Countries Restricting Burqas, Niqabs, and Hijabs

This table summarizes national restrictions on face-covering veils (burqas and niqabs) and visible Islamic headscarves (hijabs). The legal scope varies significantly by country. Face-covering bans are generally more common than hijab bans.

Country	Burqa / Niqab Status	Hijab Status	Notes
Austria	Public face-covering ban	Restricted in some school settings	National face-covering law; additional school-related restrictions.
Belgium	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	Nationwide ban on full-face coverings in public.
Bulgaria	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	Public face-covering ban enacted in 2016.
Denmark	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	Applies to all face-concealing garments.
France	Public face-covering ban	Restricted in certain schools and government settings	First European country with a nationwide public face-covering ban.
Luxembourg	Public face-covering restrictions	Generally allowed	Restrictions apply in public contexts.
Netherlands	Partial ban	Generally allowed	Restricted in schools, hospitals, public transportation, and government buildings.
Switzerland	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	Nationwide face-covering restrictions.
Portugal	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	Nationwide restrictions adopted in 2026.
Italy	Local and regional restrictions	Generally allowed	No comprehensive national burqa ban.
Norway	Limited restrictions	Generally allowed	Restrictions exist in certain public settings.
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Limited workplace restrictions	Generally allowed	Some public-sector restrictions.
Turkey	Limited restrictions in some institutions	Generally allowed	Modern policy is broadly permissive toward hijabs.
Tunisia	Government-setting restrictions	Generally allowed	Not a universal public-space ban.
China	Restrictions in certain regions	Restrictions in certain regions	Most notable restrictions are in Xinjiang.
Kazakhstan	Restrictions on face-covering veils	Restrictions in some educational settings	Government policies discourage concealing veils.
Kyrgyzstan	Restrictions on face-covering veils	Generally allowed	Face-covering garments are the primary target.
Tajikistan	Strong national restrictions	Restrictions on religious dress	Among the most restrictive regimes in Central Asia.
Turkmenistan	Restrictions reported	Restrictions reported	Government regulates visible religious attire.
Uzbekistan	Restrictions reported	Generally allowed	Policies focus mainly on face-covering veils.
Sri Lanka	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	Implemented after security concerns.
Cameroon	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	Security-related measure.
Chad	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	Security-related measure.
Gabon	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	National restrictions in force.
Republic of the Congo	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	National restrictions in force.
Senegal	Public face-covering ban	Generally allowed	National restrictions in force.
Zambia	Restrictions reported	Generally allowed	Primarily focused on face-covering garments.
Morocco	Sale/manufacture restricted	Generally allowed	No general wearing ban; restrictions focus on production and commerce.

Legend

• Red: National public-face-covering ban.
• Yellow: Partial, local, institutional, or regional restrictions.
• Green: Generally permitted nationwide.

Note: In most countries listed, restrictions are aimed at full-face coverings such as the burqa and niqab rather than the hijab. Countries with broad restrictions on ordinary hijabs are considerably less common than countries with bans on face-covering veils.

Modern Context of the Hazara Genocide

In the modern context, the term "Hazara genocide" is used by many Hazara activists, human rights advocates, and some organizations to describe a continuing pattern of targeted violence against the Hazara people in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. The argument is that these attacks are not merely isolated incidents, but part of a long history of persecution directed at Hazaras because of both their ethnic identity and their predominantly Shia Muslim faith. ^{Sources: turn1search1, turn1search3}

Since the 1990s, Hazaras have been victims of massacres, bombings, and other attacks carried out by groups including the Taliban and ISIS-K. According to Persecution of Hazaras, Hazara communities have experienced repeated attacks on schools, educational centers, religious gatherings, maternity hospitals, and civilian neighborhoods. ^{Source: turn1search1}

One of the most frequently cited examples is the Hazara-majority area of Dasht-e-Barchi in Kabul, where multiple mass-casualty attacks have occurred. Human rights organizations and advocacy groups argue that the repeated targeting of civilians in Hazara neighborhoods reflects a systematic pattern rather than random acts of violence. Genocide Watch describes the Hazara community as having endured "over a century of systematic persecution" and calls for greater international protection and accountability. ^{Source: turn1search3}

