South Korean defense firms face growing pressure from U.S. cyber rules

A visitor inspects a K2 Black Panther, a South Korean fourth-generation main battle tank, during the final day of the Black Sea Defense and Aerospace Exhibition 2026 in Bucharest, Romania, 15 May 2026. Photo by ROBERT GHEMENT / EPA
May 19 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s fast-growing defense industry is confronting a major new obstacle in the U.S. market as the Pentagon fully implements strict cybersecurity certification requirements across its global supply chain.
The U.S. Department of Defense has begun enforcing the final version of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or CMMC, program, requiring all companies participating in U.S. defense contracts to meet specific cybersecurity standards.
Industry officials warn that Korean defense firms unable to obtain certification could be excluded not only from exports to the United States but also from ship maintenance, repair and overhaul projects and future joint weapons development programs.
The certification system applies not only to primary contractors but also to subcontractors supplying parts and components.
Even companies with advanced technology and competitive pricing can be blocked from bidding if they fail to meet required cybersecurity levels.
For many South Korean defense firms, the most critical threshold is CMMC Level 2, which is required for handling Controlled Unclassified Information, or CUI, tied to U.S. military programs.
The requirement is considered especially important for South Korea’s ambitions to participate in U.S. Navy ship maintenance and repair projects, as well as broader bilateral defense cooperation initiatives.
Defense analysts say the new rules are becoming a de facto trade barrier across Western defense markets.
“Losing access to the U.S. market effectively means being pushed out of the global defense supply chain,” one industry expert said.
Defense Acquisition Program Administration has launched information sessions and consulting support programs in response to growing industry concerns.
The agency is working with regional defense innovation clusters, the Korea Defense Industry Association and the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality to help companies prepare for certification.
But smaller suppliers say the burden remains overwhelming.
Industry estimates suggest that achieving Level 2 certification can cost companies from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars due to infrastructure upgrades, consulting fees and final audits. Preparation alone can take more than a year.
Large defense contractors have already formed dedicated task forces, but many second- and third-tier suppliers lack both funding and cybersecurity specialists.
Because the CMMC system requires certification across the entire supply chain, failure by even a single subcontractor could jeopardize broader export opportunities involving larger Korean defense firms.
Additional complications stem from differences between U.S. and South Korean encryption standards.
One key CMMC requirement involves use of cryptographic modules certified under U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines known as FIPS standards.
Many South Korean defense companies, however, rely on domestic encryption systems validated under the country’s K-CMVP framework overseen by intelligence and defense authorities.
Industry experts are calling for government-level negotiations between Seoul and Washington to seek mutual recognition or equivalency between Korean and U.S. encryption standards.
Some officials argue such talks could be linked to ongoing negotiations over a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement between the two allies.
Concerns are also growing over South Korea’s lack of domestically accredited third-party CMMC assessment organizations, forcing companies to rely on U.S.-based auditors and raising concerns about defense technology exposure.
Analysts say South Korea’s defense industry must now treat cybersecurity as strategically important as weapons performance itself if it hopes to become a top-tier global arms exporter.
— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI
© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.
Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260519010005245
UK loosens Russian oil sanctions as fuel prices rise
The waiver reflects increasing supply concerns over certain fuels due to the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Source link
Venezuela Fury’s husband Noah Price wears his wedding ring around his neck as newlyweds enjoy lavish £30k honeymoon
VENEZUELA Fury’s new husband Noah Price has worn his wedding ring around his neck while on their lavish £30k honeymoon.
The 16-year-old daughter of ‘Gypsy King’ Tyson Fury and Paris Fury said “I do” to amateur boxer Noah Price over the weekend.
The youngsters, who got engaged at Venezuela’s 16th birthday party last September, got married in a lavish ceremony on Saturday at the Victorian Royal Chapel of St John’s in the Isle of Man.
The newlyweds are now living their best lives in Marbella, with them both showing off their lavish £30k honeymoon online with their many fans.
