Brazilian Senator Flávio Bolsonaro arrived in Miami on Wednesday after fleeing the country in defiance of a court order to surrender his passports amid a money laundering investigation, days after losing the presidential election to incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Bolsonaro traveled from northern Argentina to the Ecuadorian city of Guayaquil, the Argentine government said. From there, Bolsonaro, his wife and two daughters flew to Miami, where they were recorded exiting a private jet at Miami-Opa Locka ​Executive Airport. 

President Donald Trump told reporters he “would approve” of Bolsonaro coming to the U.S. “I think they’re fine people,” Trump said. “The election ‌was very strange, and I thought ⁠it was terrible. It’s gotten bad reviews. You look at what happened to their market.”

On Tuesday, U.S. officials told multiple media outlets that the State Department would grant Bolsonaro and his family entry visas amid reports he had left Brazil to head to the U.S.

A Brazilian Supreme Court justice had ordered federal police to open a separate probe into possible illegal foreign financing of Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign, including alleged ties to U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance’s donor network. Lula’s government had previously accused the Trump Administration of interfering in Brazil’s election, an allegation the U.S. denies. TIME has reached out to Vance’s office for comment.

Bolsonaro initially said he would comply with Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes’s order to surrender his passports and refrain from traveling. The order concerned an investigation into Bolsonaro’s alleged links to a Brazilian lawyer accused of laundering more than $1 billion through a fraud scheme.

The confidential order cited Bolsonaro’s flight risk and “significant financial resources.” The son of convicted former President Jair Bolsonaro, Flávio Bolsonaro will lose certain parliamentary protections from prosecution when his term as senator for Rio de Janeiro ends on Jan. 31.

“I have never thought ‌about leaving ⁠the country,” Bolsonaro said in a social media video Monday. “I will hand over my passports and defend myself against this travesty, which is a clear attempt to intimidate me.”

But Bolsonaro did not comply with the order to hand over his passport by the end of the court’s 24-hour deadline on Tuesday morning. Argentina’s National Directorate of Migrations said Bolsonaro and his family entered the country “with valid travel documentation and without any legal impediment” on Tuesday night before boarding a private flight to Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Lula called Bolsonaro’s flight from Brazil “a shameful act.”

“Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear,” Lula added, recalling his own arrest in 2018 on charges of passive corruption and money laundering. His convictions that were later overturned.

Bolsonaro is also being investigated over alleged links to a banker connected to a corruption scheme. He is alleged to have raised millions of dollars from the banker to fund a biopic about his father.

Bolsonaro's departure could inflame political tensions amid claims from Brazil’s right wing and abroad that the election was unfair. Bolsonaro initially said he would seek to annul the vote, although his Liberal Party later conceded defeat. In the video posted Monday, he said he would seek to have Lula’s ticket disqualified, citing alleged disinformation and “vote buying.” He also said he would organize congressional opposition to Lula’s government.

“I wasn’t the one who lost,” he said. “The system won.”

Trump, an ally of the Bolsonaros, said Monday that the election appeared “rigged.” He did not provide evidence for the claim.

“I didn’t take ​sides, but it looked like another rigged election,” Trump said.

“I just think it had a very bad look, the election, the ​way it was tabulated,” he added. “The extension given was very strange.”

Brazil’s Supreme Court had granted a two-hour voting extension on Sunday, citing transport issues raised by Lula’s campaign. Bolsonaro’s campaign had separately requested a two-hour extension due to heavy rainfall in certain areas.

Lula won the election by more than 4 million votes. Roughly 0.03% of all votes—or fewer than 35,000—were recorded in the extra two hours. Vice President Geraldo Alckmin told Rede Vanguarda that Trump’s claims were “completely wrong.”

Money laundering inquiry

The inquiry into Bolsonaro stems from a federal probe into unauthorized deductions from pension payments made by Brazil’s social security agency. The broader operation, launched in April 2025, investigated associations suspected of collecting unauthorized membership fees from pension benefits.

