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Speaking alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at a press conference in Kyiv, Scholz said he had used the call to stress to Putin that “Ukraine should be an independent sovereign nation” and that “Russia has to stop the war and withdraw its troops.”

Meanwhile, although Russia has many more people than Ukraine, it is suffering significant battlefield losses and recruitment of new troops is already a problem – the last time the Russian military introduced a partial mobilization, hundreds of thousands of men fled the country.

North Korea recently sent an influx of soldiers to help Russia fight on the front lines – Zelensky said in November that about 11,000 North Korean soldiers were in Kursk.

The North Korean troops may help Russia’s efforts for some time – but the material losses could be harder to make up for.

As tit-for-tat strikes strain a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah less than a week since it went into effect, Israel’s defense minister on Tuesday threatened to directly target the Lebanese state should the agreement fall apart.

Monday was the deadliest day since that agreement came into force last Wednesday, with Israeli strikes killing nine in southern Lebanon after Hezbollah fired at Israeli-occupied territory, citing Israeli truce violations.

“If we return to war, we will act with strength, go deeper,” Israel Katz said during a visit on Tuesday to the 146th Division of the Israel Defense Forces, near the Lebanese border.

Were the ceasefire to collapse, he said, “there will no longer be any exemptions for the State of Lebanon. If until now we separated the State of Lebanon from Hezbollah – and the entirety of Beirut from Dahiyeh, which took very hard hits – this will no longer be the case.”

It comes a day after Israel conducted airstrikes across southern Lebanon, retaliating to Hezbollah’s firing of two rockets at Israeli-occupied territory – themselves a response to near-daily Israeli attacks on Lebanon beginning the day after the truce came into effect last Wednesday.

The exchange of fire casts doubt on the longevity of the ceasefire brokered by the United States – though State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller insisted on Monday that “we have not seen the ceasefire break down.”

Both the American and French governments have privately told Israel that they believe it is violating the agreement, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also holds a position in the defense ministry, said in an interview with Israel’s Kan radio. The United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, said Israel had breached the ceasefire agreement “approximately 100” times since the truce went into effect.

“Both the French and the Americans didn’t really like it,” Smotrich said, referring to Israeli strikes on Lebanon since the truce. “But the IDF, in the days since the ceasefire, is enforcing it in a very determined way, both against Hezbollah and against civilians who are trying to return to villages in the border area without permission.”

Except for Tuesday, Israel has launched daily airstrikes in Lebanon since the day after a ceasefire went into effect last week. The military has said that it acted “in response to several acts by Hezbollah in Lebanon that posed a threat to Israeli civilians, in violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”

Those strikes led Hezbollah to target Israeli-occupied territory, at Shebaa Farms, on Monday. In a statement, the group said that Israel was guilty of “firing on civilians and airstrikes in different parts of Lebanon, resulting in the martyrdom of citizens and injuries to others, in addition to the continued violation of Lebanese airspace by hostile Israeli aircraft reaching the capital, Beirut.”

Hezbollah’s rockets fell in an open area and injured no one. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it “a serious violation of the ceasefire,” and Israel launched airstrikes across southern Lebanon, killing nine, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. Smotrich said the IDF had struck 29 targets in Monday’s attack.

Israeli officials contend that far from violating the ceasefire, they are acting to enforce it.

“Yesterday was the first test – firing toward Mount Dov as if it were outside the usual conflict or open to interpretation,” Katz said on Tuesday, using the Israeli term for Shebaa Farms, which Israel captured from Syria in 1967 and has occupied ever since. “For us, it is not open to any interpretation. We responded with strength, and we will continue to do so.”

The ceasefire deal stipulates a 60-day cessation of hostilities, which negotiators have described as the foundation of a lasting truce. During that time, Hezbollah fighters are expected to retreat some 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the Israel-Lebanon border, while Israeli ground forces withdraw from Lebanese territory. Under the agreement,  Lebanon would implement a more rigorous supervision of Hezbollah’s movements south of the country’s Litani River, to prevent militants from regrouping there.

“We will act with full force to enforce all the understandings of the ceasefire agreement, and we will respond with maximum response and zero tolerance,” Katz said.

A judge in Italy has sentenced a 23-year-old man to life in prison for the stabbing murder of his former girlfriend, a heinous act of femicide that has put violence against women in the spotlight in this country.

