The Canadian government is warning citizens visiting the United States that US border officials have the authority to search travelers’ electronic devices – including phones, laptops, and tablets – without providing a reason.

In a revised travel advisory posted online, it urges Canadians to “expect scrutiny” when crossing the border and warns that refusing to comply involves risks including device seizure, travel delays, or the denial of entry for non-US citizens.

Under US law, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents may demand passwords to unlock devices during inspections. Travelers who refuse the demand risk having their electronics confiscated and may face long delays.

The advisory recommends placing devices in airplane mode before crossing to prevent unintended downloads of remote files, which could complicate screenings.

The move follows recent incidents involving such searches. Last month, Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese assistant professor and physician at Brown University, was deported to Lebanon after US agents at Boston Logan International Airport discovered deleted photos of the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on her phone.

“In explaining why these multiple photos were deleted by her one to two days before she arrived at Logan Airport, Dr. Alawieh stated that she did not want to give authorities the perception that she supports Hezbollah and the Ayatollah politically or militarily,” the filing reads, per WCVB.

While US authorities maintain that device searches are critical for national security, civil liberties groups have long criticized the practice as invasive.

The US Supreme Court has upheld the authority of border agents to conduct warrantless device searches, citing the “border search exception” to the Fourth Amendment.

The dramatic arrest of the Philippines’ controversial former president in March sent shock waves through much of the world – and cast a renewed spotlight on the other leaders wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who was whisked off to the Netherlands to answer for alleged crimes against humanity, had long been under scrutiny over a brutal anti-drugs crackdown. But even after years of on-and-off investigations, during which Duterte taunted the court and told it to “hurry up,” his detention came as a surprise to many experts.

“We have had other high-ranking individuals brought before the court,” including several former presidents of African nations, said Leila Sadat, professor of international criminal law at the Washington University School of Law and the former special adviser on crimes against humanity to the ICC prosecutor.

But in many of those cases, the prosecuted leaders were either summoned to court or arrested after a warrant was publicly issued – a stark contrast to Duterte’s case, where the warrant was issued secretly and the former leader swiftly apprehended within several head-spinning hours.

“It’s the first time we’ve seen this at the ICC,” Sadat said – though similar cases have been seen in other international tribunals, she added.

Duterte, now 80, oversaw a ferocious crackdown on alleged drug pushers in the Philippines that killed more than 6,000 people, based on police data. Independent monitors believe the number of extrajudicial killings could be much higher.

His arrest is significant, partly because it could set a precedent for future trials of other leaders wanted by the court, however unlikely, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

That’s not to say their turn could be imminent, far from it – many political factors can make it extremely difficult to execute an arrest warrant.

Case in point: Netanyahu on Sunday was wrapping up a visit to Hungary, in defiance of the ICC warrant. As a signatory to the Rome Statute, Hungary is obligated to arrest anyone wanted by the ICC. Instead, its Prime Minister Viktor Orban welcomed Netanyahu with open arms, and Budapest announced it would begin the process of leaving the court.

But Duterte’s case has shown that arrest is possible – especially once a leader is out of office – and that the threat against those wanted leaders is not only theoretical.

“The precedent set here – maybe not now, but in future generations – will allow us to visualize what justice looks like for the highest-ranking leaders of countries that commit these kinds of crimes,” said Gregory Gordon, a professor of international criminal law at the Peking University School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen, China.

“There’s always that initial breakthrough that has to happen.”

Putin and the Ukraine war

Located in The Hague in the Netherlands, the ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression against the territory of its member states, of which there are 125.

The court cannot carry out arrests on its own and relies on the cooperation of national governments to execute warrants – which often rests on domestic politics and political will.

ICC member countries include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil and all other members of the European Union – at least until Hungary makes its promised exit.

In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin and Russian official Maria Lvova-Belova over an alleged scheme to deport Ukrainian children to Russia.

The charges were the first to be formally lodged by the ICC against Russian officials since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022.

Russia – like the United States, Israel, China and Ukraine – is not a member of the ICC. The court does not have its own police force and does not conduct trials in absentia – and therefore the likelihood of any Russian official appearing before it is very low, analysts said.