At the same time, it is important to recognize that while many scholars, advocates, and organizations use the term genocide, there has not been a universally accepted international legal ruling that current attacks against Hazaras constitute genocide. Nevertheless, there is broad agreement that Hazaras have experienced severe discrimination, targeted killings, forced displacement, and sectarian violence over many decades. ^{Sources: turn1search1, turn1search3}

Politically and academically, the issue remains sensitive. Supporters of the genocide designation argue that the historical record, combined with ongoing targeted attacks against Hazara civilians, satisfies the criteria for genocide. Others prefer terms such as ethnic persecution, crimes against humanity, sectarian violence, or ethnic cleansing, while still acknowledging the serious nature of the abuses. ^{Sources: turn1search1, turn1search2, turn1search3}

In summary, contemporary discussions of the Hazara genocide generally refer not only to the mass atrocities committed between 1891 and 1893 under Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, but also to what many view as a continuing pattern of systematic violence and discrimination against the Hazara people in modern times. ^{Sources: turn1search1, turn1search2, turn1search3}

The Houthis' Capabilities Versus Saudi Arabia

The Houthis in Yemen have demonstrated a remarkable ability to punch far above their weight against Saudi Arabia. Despite Saudi Arabia possessing a massive advantage in conventional military power and defense spending, the Houthis have leveraged asymmetric tactics, Iranian support, and geography to strike deep into Saudi territory, exposing significant vulnerabilities in the kingdom's defense strategy.

The Stark Mismatch in Resources

The contrast in resources is extreme, yet the Houthis' asymmetric approach has leveled the playing field in specific ways.

Saudi Arabia (The Conventional Giant): Boasts a defense budget of $83 billion (2025), equipped with advanced Patriot and THAAD systems, and modern F-15 and Typhoon fighter jets.

Houthis (The Asymmetric Threat): Estimated 350,000 fighters, relying on a domestic arsenal of missiles and drones, many developed with Iranian technical assistance.

How the Houthis Bridge the Gap

The Houthis offset Saudi Arabia's technological edge through a combination of advanced weaponry, clever tactics, and strategic depth.

Advanced Missile Arsenal: They possess the "Palestine-2" missile, a solid-fuel, medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 1,500–2,000 km. It is reportedly capable of speeds exceeding Mach 10 and features terminal maneuvering, making it very difficult for Saudi air defenses to intercept.

Overwhelming Tactics: Rather than relying on a single strike, the Houthis often launch coordinated attacks using a mix of drones and different types of missiles. This "saturation" tactic is designed to overwhelm and confuse even sophisticated, multi-layered air defense systems.

Iranian Backing: Iran provides critical support, including weapons components, training, and technical expertise. This assistance has been instrumental in the Houthis' evolution from a lightly armed insurgency into a force capable of threatening the region.

Strategic Geography & Resilience: The Houthis benefit from rugged mountain terrain in northern Yemen, which makes their missile launchers and infrastructure difficult to find and destroy. They are also highly self-reliant, embedding their military apparatus within the local society and economy, which sustains their war effort.

Saudi Arabia's Strategic Dilemma

Saudi Arabia's immense military power is constrained by a fundamental strategic problem: the difficulty of defending everything, everywhere, at all times.

Vast Territory: The kingdom is roughly 2.25 million sq km in size. Saudi forces must protect an enormous number of potential targets, including major cities, oil facilities, desalination plants, and airports, stretching their defensive resources thin.

Cost of Defense: The Houthis force Saudi Arabia to use expensive interceptor missiles (like the Patriot) to shoot down relatively cheap drones and missiles. This creates a costly war of attrition. Reports indicate that Saudi stocks of Patriot interceptors have been significantly depleted, straining their ability to sustain high-intensity defense.

Economic and Psychological Impact: The Houthis' true strategic objective is often economic. By striking deep into Saudi Arabia, particularly at high-profile targets like King Khalid International Airport, they aim to shatter the perception of stability. This is a direct threat to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's "Vision 2030" plan, which seeks to attract foreign investment and tourism. The attacks cause economic disruption, deter investors, and impose a psychological toll on the population.

