USGS Revises Afghanistan Earthquake Magnitude to 4.9 After Review
The United States Geological Survey has updated its magnitude estimate for the August 25 earthquake near the Hindu Kush range.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 11:22 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 30, 2026, 11:31 a.m. ET
USGS Estimates Possible Casualties and Localized Damage from Afghanistan Earthquake
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated that the magnitude 4.9 earthquake that struck near the Hindu Kush range along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border on August 25, 2026, could cause some casualties and localized damage. The USGS assigned a yellow impact level to the event, meaning that some casualties and localized damage are estimated to be possible. The earthquake occurred at 09:36 local time on August 30, according to kashmirlife.net, and had a depth of 147 kilometers, which is considered shallow. The USGS recorded an instrument intensity of 5.7 and a community intensity of 5.2, with one felt report. The magnitude was reviewed at 4.9, as reported by kashmirlife.net. The USGS has not flagged a tsunami evaluation for this event.
Aug 25, 2026, 11:22 a.m. ETFirst report
Magnitude 4.9 Earthquake Strikes Near Jalālābād, Afghanistan
A magnitude 4.9 earthquake occurred at 01:18:46 UTC on August 25, 2026, 4 km NNE of Jalālābād, Afghanistan, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The quake was shallow, with a depth of 10 km. The USGS reported an instrument intensity of 5.7 and a community intensity of 5.2, with one felt report.
The USGS has assigned an estimated impact level of yellow, meaning some casualties and localized damage are estimated to be possible. The magnitude has been reviewed. No tsunami evaluation has been flagged.
The event is developing, and further information may be released as it becomes available.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 130 Aug 2026, 15:31current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 15:22current
First published.
- Version 130 Aug 2026, 15:37current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.