Any charged Russian officials would either have to be handed over by Moscow, or arrested outside of Russia, said Sadat, the Washington University professor.

“The warrant against Vladimir Putin himself is obviously the most challenging because he’s a head of state in power, and he’s not going to leave Russia unless he’s pretty sure he’s going to have immunity wherever he goes,” she said. “But his choices are now restricted, and he’s been labeled, for better or worse, a war criminal.”

Gordon agreed, saying the chances of Putin being arrested are slim, given his “firm grip on power” and layers of protection – unless Russia’s domestic political situation changes enough to leave him vulnerable. After all, it was a dramatic change in the Philippines’ domestic politics that ultimately did for Duterte.

Even when Putin leaves Russia, many countries are unwilling to arrest him. Last year, the Russian leader traveled to Mongolia without facing any repercussions – despite the East Asian country being a member of the ICC.

“Obviously the pressure on a small country like Mongolia is pretty substantial,” Sadat said.

But she pointed to other times the warrant had seemed to restrict Putin’s movements; in 2023, the Russian leader attended a BRICS summit in ICC signatory South Africa via video call, sparing the host country a potential diplomatic quandary.

“I think the warrants themselves are powerful. At the same time, we do have to see a significant number of warrants actually get executed, or the warrants become sort of symbols of a court that can’t arrest its accused,” she said.

“That’s why (Duterte’s arrest) is a really exciting moment for the court, because it shows it can engage in interstate cooperation.”

Netanyahu, Hamas and the Gaza war

The ICC issued its warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024 – also seeking the arrest of former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.

A senior Hamas official is also wanted by the ICC on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel. Other leaders of the militant group sought by the court for prosecution were killed by Israel.

The historic warrants made Netanyahu the first Israeli leader summoned by an international court for alleged actions against Palestinians in the more than seven-decade-long Arab-Israeli conflict.

The warrants were also denounced across the Israeli political spectrum as unconscionable, with Netanyahu’s own office labeling the move “antisemitic.” Several Israeli allies – including the United States – strongly criticized the ICC warrant.

Israel is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, nor does it honor international warrants issued by the court, and likely wouldn’t turn over Israeli citizens for prosecution. In addition, the ICC only steps in when a country’s own government is unwilling or unable to prosecute cases.

But unlike Russia, it is a functioning democracy, with a long history of peaceful transitions between elected governments. That makes Netanyahu’s future political security more tenuous than Putin’s, and more comparable to the Duterte situation, where a shift in government once the Philippine leader was out of office ultimately led to his downfall.

The Israeli prime minister is already contending with a number of domestic legal troubles unrelated to the Gaza war, including a long-running corruption trial.

Israel is also deeply politically divided, with many citizens furious at the Netanyahu government and his far-right cabinet allies.

According to Gordon, it is at least “conceivable” that Netanyahu could one day face arrest in Israel for alleged crimes related to Israel’s actions in Gaza – though that still doesn’t mean the ICC warrant would be enforced.

Then there’s the fact that several powerful nations have opted not to enforce the ICC’s warrants while others have openly rejected them – further undermining the court’s authority.

France, for instance, had fervently supported the ICC’s warrant for Putin – but it shifted its stance after the court sought Netanyahu’s arrest, arguing that as Israel was not an ICC member, its prime minister should be immune from prosecution. Other European nations have also indicated they would be unwilling to enforce the Israeli warrants.

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

The trouble with international prosecutions

The ICC has a long list of outstanding arrest warrants, including for former dictator Omar al-Bashir, who ruled Sudan for three decades before being deposed in 2019. Currently imprisoned in Sudan, Bashir faces charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

A disproportionate number of ICC prosecutions have been against African leaders, warlords and militia members – including former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and the East African country’s current leader William Ruto, whose case was abandoned by the court partly due to “witness interference and political meddling.”

The ICC’s past focus on Africa is partly rooted in its constitution, said Sadat in Washington. The court can only exercise jurisdiction in crimes committed on or after its creation on July 1, 2002. At the time, major wars that killed millions were raging across Africa, from Darfur to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Additionally, many African nations self-referred their cases to the ICC, Sadat added – meaning they asked the international court to investigate and granted it jurisdiction.