In essence, the Houthis have successfully translated their limited conventional power into significant strategic leverage. They have demonstrated that they can impose costs and disrupt the Saudi economy without needing to defeat the Saudi military in a head-to-head battle. For Saudi Arabia, the challenge is not a lack of military strength, but the immense difficulty of using that strength to neutralize a dispersed, resilient, and determined asymmetric adversary.

Patrons and Proxies

A state that acts in the interests of a more powerful hegemon or patron is most commonly called a client state or a puppet state, depending on its level of independence.

Here is how these and related terms are categorized in international relations:

Core Terms

Client State

A state that is economically, politically, or militarily subordinate to a more powerful state (the patron). While it retains its official sovereignty, it heavily relies on the patron for protection or resources and usually aligns its foreign policy to match the patron's interests.

Puppet State

A harsher term for a state that possesses nominal independence but is completely dependent upon an outside power. Its government is effectively controlled by the hegemon, and it acts purely as an instrument of that patron's will.

Related Political Terms

Satellite State

A term popularized during the Cold War to describe a country that is formally independent but under heavy political, economic, and military control from another nation (such as the Warsaw Pact countries under the Soviet Union).

Vassal State

A historical term for a state that has a mutual obligation to a superior state or empire, usually involving paying tribute or providing military support in exchange for protection.

Proxy

When a client state fights a war or engages in a conflict on behalf of or supported by the hegemon, it is referred to as a proxy.

How a Pass-Through Is Used to Preserve Wealth

Pass-through entities preserve wealth primarily through income tax efficiency, estate tax reduction, and asset protection. By avoiding double taxation and enabling the transfer of ownership interests at discounted valuations, these structures allow families to retain more capital across generations.

Income Tax Efficiency

Unlike traditional C-corporations, pass-through entities (such as partnerships, S-corporations, and LLCs) do not pay federal income tax at the entity level. Instead, income, deductions, and credits "pass through" to the individual owners, who report them on their personal tax returns. This structure offers several wealth-preservation advantages.

Avoiding Double Taxation: Profits are taxed only once at the owner's individual rate, rather than being taxed at both the corporate level and again when distributed as dividends.

Income Shifting: Income can be shifted to family members in lower tax brackets. For example, transferring ownership interests to children or grandchildren means their share of the income is taxed at their potentially lower marginal rates.

Current Deductions: Owners can use business losses and deductions to offset other personal income, effectively reducing their overall tax burden.

Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction: Many pass-through owners can deduct up to 20% of their qualified business income, further reducing taxable income.

Estate and Gift Tax Reduction

Pass-through structures are powerful tools for transferring wealth to the next generation while minimizing transfer taxes.

Valuation Discounts: When gifting or selling interests in a pass-through entity like a Family Limited Partnership (FLP), the value of those interests is often discounted. These discounts reflect a lack of control (minority interest) and lack of marketability, as limited partners typically cannot easily sell their shares. This allows you to transfer a larger portion of the asset's value tax-free using your lifetime gift and estate tax exemption.

Removing Future Appreciation: By transferring ownership interests now, any future growth of the assets occurs outside of the original owner's taxable estate. This "freezes" the value of the estate for tax purposes, shifting the future appreciation to the next generation.

Retaining Control: In a Family Limited Partnership, the older generation can retain management control as the General Partner (often with just a 1-2% interest) while transferring the majority of the economic value to heirs as Limited Partners.

Asset Protection

Pass-through entities can also shield wealth from creditors.

Charging Order Protection: In many states, creditors of a limited partner cannot seize the partnership's underlying assets. Instead, they are limited to a "charging order," which only gives them the right to receive distributions if and when the partnership decides to make them. Since the General Partner controls distributions, creditors can be left waiting indefinitely.

Separating Assets: Placing assets into a limited partnership separates them from the personal ownership of the partners, creating a legal barrier between the wealth and the partner's personal liabilities.

Important Considerations

While powerful, pass-through wealth preservation requires careful implementation.

Complexity: These structures require strict adherence to legal formalities, separate accounting, and ongoing administration to withstand IRS scrutiny.

Tax Traps: Trusts holding pass-through interests can face "trapped" income and compressed tax brackets, potentially triggering taxes at the highest rate (37%) on relatively low amounts of retained income.