Evidence from the probe led investigators to examine suspected money laundering involving betting platforms and financial transactions linked to Brazilian lawyer Willer Tomaz, who denies wrongdoing.

Police reportedly discovered that Bolsonaro had “master user” access to bank accounts belonging to Alcazar Holdings, a company owned by Tomaz. In May 2025, a person working for Tomaz asked the bank to remove Bolsonaro’s access to the accounts, local media outlets BPMoney and Times Brasil reported earlier this month, citing police findings. Both Bolsonaro and Tomaz deny having a joint account or financial ties.

De Moraes’s order also barred Bolsonaro from contacting Tomaz. Bolsonaro said on Monday that the ruling came after his brother, Eduardo Bolsonaro, had said on a podcast last week that he should leave the country if he lost the election.

AFP reported that Bolsonaro’s Brazilian and diplomatic passports were canceled, but that he has held Italian nationality since 2023. His departure appeared to surprise his political allies, including his campaign manager Rogerio Marinho who told reporters Tuesday that he had no information about Bolsonaro’s whereabouts.

“I received a text message from him this morning, where he said he would let some time pass today and then would talk with us, and that was it,” he said. “That was the only communication we had.”

A critic of Brazil’s justice system

Bolsonaro has repeatedly criticized Brazil’s judiciary and described the investigations into him as politically motivated. The country’s Supreme Court generally assigns cases through a lottery system. The money laundering investigation was assigned to de Moraes on Oct. 16.

De Moraes was the lead justice in last year’s trial of Jair Bolsonaro, who refused to accept his election loss in 2022. A five-member panel of Supreme Court justices convicted Jair Bolsonaro, by a 4-1 vote, of attempting to overturn his election defeat and sentenced him to 27 years and three months in prison. He is serving the sentence under house arrest due to poor health. Prosecutors alleged that the plot included plans to assassinate Lula. Jair Bolsonaro denies wrongdoing.

In June, a Supreme Court panel unanimously convicted Eduardo Bolsonaro of coercion in judicial proceedings. Prosecutors alleged he had attempted to lobby the Trump Administration to use tariffs and sanctions, including on de Moraes, to pressure judicial authorities to drop the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro. Eduardo Bolsonaro was sentenced to four years and two months in prison, but remains in Texas, where has lived since 2025.

De Moraes has also faced scrutiny over reported ties to Daniel Vorcaro, the former owner of Banco Master, whose financing of a film about Jair Bolsonaro is the subject of the separate inquiry into Flávio Bolsonaro. The New York Times reported, citing a police dossier, that Vorcaro sent text messages to de Moraes asking for help to avoid arrest. In messages to other associates, Vorcaro reportedly mentioned paying millions to the law firm of de Moraes’s wife. De Moraes has denied wrongdoing and said he never acted to favor Vorcaro or Banco Master.

De Moraes also clashed with tech billionaire Elon Musk in 2024 over court orders to block accounts on Musk’s social media platform X. De Moraes temporarily suspended the platform in Brazil after it failed to comply with judicial requirements, which Musk had described as “the most draconian demands of any country on Earth.”

Israel appears to be on the brink of a political deadlock, with neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor his main rival, former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, projected to gain a parliamentary majority.

While partial results show that Netanyahu's Likud party has edged ahead slightly, if the embattled leader is to forge a path for another term, he will likely need to secure a coalition. Such alliances can take weeks or months to form, meaning the future leadership of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, remains unclear.

As of Wednesday evening in Israel, authorities had counted more than 88% of ballots cast at polling stations across the country. Another set of ballots logged at special polling sites, including military bases, have yet to be counted. Authorities estimate that somewhere between 430,000 and 480,000 votes were cast in this way. As such, it could still take another day or two for the final election results to be released.