“With time, the prosecutor’s office started staffing up, developing more expertise, taking on additional situations … now the court is moving into other situations,” Sadat said.

But, she added, it’s difficult to prosecute alleged crimes while conflicts are ongoing and those accused remain in positions of power.

For years, the ICC has faced criticism for slow trials and its low conviction rate. From 60 arrest warrants issued since the court was created, 31 suspects remain at large. Only 11 defendants have ever been convicted – all African war criminals.

Sadat pointed to Syria, saying that for years, the ICC couldn’t “figure out a way to get jurisdiction” to investigate alleged war crimes during the country’s civil war – until former dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime was toppled in December. Since then, the new interim government has invited the court to visit the country and collect the evidence needed for prosecution.

The Philippines is another prime example of how ICC cases often become stuck until some political upheaval changes the game, said Gordon, the law professor.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had previously said the Southeast Asian country would not engage with the ICC, only for Manila to reverse its stance this week following the collapse of an alliance between the Marcos political dynasty and Duterte’s clan.

Some might argue “that this is just about politics, and that the only time the ICC will ever be able to engage in the justice process is if political processes are aligned in certain ways – and it’s just a matter of luck, not justice,” Gordon said.

Duterte’s arrest could establish a foundation for “combating the culture of impunity and assuring accountability for state leaders who commit international crimes,” Gordon said.

“That makes people in the future more comfortable with the idea that it can be done.”

For weeks, US airstrikes have pounded Houthi targets in Yemen, hitting oil refineries, airports and missile sites, with President Trump vowing to use “overwhelming force” until the US achieves its goal of stopping the Houthis from targeting shipping in the Red Sea.

The Houthis began the campaign in solidarity with Palestinians when Israel went to war in Gaza in October 2023. The group has carried out more than 100 attacks and have sunk two vessels. The result: 70% of merchant shipping that once transited the Red Sea now takes the long route around southern Africa.

The US says the campaign is working. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that multiple Houthi leaders had been killed.

But every round of strikes provokes more defiance.

The Houthis are what one veteran Yemen-watcher calls the honey badgers of resistance, referring to the belligerent mammal known for its fearless attitude toward predators. Bitten by a cobra, they get up minutes later and attack the snake.

While as many as 80 Houthi military officers may have been killed, according to analysts, the senior echelon of its military and political leadership appears intact. So are at least some of its missile-launching sites. Since mid-March, the Houthis have launched a dozen ballistic missiles at Israel, and barrages of drones and missiles at US navy ships. While none caused major damage, the threat remains.

“We are burning through readiness — munitions, fuel, deployment time,” said one official.

Far from being cowed, the Houthis have threatened to extend their range of targets to the UAE, which backs the rival government to the Houthis in Yemen’s Civil War. Similarly, Saudi officials say the Kingdom’s air defenses are on high alert.

“The dozens of airstrikes on Yemen will not deter the Yemeni Armed Forces from fulfilling their religious, moral, and humanitarian duties,” said a Houthi spokesman earlier this week.

There’s no doubt that the US campaign has degraded the Houthis’ capabilities. Michael Knights, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, says he suspects the Houthis “have lost a lot of drone manufacturing capability, and there does seem to be more effective interdiction of resupply shipments coming via the sea and via Oman. So the Houthis are not comfortable.”

But history shows that the Houthis have an extraordinarily high tolerance for pain. And the Trump administration’s determination to eradicate the threat they pose may ultimately require a ground offensive.

“The Houthis are just inured to being at war with a first world military,” Knights says.“They’re ideological, but they’re also very tough tribal fighters from northern Yemen.”

The Houthis’ ability to survive is helped by an elaborate smuggling network that brings in missile parts and other equipment. Last year, hidden among cargo on one intercepted ship, air frames and fins for artillery rockets, small turbojet engines and hydrogen fuel cells were discovered, according to an investigation by Conflict Armament Research (CAR).

Such equipment could enable Houthi UAVs to carry larger payloads and to travel for far longer periods. That would “greatly extend the potential threat posed by the Houthis,” CAR reported.

The Houthis survived several offensives during the long presidency of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, then a Saudi offensive ten years ago, followed by more recent Israeli, UK and US airstrikes.