Boxer Noah, 19, proudly wore his wedding band on a chain around his neck in a new video as he strolled on the beach with his new wife.
The couple were dressed head-to-toe in designer looks.
Venezuela rocked a chic Versace outfit while Noah rocked a Loewe T-shirt.
The couple enjoyed lunch at the Sexy Pasta restaurant and documented their sweet date.
Venezuela’s parents Tyson and Paris paid for their £30,000 honeymoon trip as a wedding present.
It comes after Venezuela’s parents Tyson and Paris gifted the newlyweds a £5million and a traditional gypsy caravan as a wedding gift.
A source revealed to us this week: “Tyson and Paris gave Venezuela and Noah a wedding present of £5million to kick-start their life, obviously, they were over the moon.
“Some family members thought it was a lot of money for a young couple so there were some mixed feelings – but it’s up to Tyson and Paris.
“Tyson also paid for the honeymoon and got them a traditional gypsy wagon as a sentimental gift. Tyson’s got one in his front yard.
“The wedding was magical and they spent £40,000 on Venezuela’s dress alone. That’s the gypsy way – go big.”
This comes after new wife Venezuela showed off her and her husband’s new home – a stunning and very modern caravan.
The young TV star is trading her family’s £8million mansion on the Isle of Man for the plush static caravan in East Riding of Yorkshire.
Taking to TikTok before jetting to Marbella this week, Venezuela shared a video montage of her new marital home, writing underneath it: “R first ever home so proud of my Noah.”
The luxury caravan home boasted of a stunning marble bathroom with a free-standing bath with gold hardware, a cream kitchen overlooking trees and greenery, and plenty of space throughout.
The living room has a huge built-in TV cabinet with a fireplace beneath.
And the bedroom has large wardrobes and plush grey carpet throughout.
On the exterior of the property, there is a sign that says: “The Manor House”.
“I love caravans and this is like the ultimate one of luxury! Beautiful. Wish u many happy years together and hope you enjoy your new home,” said one person.
“Class. beautiful wee home to start your new life,” penned a second.
“Looks really elegant wish you every happiness in.your first home,” wrote a third.
Keysight signals FY 2026 revenue growth in the high 20s% while guiding Q3 revenue to $1.730B-$1.750B
Keysight signals FY 2026 revenue growth in the high 20s% while guiding Q3 revenue to $1.730B-$1.750B
Source link
Trump shows reporters ballroom site amid $1-billion security request
WASHINGTON — Shouting over the banging and clanging sounds from heavy construction equipment, President Trump on Tuesday gave a group of reporters a closer look at the construction for the White House ballroom he’s building on the site of the former East Wing to mount a defense for the project that has hit a speed bump in Congress.
The administration has asked for $1 billion from taxpayers for security additions on the White House campus, including for the ballroom. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled the proposal could not be included in a bill to fund immigrant enforcement agencies for three years, and several Republican lawmakers have balked at the price tag in an election year where voters are grappling with gasoline, grocery and other prices spurred to new heights by the Iran war and the disruption in oil supplies.
So Trump, ever the pitchman, surprised White House reporters by bringing them to a platform overlooking the construction site on a hot and breezy morning as workers in hard hats and fluorescent yellow vests milled about below.
Easels were set up to display renderings of the ballroom building and at least one of them blew off in the wind. “Give that to me, I’ll hold it,” Trump told an assistant.
“There will never be another building like this built, that I can tell you,” Trump told reporters.
He highlighted the security aspects of the building, notably its “dead flat” roof made of “very strong steel” and said it is “drone-proof” because “if a drone hits it, it bounces off, it won’t have any impact — but it’s also meant as a drone port, so it protects all of Washington, the roof of the building.”
He said the military will “stay on it” to keep watch over the city.
