By STEVEN GRATTAN, Associated Press

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — From the depths of Brazil’s Amazon to Indonesia’s rainforests, some of the world’s most isolated peoples are being squeezed by roads, miners and drug traffickers — a crisis unfolding far from public view or effective state protection.

A new report by Survival International, a London-based Indigenous rights organization, attempts one of the broadest tallies yet, identifying at least 196 uncontacted Indigenous groups in 10 countries, primarily in the South American nations sharing the Amazon rainforest. Released Sunday, the report estimates that nearly 65% face threats from logging, about 40% from mining and around 20% from agribusiness.

“These are what I would call silent genocides — there are no TV crews, no journalists. But they are happening, and they’re happening now,” said Fiona Watson, Survival’s research and advocacy director, who has worked on Indigenous rights for more than three decades.

The issue often receives little priority from governments, which critics say see uncontacted peoples as politically marginal because they don’t vote and their territories are often coveted for logging, mining and oil extraction. Public debate is also shaped by stereotypes — some romanticize them as “lost tribes,” while others view them as barriers to development.

Survival’s research concludes that half of these groups “could be wiped out within 10 years if governments and companies do not act.”

Herlin Odicio is interviewed after the launch of Survival International’s major new report on the world’s uncontacted Indigenous peoples, in London, Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

Who the uncontacted peoples are

Uncontacted peoples are not “lost tribes” frozen in time, Watson said. They are contemporary societies that deliberately avoid outsiders after generations of violence, slavery and disease.

“They don’t need anything from us,” Watson said. “They’re happy in the forest. They have incredible knowledge and they help keep these very valuable forests standing — essential to all humanity in the fight against climate change.”

Survival’s research shows that more than 95% of the world’s uncontacted peoples live in the Amazon, with smaller populations in South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. These communities live by hunting, fishing and small-scale cultivation, maintaining languages and traditions that predate modern nation-states.

Why contact can be deadly

Groups living in voluntary isolation have “minimal to no contact with those outside of their own group,” said Dr. Subhra Bhattacharjee, director general of the Forest Stewardship Council and an Indigenous rights expert based in Bonn, Germany. “A simple cold that you and I recover from in a week … they could die of that cold.”

Beyond disease, contact can destroy livelihoods and belief systems. International law requires free, prior and informed consent — known as FPIC — before any activity on Indigenous lands.

“But when you have groups living in voluntary isolation, who you cannot get close to without risking their lives, you cannot get FPIC,” Bhattacharjee said. “No FPIC means no consent.”

Her organization follows a strict policy: “No contact, no-go zones,” she said, arguing that if consent cannot be obtained safely, contact should not occur at all.

The Associated Press reported last year on loggers killed by bow and arrow after entering Mashco Piro territory in Peru’s Amazon, with Indigenous leaders warning that such clashes are inevitable when frontier zones go unpoliced.

Maipatxi Apurina, left, and Herlin Odicio, right, take a photograph at the launch of Survival International’s major new report on the world’s uncontacted Indigenous peoples, in London, Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

How the threats have evolved

Watson, who has worked across the Amazon for 35 years, said early threats stemmed from colonization and state-backed infrastructure. During Brazil’s military dictatorship between 1964 and 1985, highways were bulldozed through the rainforest “without due regard” for the people living there.

“The roads acted as a magnet for settlers,” she said, describing how loggers and cattle ranchers followed, bringing gunmen and disease that wiped out entire communities.

A railway line now planned in Brazil could potentially affect three uncontacted peoples, she said, but the rise of organized crime poses an even greater risk.

Across Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, drug traffickers and illegal gold miners have moved deep into Indigenous territories. “Any chance encounter runs the risk of transmitting the flu, which can easily wipe out an uncontacted people within a year of contact,” she said. “And bows and arrows are no match for guns.”

Evangelical missionary incursions have also caused outbreaks. Watson recalled how, under former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, an evangelical pastor was placed in charge of the government’s unit for uncontacted peoples and gained access to their coordinates. “Their mission was to force contact — to ‘save souls,’” she said. “That is incredibly dangerous.”

Ways to protect uncontacted peoples

Protecting uncontacted peoples, experts say, will require both stronger laws and a shift in how the world views them — not as relics of the past, but as citizens of the planet whose survival affects everyone’s future.

Advocates have several recommendations.

First, governments must formally recognize and enforce Indigenous territories, making them off-limits to extractive industries.

Mapping is crucial, Bhattacharjee said, because identifying the approximate territories of uncontacted peoples allows governments to protect those areas from loggers or miners. But, she added, it must be done with extreme caution and from a distance to avoid contact that could endanger the groups’ health or autonomy.