Israel's three leading broadcasters have projected that Netanyahu's bloc of right-wing parties is on course to win 53 seats in parliament, with the opposition ‌bloc of Eisenkot looking at 48. Both are short of the 61 seats required for a majority. Parties representing Arab Israelis are projected to secure 19 seats.

Once all the votes have been tallied, Netanyahu looks set to remain as caretaker while President Isaac Herzog holds consultations with all the political factions to determine the formation of the next government—a process that could take weeks.

"Next week, I will invite the representatives of the factions to consultations ahead of assigning the mandate to form the next government," Herzog said on Wednesday. "With the publication of the results, I ask one important thing from everyone who arrives—arrive with an open mind."

Both Netanyahu and Eisenkot have stated their own intentions to form the next coalition.

In a defiant speech made after the polls closed, Netanyahu called for a "strong, right-wing" government."

Eisenkot, in a social media update late Wednesday, said: "Long workdays still await us, but we are focused on the heavy task entrusted to us—bringing change to Israel and establishing a Zionist mobilization government."

While results remain inconclusive, Netanyahu’s longstanding ally, U.S. President Donald Trump, who gave a last-minute endorsement to the longest-serving Israeli premier, already appeared to take credit for Netanyahu’s election performance.

“You know, it's pretty close, which was very well,” Trump said when asked about it by reporters early Wednesday. “Because I think when the endorsement went out, it helped him a lot, but I actually heard he did pretty well. It might be winning or tie. The tie is sort of considered a win in that case because it’s a big chess match.”

As the vote count continues, here’s what to know about the pivotal election—and what comes next.

How Israel's election day unfolded

Israelis flocked to polling stations on Tuesday to decide Netanyahu’s political fate. The election was widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership and Israelis’ willingness to change course amid uncertainty.

It was the first election in the country since the Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attacks by Palestinian militant group Hamas and the subsequent Israeli war in the Gaza Strip. Since then, Israel under Netanyahu has pursued an aggressive military campaign across the Middle East—going to war with Iran, backing settler attacks and displacement in the West Bank, and carrying out strikes against militant groups in Lebanon and Yemen

From 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. local time on Tuesday (1 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT), Israelis were able to cast votes for representatives in the Knesset. Numbers from Israel's Central Elections ​Committee reflected a strong turnout, with 77.7% of eligible voters reported to have cast their ballots by 10 p.m., local time—the highest turnout logged since 1999.

Netanyahu was joined by his wife Sara as he cast his own ballot at a polling station in a Jerusalem school. “This is a very moving and fateful moment. My wife and I are truly overwhelmed,” Netanyahu told reporters after voting. “We know what is at stake, and since I am not allowed to say things explicitly, I will say: Vote correctly.”

Not long after, Netanyahu told his supporters that "buses are heading to the polling stations and huge lines are being reported in the Arab settlements." Complaining that "the right-wing strongholds are not waking up," he again urged people to go out and vote.

Netanyahu’s Likud party said in a statement that it had submitted a request to the Central Elections Committee to extend voting hours past 10 p.m. The committee later announced it would not be extending voting hours past the scheduled closing time.

Read More: Israel's Choice

Who is in the running?

Two main political blocs are contending to form Israel’s next government. The first is the pro-Netanyahu coalition led by Netanyahu’s Likud party. The coalition includes far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties, such as Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) led by national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Religious Zionism-Zehut led by finance minister Bezalel Smotrich. Their ultranationalist policies have found an audience in younger right-wing Israelis.

On the other side are the Jewish-led opposition movements—with Eisenkot and the centrist Yashar (Straight) party at the forefront. Eisenkot, who entered politics in 2022, joined Netanyahu’s emergency war cabinet after the Oct. 7 attack on Israel. But after having lost a son in combat in Israel’s wars, Eisenkot left his post in 2024. Two of his nephews also died fighting in Gaza, a prominent campaign talking point.