Filippo Turetta who admitted to murdering Giulia Cecchettin, 22, in November 2023 a week before she was due to graduate from the University of Padua, was found guilty Tuesday with extenuating factors in a court in Venice of murder, illegal possession of weapons, kidnapping and concealment of a corpse. He was also ordered to pay financial damages to the victim’s family in addition to covering their legal fees.

In the Italian criminal justice system, verdicts and sentencing are generally ruled on by either a panel of judges or judges and lay jurors at the same time.

After he murdered her, he said he stuffed her body into garbage bags and dumped her in a ravine and went on the run. He was arrested in Germany 10 days after Cecchettin disappeared.

Turetta, who was present in court, was emotionless, staring at the desk in front of him and flanked by his lawyers when the verdict was read. Cecchettin’s father Gino, who was also in the courtroom, did not look at the killer of his daughter. Cecchettin’s mother died from an illness in 2022. After the verdict, Gino Ceccettin said after the verdict that he felt strange. “I’m no more relieved or sad than I was before the verdict,” he said. “As a father, nothing has changed.”

The chief prosecutor Andrea Petroni asked for a life sentence, which is no more than 30 years in Italy, based on aggravating circumstances including how Turetta had procured knives, tape, a shovel, black garbage bags, ropes and a wet sock to stifle Cecchettin’s screams. He kept the items in his car for several days before he lured his former girlfriend into his car on a false promise that he would stop stalking her and that they could just be friends, he told the court.

Turetta testified in his 10-week trial, where he admitted to killing her and hiding her body. He admitted writing a plan that included a list of what he needed to do it, and he hypothesized how he would carry out the murder but insisted he didn’t intend to do so. “I was angry, I had many thoughts, I felt resentment that we had argued again, that it was a terrible period, that I wanted to get back together and so … I don’t know,” he testified.

“In a way it made me feel good to write this list to vent, to hypothesize this list that calmed me, to think that things could change. It was as if I didn’t have to define it yet, but I had thrown it down.”

Debate on violence

Turetta’s lawyer Giovanni Caruso argued that his client should not be given an “inhumane and degrading” life sentence. “He is not Pablo Escobar,” Caruso told the court, referring to the notorious Colombian drugs lord who was killed in 1993.

The court also heard a list Cecchettin wrote entitled “15 reasons I should leave Filippo” that her family found. Among them, “He complained when I put fewer hearts than usual [in messages]” and “He has strange ideas about taking justice into one’s own hands for betrayals, torture, stuff like that.” She also wrote, “He needs to know everything, even what you say about him to your friends and the psychologist.”

The case has stirred the debate on violence against women, as well as what is largely seen as a failure to prevent the scourge. One woman is killed by a boyfriend, husband or ex-partner every three days in Italy, according to government statistics. More than 106 women were killed in the year since Cecchetin’s murder. The youngest was a 13-year-old girl allegedly pushed off a balcony by her 15-year-old boyfriend in early November. Giulia Cecchettin was the 105th victim of 2023.

Cecchetin’s sister Elena and father have launched a campaign to combat violence called the Giulia Cecchettin Foundation and blamed the government under Giorgia Meloni for failing to do enough beyond producing a brochure to outline the signs of an abusive relationship. Members of Meloni’s government have insisted that the patriarchy is no longer a problem in Italy. “Giulia was killed by a respectable, white Italian man,” Elena Cecchetin wrote on social media, adding, “What is the government doing to prevent violence?”

Catherine, Princess of Wales has helped the British royal family roll out the red carpet for the Emir of Qatar on the first day of his state visit to the United Kingdom on Tuesday.

However, Queen Camilla was absent from the start of proceedings due to a lingering chest infection contracted last month.

Kate joined her husband, William, Prince of Wales to meet Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and his wife Sheikha Jawaher on Tuesday morning at the start of their two-day visit, before the group made their way to Horse Guards Parade in St. James Park near Buckingham Palace for a ceremonial welcome.

They were then formally welcomed by King Charles III at Whitehall before the British monarch and emir inspected an honor guard formed of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards. Following the military pomp, the group traveled back to the palace in a carriage procession to have lunch at the royal residence.

Kate wore a burgundy coat with a matching headpiece while greeting the Qatari royals.

It has been confirmed that she will not be attending a state banquet on Tuesday evening, where King Charles and the emir will give speeches. Usually, around 150 VIPs with cultural and diplomatic ties to the country being honored are invited to the soiree.