Related Articles

Hurricane Melissa’s wind speeds doubled in less than a day

Blood tests show highest levels of forever chemicals in those living near New Mexico plume

In a California farming region, researchers are mapping rural heat to protect farmworkers

Lacking community resilience centers, Houston neighbors opt for solar-powered ‘hub homes’

‘Chemtrail’ theories warn of health dangers from contrails. The idea takes wing at Kennedy’s HHS

Second, corporations and consumers must help stop the flow of money driving destruction. Survival’s report calls for companies to trace their supply chains to ensure that commodities such as gold, timber and soy are not sourced from Indigenous lands.

“Public opinion and pressure are essential,” Watson said. “It’s largely through citizens and the media that so much has already been achieved to recognize uncontacted peoples and their rights.”

Finally, advocates say the world must recognize why their protection matters. Beyond human rights, these communities play an outsized role in stabilizing the global climate.

“With the world under pressure from climate change, we will sink or swim together,” Bhattacharjee said.

Governments’ uneven response

International treaties such as the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169 and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirm the right to self-determination and to remain uncontacted if they choose. But enforcement varies widely.

In Peru, Congress recently rejected a proposal to create the Yavari-Mirim Indigenous Reserve, a move Indigenous federations said leaves isolated groups exposed to loggers and traffickers.

In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has sought to rebuild protections weakened under Bolsonaro, boosting budgets and patrols.

And in Ecuador, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled this year that the government failed to protect the Tagaeri and Taromenane peoples who live in voluntary isolation in Yasuni National Park.

Watson warned that political forces tied to agribusiness and evangelical blocs are now working to roll back earlier gains.

“Achievements of the last 20 or 30 years are in danger of being dismantled,” she said.

What the new report calls for

Survival International’s report urges a global no-contact policy: legal recognition of uncontacted territories, suspension of mining, oil and agribusiness projects in or near those lands and prosecution of crimes against Indigenous groups.

Watson said logging remains the biggest single threat, but mining is close behind. She pointed to the uncontacted Hongana Manyawa on Indonesia’s Halmahera Island, where nickel for electric-vehicle batteries is being mined.

“People think electric cars are a green alternative,” she said, “but mining companies are operating on the land of uncontacted peoples and posing enormous threats.”

In South America, illegal gold miners in the Yanomami territory of Brazil and Venezuela continue to use mercury to extract gold — contamination that has poisoned rivers and fish.

“The impact is devastating — socially and physically,” Watson said.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Suicide prevention information

If you need help: If you are in crisis, call 988 or text “Home” to 741741 for free, 24/7 support from the Crisis Text Line. Or, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
If you want to help: Five steps to help others as well as yourself at Take5tosavelives.org.
Please stay: Read survivor stories at Livethroughthis.org: “Our stories can save lives. You are not alone. Please stay.”
Local resources: More local resources at Suicide Awareness Voices of Education (SAVE) at Save.org.

A 27-year-old Forest Lake man was taken to Regions Hospital in St. Paul by ambulance with non-life-threatening injuries Sunday night after he was shot with “less-lethal” munitions by Forest Lake police during an altercation that forced an hourlong closure of U.S. Highway 61 in Forest Lake.

The incident happened around 10:45 p.m. Sunday night after Forest Lake police received a 911 call from the man stating that he “was armed, wanted to die, and would force officers to kill him,” said Capt. Luke Hanegraaf of the Forest Lake Police Department. The man told police he was in a wooded, swampy area near the southeast intersection of Highway 61 and 11th Avenue, he said.

The man, who was found holding a hammer, refused to comply with commands, according to Hannegraf.

A trained negotiator contacted the man, but he “ceased communication with the negotiator and began walking towards officers with the hammer,” Hanegraaf said. “He refused to stop or drop the hammer as he advanced.”

Police deployed a less-lethal weapon — a pepper-ball launcher — which resulted in the man dropping his weapon, allowing officers to take him into custody, according to Hanegraaf.

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office, the Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, the Wyoming Police Department and the Minnesota State Patrol assisted on the call.

Related Articles

Scandia moving ahead on Gateway Trail extension over objections

As Stillwater wrestles with cannabis shop locations, what are other east metro cities seeing?

Afton, William O’Brien state parks to close for weekend deer hunts

Voters to decide school levy referendums in Ramsey, Dakota, Washington counties

Forest Lake School Board to hold special meeting on board vacancy

By REBECCA BOONE and SUDHIN THANAWALA

Congress has the constitutional power of the purse, but President Donald Trump’s robust assertion of executive authority is testing even that basic tenet of U.S. democracy.

Related Articles

Indiana’s governor calls a special session to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries

Republicans grapple with voter frustration over rising health care premiums

Biden warns of dark days for the country as he urges Americans to stay optimistic

For Japan’s new leader, the key to connecting with Trump could be a Ford F-150 truck

US, China tee up sweeping trade deal for Trump, Xi to finish

His administration has already canceled or threatened to cancel billions of dollars of previously approved federal spending and now wants to go after even more funding during the government shutdown.