There’s no air conditioning or other equipment on the roof for safety reasons, Trump said, explaining that all duct work and equipment like it was hidden within the walls of the complex, which will serve as a “shield” for a military hospital, research facilities, offices for the first lady and her staff, and a full-service kitchen — in addition to a ballroom big enough for 1,000 people.
He said the ballroom building goes down six stories underground and is really “complex” because “everything is intertwined.”
“The roof goes with the ground floor, the ground floor goes with the roof. The roof also goes down into the basement,” the president said. “This is one well-knit building. One thing doesn’t work without the other.”
Trump says the ballroom is a ‘gift’ to the country
He reiterated that the $400-million ballroom cost will be covered by donors, including him, and that the work is being done “in strict coordination” with the military and U.S. Secret Service.
“This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer,” Trump said. “This is a gift to the United States of America.”
But it’s somewhat of an unwanted present as polling shows most Americans oppose the ballroom, which is embroiled in litigation in federal court. A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in April found that a majority, 56%, of U.S. adults oppose Trump’s decision to tear down the East Wing to make way for the ballroom, while only 28% are in support.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to halt construction until Congress approves plans for the building.
Trump insisted he will have “very little” time to use the ballroom. He recently announced that it will be ready in September 2028, less than six months before his term ends.
“This is really for other presidents,” he said.
Trump sidestepped a question about whether he’ll kick in any more of his own money if Congress rejects the $1-billion funding request.
White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said Trump’s tour was not in response to the difficulties brewing in Congress. “President Trump is the most transparent president of all time and was excited to showcase to the press and American people the amazing gift he is giving to the White House and generations of future presidents to come,” Ingle said.
Trump also touched on some of the other beautification projects he’s undertaking across the city, such as restarting dormant park fountains. He claimed to be spending much less to clean up the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool than did his immediate predecessors — both Democrats.
“I’m doing a job on the Reflecting Lake for a fraction of what they paid,” Trump said. He’s having the surface coated in a shade of blue and wants to reopen it by July 4. A separate nonprofit group, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, has sued to halt this project.
Superville writes for the Associated Press.
Billie Jean King graduates from college 65 years after enrolling
Long before Billie Jean King won dozens of Grand Slam tennis titles, founded the Women’s Tennis Assn., became part owner of the Dodgers and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, she enrolled in what was then called Los Angeles State College.
Three years later in 1964, King left without a degree to devote full attention to her burgeoning tennis career.
Failing to earn the degree bothered her, and King would correct anyone who said she had graduated.
“I said, ‘Don’t ever say ‘graduated.’ I haven’t earned it — yet,’” she said.
“Yet” became a reality Monday when King, 82, received her bachelor’s degree in history from the same school she attended more than 60 years ago — now called Cal State Los Angeles — walking across the Shrine Auditorium stage with the rest of the Class of 2026.
King also served as a commencement speaker, telling the roughly 6,000 fellow graduates, “It is a privilege for me to be here.
“Yeah, baby, only 61 years!”
King mentioned that “like many of you,” no one in her immediate family had graduated from college.
She noted that her lifelong fight against discrimination began when she realized at age 12 that nearly everyone at tennis clubs was white.
“I asked myself, ‘Where is everybody else?’” King said. “From that day forward, I committed my life to equality and inclusion for all. Tennis is a global sport and it became my platform, but equality was my dream — to make the world a better place.”
“We can never understand inclusion unless we’ve been excluded.”
Known then as Billie Jean Moffitt, she chose Los Angeles State because tennis coach Scotty Deeds trained men and women together. She soon became an international star, winning a Wimbledon doubles championship at 18 with Karen Hantze, who was only 17.
She married her college sweetheart Larry King in 1965 and they divorced in 1987. Afterward, King and Ilana Kloss, an accomplished tennis player in her own right, were a couple for decades before marrying in 2018 in a secret ceremony in the apartment of former New York City Mayor David Dinkins.