On Wednesday, the emir will visit the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in Berkshire, where he used to study. He will meet with some of the people he went to school with, as well as current Qatari cadets at the academy. He is also expected to head to 10 Downing Street for a bilateral meeting with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Kate, 42, has been slowly returning to her royal duties after receiving chemotherapy treatment earlier this year. Tuesday’s event marks her biggest return to duties yet, and is being seen by many as a significant marker of her strong recovery.

In October, the princess made her first public appearance since finishing her cancer treatment, traveling to Southport, northwest England, with William. She met with the bereaved families of three children killed in a knife attack in July.

Last month, the popular royal also joined the Windsor clan as they marked Remembrance weekend in London. Queen Camilla was originally set to attend, but pulled out after picking up a chest infection following her overseas visit to Australia and Samoa.

Queen Camilla’s recent viral chest infection has meant that she has been left with some persisting side effects, such as fatigue. In light of this, doctors have urged her to take time to recuperate fully, and as such adjustments have been made to her schedule, including her participation in the emir’s visit.

Camilla missed the open-air arrival ceremony for the Qatari emir but was expected to attend lunch at the palace as well as the banquet. On Tuesday evening, she is expected to pose for group photos but will take a short break when guests are greeted in a receiving line before dinner.

No further changes are expected to the Queen’s diary for the rest of the week, though her medical team will offer guidance as symptoms can come and go for several weeks.

A night of political upheaval in South Korea has upended stability in a key democratic US ally – sending shock waves through the region and Washington at a moment of acute global tension.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on Tuesday night in a surprise decree that was reversed hours later following overwhelming opposition across the political spectrum for what was widely seen as a breach of the country’s vibrant democracy.

The move, which Yoon claimed was necessary to “save the country against anti-state forces” trying to destroy the “constitutional order of liberal democracy,” was met by protests in Seoul and mounting calls for the president’s resignation.

The stunning development appeared to catch Washington off guard. That’s an unnerving reality for the United States military, which has nearly 30,000 troops and its largest overseas base in South Korea, serving as a check against a belligerent North Korea and counterweight to an aggressive China in a strategically critical region.

The turmoil has the potential for significant ramifications at a moment of deepening geopolitical fault lines in Asia, where both North Korea and China are strengthening their alignment with Russia as it wages war on Ukraine.

Leaders in Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow are likely watching the developments in Seoul with an eye to its potential to undermine a key bastion of US power in the region – and all eyes are now on North Korea, which may be keen to use the political chaos to its advantage.

‘Major ramifications’

The US-South Korea alliance has long been seen by both countries as a cornerstone of peace in the region, where North Korea continues to threaten South Korea and the US with its illegal weapons program.

That threat has only become more acute as North Korea has ramped up its partnership with Russia, sending ammunition, missiles, and soldiers, intelligence officials say, to aid Moscow’s war against Ukraine.

US President Joe Biden has worked assiduously during his time in office to bolster the US partnership with South Korea, meeting Yoon multiple times, referring to the South Korean leader as a “great friend,” and earlier this year passing his “Summit for Democracy” to Yoon to host in South Korea.

Biden’s efforts also included a landmark 2023 summit at Camp David with Japan and South Korea, where the US president navigated around historic mistrust between the two US allies to broker enhanced trilateral coordination.

A US National Security Council spokesperson expressed “relief” after Yoon reversed course on what the spokesperson described as his “concerning declaration,” adding that “democracy is at the foundation” of the US-South Korea alliance.

Despite US assurances that the alliance remains “ironclad,” the surprise move by Yoon could cast a level of doubt on the partnership and weaken the burgeoning Japan-South Korea partnership, observers say.

It also adds another level of uncertainty on the eve of the return to the White House of President-elect Donald Trump, who has previously expressed skepticism about the financial arrangement between the US and South Korea on hosting US troops.

“Yoon’s actions most likely will raise questions about South Korea’s reliability and predictability as an ally and a partner in the eyes of the United States and Japan,” said Rachel Minyoung Lee, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington.

“This is serious in light of the fact that there is now a stronger-than ever nuclear component in the (US-South Korea) alliance,” she added, pointing to a 2023 mechanism upgrading cooperation on nuclear deterrence between the US and South Korea, which does not have its own nuclear weapons but relies on the US arsenal.

Troubled neighborhood

The political turmoil also raises a potential opening for Kim Jong Un to capitalize on the chaos.

The North Korean leader is known to choose opportune political moments for major weapons tests – for example firing a new intercontinental ballistic missile days before the US presidential election last month.