States, cities, nonprofits and other groups have responded with more than 150 lawsuits accusing the Republican administration of an unlawful power grab.

An Associated Press analysis shows that so far, those suits are mostly succeeding in blocking the Republican president’s spending moves, at least temporarily. But most of the legal battles are far from over, and the Supreme Court, where Trump so far has been more successful, could have the final word on at least some of them.

The court’s conservative majority has been receptive at least in preliminary rulings to many emergency appeals from the administration. Legal experts say a pair of recent decisions by the court may bode well for the administration’s push to gain more control over government spending. Here’s a look at the current legal score and what could lie ahead:

Courts have mostly ruled against the administration so far

As of early October, court orders were at least temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s decisions in 66 of 152 lawsuits over federal spending, an AP analysis shows. In 37 of those cases, courts had allowed the administration to proceed. In 26 of the cases, a judge had yet to rule on the matter. The remaining 23 had either been dropped or consolidated.

The count reflects decisions by district courts, appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court and will almost certainly change as the cases progress.

The flurry of litigation reflects not only the administration’s aggressive effort to wrest control of spending, but the Republican-controlled Congress’ unwillingness to push back, said Zachary Price, a constitutional law professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

“Congress seems to be following its partisan interests more than its institutional interests, and that puts a lot of pressure on courts,” he said.

President Donald Trump, center, joined by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, left, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, right, speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One while traveling from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Tokyo, Japan, Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

It’s hard to say how much money the administration has withheld

Government watchdogs say the administration is blatantly ignoring a requirement in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to report funding freezes to Congress.

Research by Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees estimated the administration was freezing, canceling or seeking to block a total of $410 billion as of early September. That’s equivalent to about 6% of the federal budget for the year that ended on Sept. 30.

The administration has disputed that number.

Since the shutdown started this month, the administration has targeted even more funding, primarily in places represented by Democrats.

The Trump administration is taking a page from Nixon

Legal scholars say no president has attempted massive, unilateral cuts like these since Richard Nixon. The moves reflect an expansive view of executive power that is at odds with the Impoundment Control Act, court rulings and the Constitution, which grants Congress supremacy over spending, experts say.

“The power they’ve claimed is the power to delay and withhold funds throughout the year without input from Congress,” said Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel with Protect Democracy, which is involved in multiple lawsuits against the administration. “That’s a theft of Congress’ power of the purse.”

In a message to Congress earlier this year, the White House said it was “committed to getting America’s fiscal house in order by cutting government spending that is woke, weaponized, and wasteful.”

White House budget director Russ Vought, a proponent of withholding federal funds, has argued presidents long had the power to spend less money than Congress appropriated if they could cut waste or be more efficient, and that power is needed to address the country’s massive debt.

The government shutdown opened up a new opportunity to cut spending, he said this month on “The Charlie Kirk Show.”

“If I can only work on saving money, then I’m going to do everything I can to look for opportunities to downsize in areas where this administration has thought, ‘This is our way towards a balanced budget.’”

The administration has cut entire agencies

The 152 cases the AP identified challenge the closure of government agencies and offices, the cancellation of grants and other assistance and the attachment of new conditions on federal funding.

The administration has used the cuts, or threat of cuts, to try to impose its policies on gender, race, immigration and other issues.

But it’s not just money on the line. The funds supported jobs, school lunches, health programs, scientific research, infrastructure projects, foreign assistance, disaster preparedness, education initiatives and other programs.

Some notable rulings against the administration include the restoration of funding to 14 states that filed suit over nearly $2 billion withheld for electric car chargers and a block on potentially broad funding cuts to some of the country’s largest cities over their “sanctuary” immigration policies.

Judges have raised constitutional concerns

Judges who have ruled against the administration have often found strong reason to conclude the cuts, or threat of cuts, would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers by usurping Congress’ authority over spending.

They have also ruled the moves were most likely arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Judges who have sided with the administration have likened at least some of the legal claims before them to contract disputes that belong in a different court: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

That court, which traces its origins to the mid-1800s, handles lawsuits by citizens seeking money from the federal government. Referred to as “the People’s Court,” it is separate from the district courts that are handling most of the high-profile litigation against the administration.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., pauses as he takes questions from reporters on day 27 of the government shutdown, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Oct. 27, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The Supreme Court has often sided with the White House

The high court’s conservative justices have allowed the administration to move ahead for now with plans to shutter the Education Department, freeze $5 billion in foreign aid and cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training and research supported by the National Institutes of Health.

Those decisions may make it harder to challenge the administration’s spending cuts, though the high court has not yet considered their ultimate legality or overturned lower court rulings.