Ahmed Nagi, a senior analyst on Yemen at the International Crisis Group, says Israel and western powers lack a deep understanding of the Houthis. “Their opaque leadership and internal structure have created persistent gaps in intelligence.”

Another Yemen expert, Elisabeth Kendall, questions the endgame of the US campaign. “The Houthis have been bombed tens of thousands of times over the past decade and remain undeterred. So one is left thinking that the bombing is largely performative: let’s show the world – we’ll do it because we can.”

“They are an extremely aggressive movement. The best way to end them permanently is to overthrow them, remove them from the capital, remove them from the Red Sea coast.”

Regional diplomatic sources, as well as analysts, say that ultimately only a ground offensive can dislodge the Houthis, who currently control the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, its major port, Hodeidah, and much of northern Yemen.

Ahmed Nagi, a senior analyst on Yemen at the International Crisis Group, says the US is wrong to believe that airstrikes can compel the Houthis to back down. “This approach failed under the Biden administration and is unlikely to succeed under the Trump administration.”

“Their logic is shaped by years of war; they see resilience as a form of strength and are driven to prove they are not easily deterred.”

“The only times I’ve ever seen the Houthis go to the negotiating table or compromise has been when they’ve been threatened with the realistic prospect of defeat on the ground: territorial loss, loss of control of populations and loss of access to the Red Sea coastline,” said Knights.

That briefly happened in 2017 when forces backed by the United Arab Emirates threatened Houthi access to the Red Sea, critical for the Houthis’ revenue and military supplies.

The Houthis, if anything, may actually be relishing US strikes. They are a “direct answer to the Houthi prayers to have a war with the US,” said Farea Al-Muslimi, a Yemeni research fellow at Chatham House. The group “wants to drag the US into a larger regional escalation.”

A ground offensive

The Houthis are fighting for control of Yemen against the internationally recognized government that controls part of the south and is supported mainly by the UAE. The unanswered question is whether forces loyal to that government can take the fight to the Houthis. “They’re already trained and equipped,” says Knights. But there are doubts about their unity.

Analysts do not expect the US to put any troops on the ground, beyond a handful of special forces to help direct airstrikes. The US would perhaps provide [Yemeni forces] “with a bit of logistics, certain key munitions,” Knights says.

The UAE would be “quietly supportive” as it has long supplied the Aden-based government, he adds.

The Saudi perspective is less clear. Knights believes Riyadh is apprehensive about the Houthis retaliating with long-range drones and missiles against its infrastructure. But the US has accelerated deliveries of anti-missile defenses to Saudi Arabia in recent months.

The US will have to say to Riyadh: “We are going to protect you in the same way that we protected Israel in 2024 from the two rounds of Iranian strikes,” says Knights.

Regional diplomatic sources say preparations are underway for a ground operation that would be launched from the south and east, as well as along the coast. A coordinated offensive could also involve Saudi and US naval support in an attempt to retake the port of Hodeidah.

The Iran link

From day one, President Trump and other US officials have linked the campaign against the Houthis to Iran. Trump said he would hold Iran responsible for “every shot” fired by Houthi rebels and it would face “dire” consequences for any attacks by the Yemeni militants.

So far it hasn’t, and it’s unclear whether Tehran can simply order the Houthis to stop firing. While very much part of Iran’s axis of resistance, the Houthis retain considerable autonomy.

Trump continues to warn Iran that it will face a massive bombing campaign if it doesn’t do a deal to limit its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. For the administration, the Houthi campaign and the “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran are two sides of the same coin.

The Iranians are treading carefully, offering moral support to their ally in Yemen. Former Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezaee hailed “the barefooted resistance forces of Yemen, who will bring advanced American warships to their knees.”

But the Iranian leadership does not want to be seen providing further military support for the Houthis right now as it tries to work out Trump’s mixture of small carrot and large stick.

The US appears ready to expand its campaign. B-2 bombers and KC-135 refuelling planes have arrived on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. That may presage strikes on hardened targets in Yemen but may equally be a signal to Iran.

The next few weeks may be a crucial test of the honey badgers’ resilience.