“We know that North Korea likes to lampoon South Korea’s democratic system whenever there is tumult in Seoul,” said Edward Howell, a lecturer in politics at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, who focuses on the Korean Peninsula.

“We should not be surprised if Pyongyang exploits the domestic crisis in South Korea to its advantage, either rhetorically or otherwise,” he said.

The developments – and the potential, now, for a change of leadership in South Korea – are also likely being closely watched by Beijing and Moscow, who both deeply oppose US military presence in Asia.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping and his officials in particular have watched with ire as the US has strengthened its partnerships with allies in the region – in the face of concerns in Washington about a growing threat from Beijing and its deepening security coordination with Moscow.

And Yoon, who’s taken a harder line on North Korea than many of his predecessors, has been a willingly staunch partner of the US.

The Yoon government has also suggested that deployment of North Korean troops into Ukraine could cause it to reassess the level of military support it gives to the war-torn country, to which it does not directly supply lethal arms.

All that raises the international stakes for the current political moment, whatever its outcome for Yoon, according to Howell.

“At a time when South Korea’s interests in the Ukraine war have gained prominence, given North Korea’s now full-fledged involvement, Seoul’s cooperation with allies cannot be hampered by domestic division,” he said.

The reach and credibility of international law is at its lowest in years as governments dismiss arrest warrants in some of the most high-profile cases to come before the International Criminal Court.

In the past 18 months, the Hague-based court has issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and a senior Hamas official.

Netanyahu is the first Western-allied leader to be accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the court. Israel has filed appeals and asked the court to suspend the warrants. Meanwhile, several powerful nations have opted not to enforce the warrants, while others have openly rejected them.

The French response was perhaps the most damaging to the court. Paris had fervently supported the Putin warrant, and reiterated its “longstanding commitment to supporting international justice” after the Netanyahu warrant was issued. But just days later, the French foreign ministry shifted its stance, suggesting that as Israel was not a member of the court, its prime minister could be immune from arrest.

Critics say the responses suggest two sets of rules: one for the West’s traditional allies, and another for its foes.

The founding treaty of the ICC obliges the 124 signatory countries to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant, according to James Joseph, managing editor at Jurist News.

The Netanyahu case was just the latest blow to the court’s authority. In September, Putin traveled to Mongolia without facing any repercussions. Despite being a signatory to the Rome Statute – the treaty that established the court in 2002 – Mongolia extended a red-carpet welcome to the Russian leader.

The trip was Putin’s first to an ICC member state since the court issued an arrest warrant against him in March 2023 for his alleged role in the war crime of unlawfully deportating Ukrainian children.

Lack of consensus

The warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant drew varied reactions from Western states, highlighting a lack of consensus on how to respond to high-profile accusations against allies.

The EU’s then-foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said they are “binding” and should be implemented. Ireland, Canada and the Netherlands agreed. Germany demurred, saying that it shared “unique relations and a great responsibility with Israel,” adding that further steps would be possible only when a visit to Germany by Netanyahu was foreseeable.

Meanwhile, Argentina and Hungary, both members of the court, made it clear Netanyahu was welcome to visit. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said the ICC decision was “brazen, cynical and completely unacceptable,” and guaranteed Netanyahu freedom and safety should he visit Hungary.

The US, which never joined the court and has secured agreements with about 100 countries to prevent the arrest of Americans charged by it, condemned the warrants for the Israeli leaders.

The Biden administration’s criticism of the Israel warrants was as emphatic as its support for the Putin warrant. Following the issuance of Putin’s warrant, President Joe Biden said it “makes a very strong point… He’s clearly committed war crimes.”

In France’s updated position, the country’s foreign ministry said in a statement: “France intends to continue working in close cooperation with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security for all in the Middle East.”

France’s sudden change of direction came after the Israelis made it clear that they would not accept a French role in implementing a ceasefire in Lebanon because of its implied support for the ICC’s arrest warrant.

Human rights groups condemned France’s about-face. Amnesty International said it was “deeply problematic” and ran counter to the government’s obligations as an ICC member.

In shifting its stance, France appears to have taken refuge in Article 98 of the Rome Statute, which holds that a state cannot “act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the (…) diplomatic immunity of a person.”

Mongolia asserted a similar argument – that as Russia’s head of state, Putin enjoys absolute immunity from ICC proceedings unless Russia waives it.