“You’re finding your truth, and it doesn’t have to stay the same,” King told People magazine at the time. “I only liked guys when I was young. I didn’t think about girls. And then all of a sudden I’m like, ‘Oh my God, what’s happening?’ My truth was changing over time. It took me forever.”
King became a trailblazer for LGBTQ+ and women’s civil rights and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 in part for her advocacy for equality. King and Kloss co-founded the Billie Jean King Leadership Initiative to promote inclusive workplaces and gender equality.
Shortly after they married, King and Kloss became part owners of the Dodgers and the Sparks, acquiring undisclosed minority stakes in the franchises through an invitation from controlling owner Mark Walter.
“We believe all professions, and professional sports, need to be more inclusive and equitable,’’ Walter said at the time. “It’s going to be wonderful to have a role model like her in both clubhouses from time to time.’’
King returned to Cal State L.A. in the 2025 spring semester. She also earned course credit for her interaction with fellow students enrolled through the university’s Prison Graduation Initiative.
“They have made a commitment to improving their lives through education,” she said, and “getting their degree will be life-changing for them.”
King now knows the feeling firsthand. At the graduation ceremony on Monday, she wore a gold stole embroidered with a multicolored tennis racket and the letters G.O.A.T — greatest of all time.
“It means a lot more to me than I thought,” she told reporters. “I am so glad I did it. My hope is that one other person will go back to school.
“It’s never too late, whatever age you are, whatever your abilities are, go for it if you want it.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
US President Trump, family granted immunity from pending tax audits | Donald Trump News
Democratic lawmakers blast move, which follows the establishment of a controversial ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’.
Published On 20 May 2026
United States President Donald Trump, his family, and his businesses have been granted immunity from any ongoing audits into their tax affairs, according to a directive by the Department of Justice.
The move on Tuesday came as an addendum to Trump’s agreement a day earlier to settle a $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the leak of his tax information to media outlets between 2018 and 2020.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
In a one-page document, signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Justice Department said authorities would be “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from “prosecuting or pursuing” tax claims against Trump, members of his family, and his businesses.
The document, which was posted on the Justice Department’s website without any official announcement or press release, stipulates that the waiver applies to inquiries that are “currently pending or that could be pending,” including any related to tax returns filed by Trump before Monday’s settlement.
Democratic lawmakers immediately blasted the move.
Senator Adam Schiff of California accused the Trump administration of engaging in corruption and “self-dealing”.
“The tax-dodging President gets himself and his whole family a tax break, thanks to Todd Blanche,” Schiff said in a statement on social media.
Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer under former President George W Bush, said that exempting Trump from any tax obligations would be unconstitutional.
“If the president or his family owe the IRS money, this is a violation of the domestic emoluments clause of the US Constitution, which specifically says that the president cannot receive any profits or advantages from the US government other than his salary appropriated by Congress,” Painter told Al Jazeera.
The Justice Department and the Trump Organisation did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Justice Department’s directive marks a dramatic expansion in Trump’s settlement, which established a so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate people who claim to have been victims of politically-motivated “lawfare”.
Critics have likened the initiative to a “slush fund”, warning that it is likely to be used to reward Trump’s allies.
Decisions on distributing money from the $1.776bn fund will be made by a five-member commission, four of whom will be directly appointed by Blanche, a Trump appointee who formerly acted as his personal lawyer.
In heated exchanges with Democratic senators on Tuesday, Blanche denied that Trump had directed him to establish the fund or that it would be used in a partisan manner.
“Anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they were a victim of weaponisation,” Blanche said.
How Nigeria Escaped Trump’s Crosshairs
There are moments when nations move dangerously close to collapse before the public fully realises it. It begins with carefully framed messages that conceal or even deny a storm, then the country is described as dangerous, lawless, and extremist-tolerant. By the time formal consequences arrive, the political judgment has often already been made. By late 2025, Nigeria was approaching that threshold in Washington DC, the United States’ capital.