Professional Guidance: Because the rules are complex and change with legislation, working with an estate planning attorney and tax advisor is essential.

How Donald Trump Avoided Paying Taxes

Donald Trump's tax avoidance centered on a single massive business loss he used to wipe out years of tax liability, followed by a refund claim that triggered a decades-long IRS fight.

The $916 Million Loss Carryforward

The foundation of Trump's tax avoidance was a $916 million net operating loss he claimed on his 1995 return from the collapse of his Atlantic City casinos, airline, and Plaza Hotel. Under tax law, this loss could be carried forward to offset taxable income for up to 18 years, potentially eliminating his federal tax bill for nearly two decades. He achieved this through a debt-for-equity swap that his own lawyers reportedly advised against, and which Congress later barred.

The $72.9 Million Refund and the "Double-Dip" Allegation

During his Apprentice years (2005–2008), Trump earned substantial income and paid federal taxes. He then claimed $1.4 billion in business losses from 2008–2009, primarily from his failing casinos and the Chicago Trump Tower, declaring those investments "worthless." This allowed him to claim a $72.9 million refund for taxes already paid. The IRS disputed this for over a decade, arguing he improperly wrote off the same Chicago Tower losses twice.

The Resulting Tax Bills

The released returns showed the impact. In 2015, Trump reported negative income of $31.7 million and paid $641,931. In 2016 and 2017, he paid only $750 each year. In 2020, he paid $0.

The Audit Immunity Settlement

The IRS audit into the $72.9 million refund could have resulted in a bill exceeding $100 million. However, in 2026, Trump settled a separate lawsuit against the IRS over leaked returns. The settlement granted him and his family sweeping immunity from future audits of already-filed returns, effectively wiping away the pending liability.

How Billionaires Avoid Taxes: The "Buy, Borrow, Die" Strategy

Billionaires use a strategy often called "Buy, Borrow, Die" to legally minimize taxes. It leverages the tax code's distinction between income (which is taxed) and wealth (which generally isn't taxed until assets are sold).

Step 1: Buy (and Hold)

Billionaires like Jeff Bezos famously take a minimal salary (Bezos capped his at $82,000 for years) because salaries are subject to high income and payroll taxes. Instead, their wealth comes from appreciating assets like stocks or real estate. As long as they don't sell these assets, the growth is an "unrealized gain" and is not subject to income tax.

Step 2: Borrow (Instead of Selling)

To fund their lifestyles (yachts, jets, etc.), they don't sell the stock (which would trigger capital gains tax). Instead, they take out loans using their assets as collateral (known as a Securities-Based Line of Credit).

Why it works: Loan proceeds are not taxable income. They can spend the money freely while their underlying assets continue to grow.

Interest Rates: These loans often carry lower interest rates than traditional loans and can sometimes be structured as interest-only payments.

Step 3: Die (The Step-Up in Basis)

This is the final key that erases the tax bill. When the billionaire dies, their heirs inherit the assets. Under current U.S. law, the heirs receive a "step-up in basis".

The Result: The IRS resets the value of the asset to its market price at the time of death. All the capital gains accumulated during the billionaire's lifetime are wiped out for tax purposes. The heirs can sell the assets immediately and pay little to no capital gains tax.

A Closer Look at the Reality

While "Buy, Borrow, Die" is a real and powerful loophole, recent data suggests it is not the primary way most ultra-wealthy people manage their finances.

Data on Borrowing: A 2026 study found that the top 1% actually borrow a relatively small amount—roughly 1% to 2% of their economic income. Their unrealized gains are typically 20 to 40 times larger than their borrowing.

The "Boring" Truth: The dominant strategy for most billionaires is actually "Buy, Save, Die." They earn substantial taxable income (dividends, business profits, realized gains) and simply reinvest most of it, letting their wealth compound while living off a small fraction.

Other Tax Advantages

Charitable Foundations: Donating appreciated stock to a private foundation avoids capital gains tax and provides an income tax deduction, while the donor often retains control over the foundation.

Real Estate Depreciation: Paper losses on real estate can be used to offset other taxable income, sometimes reducing it to zero.

State Selection: Residing in states with no income tax (like Florida or Texas) saves tens of millions annually.