The court has rejected that claim, saying that another article removes all immunities. A panel of judges reported Mongolia to the ICC’s governing assembly, arguing members of the court “are duty-bound to arrest and surrender individuals subject to ICC warrants, regardless of official position or nationality.” Any other interpretation would “undermine the Rome Statute’s goal of ending impunity for those who threaten global peace and security,” the panel said at the time.

The court’s spokesman, Fadi El Abdallah, said it would not be deterred from pursuing Netanyahu, telling Israel’s Channel 13 that “political considerations and threats will not affect the decision-making, the judges are independent and will only decide according to the evidence and the law.” He also said it was highly unlikely the judges would quash the warrants.

Politics at odds with international obligations

The evidence of the last few months is that political expediency sometimes trumps international obligations. When Mongolia welcomed Putin, the country’s reality of living next door to Russia and China was paramount.

US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller acknowledged that reality in September. “We understand the position that Mongolia is in, sandwiched between two much larger neighbors, but we do think it’s important that they continue to support the rule of law around the world.”

The US view on the Israel case was rather different, with the National Security Council denouncing “the prosecutor’s rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process errors that led to this decision.”

The contradictory responses to ICC warrants this year call into question decades of progress in prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, beginning with the Nuremburg trials in post-war Germany.

The road has often been bumpy. South Africa, an ICC member, ignored a warrant for the arrest of then-Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir in 2015 when he visited.

But Putin has been careful not to travel to any other ICC member state and skipped last year’s BRICS summit in South Africa, avoiding a flight path over many member states.

As for the ICC, it may now find itself a target. This year the US House of Representatives passed a bill to sanction the court, threatening financial sanctions and visa restrictions against individuals and judges associated with the ICC. The Senate is yet to take up the bill, but incoming Senate majority leader John Thune has warned that the Republican majority will make passing the bill a priority in the next Congress if the ICC doesn’t reverse its decision to pursue Israeli leaders.

In his first term, former President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on ICC prosecutors for their investigations of Israeli leaders and alleged American war crimes in Afghanistan.

Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser pick for his second term, said of the Netanyahu warrant that “the ICC has no credibility… You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & UN come January.” Republican Senator Tom Cotton called it a “kangaroo court.”

It’s still true that for anyone subject to an arrest warrant by the ICC, the world gets smaller and the uncertainty of travel greater. But this year has shown that if you have friends in the right places, there will still be a red carpet somewhere.

South Korea is reeling after a whiplash eight hours during which the country’s embattled president declared martial law but was forced to lift it amid widespread condemnation, throwing the country’s political landscape into chaos and uncertainty.

The saga began unfolding Tuesday night as most South Koreans prepared to go to sleep – prompting furious lawmakers to force their way past soldiers into parliament to strike down the decree, as protesters demanded President Yoon Suk Yeol’s removal and no return to the country’s painful authoritarian past.

By dawn, the president had caved – agreeing to lift martial law.

But questions are still swirling around the future of Yoon’s presidency, his party’s rule, and what happens next in one of the world’s most important economies and a major United States ally.

Here’s what we know.

What happened? What is martial law?

Yoon declared martial law around 10:30 p.m. local time Tuesday in an unannounced late-night TV address, accusing the country’s main opposition party of sympathizing with North Korea and of “anti-state” activities.

He also cited a motion by the opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in parliament, to impeach top prosecutors and reject a government budget proposal.

Martial law refers to granting the military temporary rule during an emergency, which the president has the constitutional ability to declare. But the announcement hit like a bombshell, sending shock waves through a democratic nation and sparking an astonishing late-night political showdown.

In a nation with a strong contemporary tradition of free speech, Yoon’s military decree banned all political activities, including protests, rallies, and actions by political parties, according to Yonhap news agency. It also prohibited “denying free democracy or attempting a subversion,” and “manipulating public opinion.”

In the end, the decree only lasted a few hours.

Lawmakers flocked to the parliament, pushing their way past soldiers who had been deployed to keep the building blocked off.

In an extraordinary emergency late-night meeting, those present voted unanimously to block the decree, a vote the president is legally bound to obey.

The country’s political blocs came together to oppose Yoon’s decree – including members of his own party, with the party chief apologizing to the public and demanding an explanation from the president.

By 4:30 a.m., Yoon announced he would comply and lift the martial law order, saying he had withdrawn the troops deployed earlier in the night. But he doubled down on accusations that the opposition party was frustrating the moves of his government, urging lawmakers to stop their “legislative manipulation.”