The opposition also includes a joint ticket led by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Knesset opposition leader Yair Lapid, the secular nationalist party Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) led by former finance minister Avigdor Lieberman, and the Democrats led by former IDF deputy chief of staff Yair Golan.

The Democrats party on Tuesday said Golan had been “approached in a threatening manner” by a man who was found to be carrying a knife. The lawmaker was attending a voting-day mobilization tour in Tel Aviv's HaMesila Park at the time of the incident.

"Golan’s security guards blocked the man, and as they moved toward him, a large knife slipped from beneath his clothing and fell to the ground," the party said in a statement shared with the Guardian. "Police were called to the scene and arrested the suspect." Golan, in his own statement, vowed that "incitement and violence will not deter us" and encouraged people to go out and vote.

Meanwhile, some polls had suggested that Eisenkot’s Yashar party may garner slightly more support than Netanyahu’s Likud, but they also projected that neither the Prime Minister’s right-wing bloc nor the opposition were likely to win the 61 Knesset seats needed to form a government.

Including Arab parties such as United Arab List (Ra’am) and the Joint List, or fringe parties, could be necessary to form a government. Both pro-Netanyahu and anti-Netanyahu coalitions have so far ruled out teaming up with the Arab-led parties. Arab citizens of Israel make up about 20% of the population, though they receive fewer government services and endure higher poverty and unemployment rates. Discrimination and disappointment have historically depressed Arab-Israeli voter turnout. However, on Tuesday, there appeared to be strong turnout in some of Israel’s largest Arab-majority towns.

Netanyahu touts Trump endorsement

Netanyahu has brought attention to the support he received from Trump, who only announced his endorsement days before the election as conflict in the Middle East has tested their friendship.

In a late-night TV appearance on Oct. 25, Netanyahu boasted of Trump’s endorsement and said that Trump was willing to take action “that would finally, finally, remove the Iranian threat” so long as Netanyahu stayed in power. Netanyahu added that he has already instructed Israel’s national intelligence agency Mossad as well as the IDF to “bring down” the Iranian regime. Trump remains very popular in Israel.

By contrast, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance declined to endorse Netanyahu for re-election, just a day after Trump put his “complete and total” support behind the Israeli leader.

“The President has the most effective endorsement in American, or international, political history,” said Vance, when asked in an interview if he would also be extending an endorsement of his own. “I endorse American candidates and that’s where I'm focused on, is the midterms, so I'm not getting involved in the Israeli elections.”

When pushed for an answer, Vance added: “I'm not anti-endorsing [Netanyahu], I'm not pro-endorsing him.”

A high-stakes election for Netanyahu

At stake for Netanyahu could be more than his continued leadership. The premier faces an international arrest warrant for alleged crimes related to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. And even domestically, critics have demanded an inquiry into Netanyahu’s decision-making around Oct. 7. The attack, which resulted in over 1,200 people in Israel killed and around 250 hostages taken, is considered by many to be indicative of a major security failure.

The Gaza health ministry reports that since Oct. 7, 2023, more than 74,000 individuals have been killed. In the absence of independent monitoring on the ground, Gaza’s health ministry is the primary source for casualty data relied upon by humanitarian groups, journalists, and international bodies. Its figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants and cannot be independently verified by TIME.

Another issue driving the election is public fury over ultra-Orthodox communities’ exemption from military conscription for men engaged in religious studies. Despite a shortage of soldiers, less than 10% of eligible ultra-Orthodox men enlist, amid demands from Netanyahu’s allies to exempt them. Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s main rival, has promised to end the de facto exemptions. 

Netanyahu’s repeated attempts to reform the judiciary have also factored into this election, with critics slamming his undermining of democratic institutions and connecting it to his legal interests. Netanyahu is in the middle of a yearslong corruption trial, which he and his allies—including Trump—have claimed is politically motivated. He sought, but didn’t receive, a presidential pardon from Herzog.

When will we know the results?