Donald Trump was accusing the Nigerian state of failing Christians, and Republican lawmakers were describing the country as one of the world’s deadliest countries for Christians. Evangelical organisations in the United States were also mobilising around massacre narratives from Benue, Plateau, Southern Kaduna, and parts of the North Central region. These led to congressional pressure, visa restrictions, and discussions of sanctions. Later, Trump threatened military action and warned that the United States could move into Nigeria “guns-a-blazing” if the killings continued.
Inside sections of conservative American politics, Nigeria was no longer merely a troubled African country but was becoming a pariah state, a symbol of global Christian persecution, failed governance, Islamist expansion, and state weakness.
Then, the trajectory shifted. Within months, the same Trump administration that had threatened consequences against Nigeria began working with Abuja on counterterrorism cooperation. American intelligence support deepened, and US military involvement expanded, leading to widely criticised (for their lack of any real impact) airstrikes targeting Islamic State-linked and Lakurawa positions in northwestern Nigeria in December 2025. However, in May 2026, Trump publicly celebrated a successful joint Nigerian and American operation that killed Abu Bilal al-Minuki, described in both countries’ security circles as one of the most important Islamic State figures operating across Africa.
Nigeria had moved from an accused state to an operational partner, even though many have wondered what the cost might have been or continues to be. Behind that dramatic transition was one of the most consequential diplomatic-security campaigns mounted by Abuja in recent years. It involved diplomats, intelligence officials, military officers, embassy staff, policy advisers, lobbyists, diaspora actors, civil society networks, and security partners.
At the centre of this coordination stood National Security Adviser (NSA) Nuhu Ribadu, the coordinating figure who pulled the necessary elements together: the presidency’s political authority, the security establishment’s operational credibility, the embassy’s diplomatic access, the military’s counterterror capacity, policy networks in Washington, and a message that American officials could not easily dismiss.
Working with figures including a senior Nigerian career diplomat in DC, an influential woman at the NSA’s secretariat, senior defence and intelligence officials, foreign affairs officials, and other intermediaries, Ribadu helped steer Nigeria away from a potentially disastrous confrontation with Washington, DC.
The crisis Abuja could not treat as routine
Nigeria has faced criticism from the United States before on corruption, election disputes, human rights abuses, military excesses, and oil theft — all governance failures. None of those carried the same immediate danger as the late-2025 escalation. This crisis was different because it had moved beyond policy disagreement into moral accusation. The phrase “Christian genocide” changed the stakes.
Inside conservative American evangelical circles, Nigeria had already become symbolic before Trump’s escalation. Reports from groups such as Open Doors, International Christian Concern, Aid to the Church in Need, and Nigerian Christian advocacy organisations had repeatedly described Nigeria as one of the world’s deadliest places for Christians. Killings in Adamawa, Benue, Plateau, Southern Kaduna, parts of Niger State, and other flashpoints circulated widely through American church networks.
Nigeria’s First Lady, Pastor Remi Tinubu, also operated far beyond the ceremonial margins. Using her deep evangelical and clerical networks, she became a decisive force in breaking resistance, opening doors that formal diplomacy and security channels could not. Her interventions softened hardened positions, clearing the path for diplomatic and security engagement to gain some traction.
“Nigeria is facing a complex security crisis that has sustained for over two decades and has currently metastasised into several violent crimes, including active insurgencies, farmer-herder violence, armed groups, gang violence, ethnic militias, and vigilantism, among several others,” Managing Director of Beacon Intelligence Consulting, Dr Kabiru Adamu, told HumAngle.
“While the triggers of the violence sometimes include identity such as ethnicity and religion, other factors, including socio-economic, political and environmental causes, are behind the violence.”
Amara Nwankpa, Director General, Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation, argued that acknowledging complexity should not become a shield against responsibility.
“Nigeria is facing a complex security collapse,” he agreed. “But saying the crisis is ‘complex’ should not become a way to avoid the harder question of why some communities consistently suffer more than others.”