In the National Institutes of Health case, the high court ruled 5-4 in August that lawsuits over the cancellation of grant funding generally cannot be handled entirely by federal district courts. Instead, plaintiffs must sue in federal claims court for any money and turn to the district courts if they want to challenge the guidance that led to the grant terminations.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is still unfolding, but it could force plaintiffs in the grant funding cases to start over in a new courtroom. In some cases, plaintiffs might have to decide if they want to sue on two fronts.

In the foreign aid case, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in September suggested the Impoundment Control Act did not give private parties the right to sue over so-called pocket rescissions.

That’s when the president submits a request to Congress not to spend approved money, but does it so late in the fiscal year that Congress doesn’t have time to act and the funds go unspent.

Trump notified House Speaker Mike Johnson in August of a pocket rescission for the $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

Though the Supreme Court stressed its decision was preliminary, legal experts say it could make it easier for the Trump administration to use the tactic again.

Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

By CHRISTOPHER WEBER, MATTHEW LEE and REBECCA SANTANA, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Sami Hamdi, a British political commentator, was being held Monday by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after he was detained by ICE officers at San Francisco International Airport, according to federal officials. One senior U.S. official said the detention was related to comments he has made about the Middle East.

Related Articles

Private donors gave more than $125M to keep foreign aid programs going after US cuts

Wall Street rallies toward more records as gold’s price slumps again

Navy loses two aircraft from USS Nimitz aircraft carrier within 30 minutes

Immigration crackdown stokes fear and solidarity at a Catholic church in DC

Today in History: October 27, ‘Curse of the Bambino’ reversed

Hamdi, who is Muslim, was on a speaking tour in the U.S. and on Saturday had addressed the annual gala for the Sacramento, California, chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR.

“Earlier this morning, ICE agents abducted British Muslim journalist and political commentator Sami Hamdi at San Francisco Airport, apparently in response to his vocal criticism of the Israeli government during his ongoing speaking tour,” CAIR said in a Sunday social media post.

The detention is the latest in the Trump administration’s ramped up efforts to identify and potentially expel thousands of foreigners in the United States who it says have either fomented or participated in unrest or publicly supported protests against Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The administration has also denied visas to applicants whose social media histories have been critical of its policies.

Those actions have been criticized by civil rights groups as violations of constitutional protections for freedom of speech, which apply to anyone in the United States and not just to American citizens.

It was not immediately clear what specific comments triggered Hamdi’s detention.

CAIR, the nation’s largest Muslim advocacy organization, called for Hamdi’s immediate release. The group said Hamdi, 35, has not been deported and remains in U.S. custody.

After being alerted to his past and current statements related to the Middle East, a decision to revoke Hamdi’s visa was made on Friday, according to the senior U.S. official. The official did not specify what comments.

The official also said Hamdi was traveling in the United States on a visitor visa and not under the Visa Waiver Program, which he may have been eligible for as a British citizen.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, could not speak to why it had taken several days to locate and detain him.

Hamdi, a political commentator who often speaks out against Israel and the war in Gaza, is described on his LinkedIn profile as managing director of The International Interest, a risk and intelligence consulting group. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin indicated on social media Sunday that Hamdi’s “visa was revoked and he is in ICE custody pending removal.” ICE said in a statement that Hamdi entered the U.S. on Oct. 19 on a visitor visa.

“The State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs revoked Hamdi’s visa Oct. 24, 2025, effective immediately. ICE detained Hamdi, as he was illegally in the country, and he will be placed in immigration proceedings,” ICE said.

In response to questions Monday about his case, Homeland Security sent a link to a State Department post on X Sunday thanking DHS for their efforts to remove Hamdi.

The State Department statement did not specifically say what Hamdi had said or done that initiated the revocation but said: “The United States has no obligation to host foreigners” whom the administration deems to “support terrorism and actively undermine the safety of Americans. We continue to revoke the visas of persons engaged in such activity.”

Critics accuse Hamdi of praising Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attacks in comments he made in a video posted online shortly after the war in Gaza erupted. He has denied that, saying he wasn’t celebrating violence.

“No one is saying Oct. 7 was right. People are saying Oct. 7 was a natural consequence of the oppression that is being put on the Palestinians,” he said in a February 2024 speech to the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council.

Britain’s Foreign Office said it was “in contact with the family of a British man detained in the U.S.A. and are in touch with the local authorities.”

Hamdi was scheduled to speak at a CAIR event in Florida on Sunday.

As part of its intensifying enforcement efforts, the administration has expelled South Africa’s ambassador to the United States for comments critical of President Donald Trump, revoked a visa for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to attend the U.N. General Assembly and yanked the visas for British punk-rap duo Bob Vylan. It said it is reviewing the status of the more than 55 million current U.S. visa holders for potential violations of its standards.

Lee and Santana reported from Washington.