About 7.3 million Israeli citizens were eligible to vote on Tuesday. The election fills the Knesset’s 120 seats through proportional representation—which means parties, not personalities, are on these voters’ ballots. 

After polling stations closed at 10 p.m. (4 p.m. EDT), local media broadcasted initial exit polls. The final vote tally is expected by Oct. 30, with official results published on Nov. 4. 

But getting a clear picture of the Israeli government is likely to take longer.

No single party has ever claimed 61 seats to form a government, meaning Israel has always been governed by coalitions. What those coalitions may look like will depend on the election outcomes for smaller parties, which each need 3.25% of the votes to secure a seat in the Knesset.

Once the election winners are determined, President Herzog ⁠will refer to party leaders to choose a preferred Prime Minister and will ask the strongest candidate to form a government within 42 days. If a coalition cannot be formed after multiple attempts, the current Likud-led coalition government will continue to serve as caretaker before another round of elections is held in the coming months.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk claimed over the weekend that the Ukrainian military had “violated” the terms of service for Starlink, the company’s commercial satellite internet network, which has become central to the country’s defense against Russia. Musk said SpaceX had restricted Starlink to prevent that alleged misuse. Ukrainian officials disputed his claim. His allegation came after over a week of uncertainty about why the services had been restricted. 

Ukrainian officials reported on Oct. 14 that restrictions affecting SpaceX’s satellite communications were disrupting drone operations, blocking a key line of defense amid daily Russian air attacks. Ukraine relies heavily on Starlink for frontline communications, drone capabilities, and reconnaissance; the throttled connection ultimately led to the cancellation of several missions, officials said. 

The restrictions also affected Starshield, a military-grade satellite communications service that uses Starlink technology but is supplied through U.S. government contracts. 

Read More: What Is Starshield and Why Is It So Important to Ukraine?

Over a week after the disruption began, Ukraine's Defense Ministry said on Oct. 24 that both services had been fully restored. It reported that connections remained stable even when terminals were moving at speeds above 400 km/h.

At the time, the cause for the interruption had not yet been clarified, but Defense Minister Yevheniy Khmara emphasized the importance of a strong and stable connection, calling it “vital for our front line, for our military personnel, for the operation of drones, and for logistics and communications.”

Musk maintains that the United States government controls changes to Starshield, leaving questions about who authorized its restrictions—and why. 

U.S. President Donald Trump declined to identify those involved in the decision, while a Reuters report from Oct. 15 cited multiple officials who said the order came from inside the White House. The sources did not identify who authorized or implemented the restrictions, but a senior U.S. official denied that it was Trump, the report said.

Experts say that the disruptions expose a growing vulnerability in modern warfare: military reliance on a single private technology supplier. 

The company that controls the technology can ultimately wield significant influence over military operations, leaving governments dependent on decisions made by executives and billionaire owners outside traditional diplomatic channels, experts warn.

Why U.S. control of Starshield matters for Ukraine

Ukraine’s access to satellite communications depends on decisions made in Washington as well as at SpaceX. That leaves Kyiv navigating both a private supplier’s restrictions and a fraught relationship with the Trump Administration.

In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly blamed Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries for rising global fuel prices and called on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop those attacks—despite the fact that experts have primarily attributed the price surge to the U.S. war with Iran. 

Trump said on Oct. 15 that Zelensky was “more difficult to deal with” than Russian President Vladimir Putin and on Oct. 19 suggested that it was “time for somebody else to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine.”

Alex Crowther, an adjunct professor at Florida International University’s Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy, says the Starshield dispute goes beyond Trump’s souring relationship with Zelensky to a more basic question: Who has the authority to restrict Ukraine’s access?

“Usually when [a foreign entity] signs a contract with an American company, it says who has the capability to turn this stuff on and off, and the circumstances under which they can turn it on and off,” Crowther says, questioning who has that authority over the services Ukraine relies upon. “Is it Starlink, which is private, or is it Starshield, which is an American government contract? Is it Musk? Is it Hegseth? Is it Trump?”