Yoon’s cabinet voted to lift the decree soon after.

Political paralysis

South Korea has been in a bitter political stalemate for months, with the country’s liberal opposition parties winning a parliamentary majority in April. The election was widely seen as a referendum on Yoon, whose popularity has plummeted thanks to a number of scandals and controversies since he took office in 2022.

Yoon, a conservative, has clashed with the opposition on many of his policies that require legislation, preventing him from moving forward on campaign promises to cut taxes and ease business regulations.

He has also grown increasingly frustrated with the opposition’s efforts to impeach government figures, some of whom he’d appointed – including the chair of the broadcasting watchdog, the chair of the state auditor, and several top prosecutors, according to Yonhap.

The prosecutors in particular are a sore point for Yoon. Opposition lawmakers argue they failed to indict Yoon’s wife, the first lady – who has been embroiled in scandal and accusations of stock manipulation.

What was the response?

Outrage, shock and confusion ran through the country – and the world – in the immediate aftermath of the decree.

Late Tuesday night, residents in the capital Seoul rushed to be with their family members, while others gathered in front of the parliament building, where law enforcement told some they could be arrested without warrants.

Many protesters carried signs and flags calling for Yoon’s impeachment.

Some members of parliament appeared to clash with authorities outside the parliament building, with television footage showing troops attempting to enter the main hall – though they began withdrawing a few hours later when lawmakers blocked the decree.

What does it mean for the US?

The US voiced “grave concern” after Yoon declared martial law, and expressed relief after he lifted the decree – saying democracy was at the core of the US-South Korea alliance.

The two countries have a decades-old mutual defense treaty, which means both must come to the aid of the other if they are ever attacked.

Key US military installations dot South Korea, and there are nearly 30,000 American troops stationed in the country.

The US Army’s Camp Humphreys is the largest American military installation outside of the US, with a population of more than 41,000 US service members, civilian workers, contractors and family members.

Alongside Japan and the Philippines, which also have mutual defense treaties with the US, South Korea is part of a trio of regional partners that have helped to bolster American power in both Asia and the Pacific for decades.

Advocates argue that a significant US troop presence in the Korean Peninsula is crucial to deterring any potential attack from North Korea as Kim Jong Un’s regime continues to build its nuclear arsenal, and as a way of bolstering the US presence in the region to counter China’s aggression.

North Korea has also become a key player in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by sending troops to help fight for Moscow’s forces, bringing an isolated Asian power into Europe’s largest conflict since the Second World War.

What happens now?

There’s a lot that’s still uncertain – including what will happen to the president and other top leaders.

Yoon’s chief of staff and more than 10 senior secretaries to the president have submitted their resignations, according to the president’s office.

The main opposition party said it would begin impeachment proceedings if Yoon didn’t step down immediately, calling his actions unconstitutional.

The chief of Yoon’s own party has also called for the removal of the defense minister for recommending martial law.

South Korea’s largest umbrella union also said on Wednesday its members would go on an indefinite general strike until Yoon resigns.

As of Wednesday morning, there remains a heavy police presence at the parliamentary building. Yoon postponed his first public scheduled meeting that morning, Yonhap reported.

This isn’t the first time he has faced calls for impeachment – with regular protests calling for his resignation, and a petition that received hundreds of thousands of signatures, Reuters reported.

Is this unusual for South Korea?

Yes – especially given the country’s long, painful crawl toward democracy after decades of authoritarian rule.

South Korea has been a vibrant democracy since the 1980s, with regular protests, free speech, fair elections and peaceful transfers of power. The domestic political scene has long been fractious, with presidents on both sides of the political divide often facing prosecutions while in and out of office.

Martial law is unheard of in the modern democratic era, which has seen South Korea become a major exporter and a cultural powerhouse, thanks in part to the huge global popularity of K-pop and K-drama.

But South Korea has a dark political past. Throughout much of the Cold War, the country went through a series of strongman leaders and military rulers, who declared martial law multiple times – sometimes in a bid to hold onto power amid growing public dissatisfaction.

At the time, protests could easily turn deadly, with the military deployed to crack down on those pushing back.

The last time a South Korean president declared martial law was in 1980, during a nationwide uprising led by students and labor unions. It wasn’t until 1988 that South Korea elected a president through free and direct elections.

That’s why protesters Tuesday and Wednesday held signs and chanted slogans vowing to never go back to dictatorial rule, the memory of which remains fresh in many people’s minds.