“Nobody knows the rules right now,” he says.

Lance Hunter, a professor of political science at Augusta University, tells TIME that this dispute exposes the potential issues of having three different actors—the Trump Administration, SpaceX, and Ukraine—with potentially incompatible priorities.

How dependence on SpaceX limits Ukraine’s military autonomy

Hunter says that what is unfolding in Ukraine underscores warfare’s growing dependence on digital technology. Beyond traditional “tanks, bombs, planes,” he says that includes factors like artificial intelligence, drones, and navigation jamming.

Reliance on ongoing technology services creates a different relationship from a traditional arms purchase, Hunter says.

He points to traditional arms deals in which a private company sells a government a set amount of missiles or interceptors.

“Let's say you purchase a piece of weaponry or vehicle or any type of object that helps you in the conflict: You own it at that point. You have control over it,” Hunter tells TIME. 

The relationship between Ukraine and SpaceX, however, is different; purchasing the technology does not guarantee operational sovereignty. 

“Ukraine has a lot of transmitters which interface with Starshield and Starlink, and they're very much dependent on SpaceX as far as allowing them to use those when they need to,” Hunter continues. “There's not just a one-time dependence buying the technology; it's continual now.”

That gives the company more “influence and leverage” over conflicts than it has before, he adds.

It shifts the way that countries like Ukraine need to think about who they are willing to work with and how they weigh the potential costs.  

Why Ukraine cannot easily replace Starlink and Starshield

In a perfect world, Hunter says, Ukraine would diversify its technology suppliers to decrease reliance on Starlink. 

The country has already been expanding its domestic weapons production, including interceptor drones. But it remains dependent on foreign suppliers for critical air-defense weapons like the U.S.-made Patriot interceptor missiles.

That dependence has left it vulnerable to shortages and delays. On Oct. 26, Zelensky said Ukraine had been waiting nearly a month for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to approve supplies of missiles for its Patriot and NASAMS air-defense systems.

But replicating satellite communications networks presents a different challenge. Starlink technology is not something a government can easily reproduce domestically, Hunter says, and few providers worldwide offer comparable capabilities.

“Starlink has a monopoly on that technology to a degree, as far as the speed, the availability, the flexibility,” he says. “It's not like they can just flip a switch and diversify that technology. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of resources. It takes a lot of effort, and also in Europe we don't see that same level of technology with some of the European countries and also with some of the private companies.” 

In the end, he says that Ukraine is stuck between “a rock and a hard place” as the country tries to negotiate its relationships with the Trump Administration and, separately, with Musk.

“You're reliant on the politics of those bodies all matching up,” he says of Ukraine. “All of a sudden, you kind of lose that autonomy.”

“If they really push back against the U.S. government or SpaceX, they have the potential of receiving less of the technology and being cut off to a greater extent,” he adds. “But if they don't really push at all and advocate for their interest as well, then they could be in a weaker position as far as having leverage exerted over them.”

Why Ukraine disputes Musk’s Starlink claims

In a social media post on Oct. 24, Musk said that SpaceX had restricted Starlink access deliberately because Ukraine's military violated Starlink's terms of service by using the civilian satellite network for offensive drone strikes.

“Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week,” Musk said in one post. “Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be.”

Musk explained that Starlink continues to be “critical to the defense of Ukraine,” but that it could not be used for offensive military operations.

Ukrainian officials promptly disputed Musk’s claims.

Defense technology adviser Serhii Beskrestnov wrote in a Telegram post that operational and speed restrictions are in place that make it “physically impossible” for the military to use Starlink for medium- or deep-range offensive strikes.

“It is very strange that Elon Musk is unaware of the operational limitations of Starlink in Ukraine,” he wrote. “Starlink does not function over the territory of Russia.”