“The Nigerian state is weak. In many places, it genuinely struggles to protect people because of overstretched security forces, corruption, political fragmentation, and poor state capacity. That matters. A state that cannot protect is different from a state that deliberately chooses not to. But that distinction does not remove responsibility,” he told HumAngle.
“The mistake of the ‘Christian genocide’ framing is that it treats all the violence as one coordinated religious project,” he said. “The mistake of the ‘it’s complicated’ response is that it sometimes uses complexity as an excuse for inaction.”
Johnstone Kpilaakaa, an award-winning journalist who has closely followed the Middle Belt crisis, submits that the violence cannot be separated from the collapse of state protection across rural Nigeria. “Overall, the crisis reflects the broader failure of the Nigerian state to provide protection for its citizens,” he said. “Rural communities in the Middle Belt, many of which already experience a near-total absence of state presence, even in basic social services, have become especially vulnerable to terror attacks and organised violence.”
According to Kpilaakaa, the genocide narrative gained traction in the Middle Belt partly because many of the most devastated communities were Christian. “Historical memory also plays a role. The legacy of the 19th-century Sokoto Jihad, which faced resistance in parts of the region, continues to shape perceptions and fears today.” Children, he added, are raised with those stories, and those inherited fears continue to shape how violence is interpreted.
James Barnett, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, framed the crisis more as systemic collapse than coordinated extermination. “Nigeria is experiencing something more like a nationwide security crisis than a specific campaign targeted at one group,” Barnett said. “This is a collapse of state capacity that is felt in all corners of the country to different degrees, and it’s allowed militant and criminal groups of various stripes to kill, loot, and take over communities with significant impunity.”
He acknowledged that some armed actors operate with religious motivations. But much of the violence, he argued, is driven by opportunism, local disputes, criminal economies, and governance breakdown. That complexity became Abuja’s central diplomatic argument later in Washington.

The conservative machinery turns against Nigeria
Several American political actors helped turn the issue into a Washington crisis. Senator Ted Cruz became one of the strongest congressional voices accusing Nigeria of systemic anti-Christian violence. He introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025 and repeatedly cited casualty figures involving Christians killed, churches destroyed, and communities displaced.
Congressman Riley Moore also became a central figure in the pressure campaign. He pushed the White House towards stronger action and publicly accused the Nigerian state of failing to protect persecuted Christians. But the deeper force came from evangelical networks. American evangelical activism is not simply moral advocacy but also an organised political ecosystem. It has media platforms, donor structures, church mobilisation capacity, congressional access, lobbying relationships, legal advocacy groups, and influence inside Republican politics.
Pastors, televangelists, diaspora activists, advocacy groups, conservative influencers, and social media personalities amplified reports from Nigeria, often portraying the country as the global epicentre of anti-Christian violence. Prayer campaigns followed. At the same time, misinformation and disinformation flooded digital spaces, blurring the line between verified atrocities and fabricated claims. Across Telegram channels, Facebook pages, WhatsApp broadcasts, podcasts, YouTube ministries, and conservative media networks, emotionally charged narratives circulated with little scrutiny, shaping international perceptions of Nigeria’s security crisis.
Yet even some analysts sympathetic to Christian suffering warned that the narrative was becoming distorted. “In attempting to draw global attention to the suffering of communities in the Middle Belt, some evangelical advocacy networks and social media actors have also oversimplified the crisis,” Kpilaakaa said.
“In certain cases, this has involved the circulation of half-truths, selective reporting, or sensationalised accounts that do not fully capture the complexity of the situation.” He stressed that multiple forms of violence were being collapsed into a single frame. “Beyond terrorist violence, the Middle Belt also faces attacks carried out by local militia groups and criminal networks, particularly in states such as Benue,” he said.
“Unfortunately, many of these distinct forms of violence are often merged into a single narrative of religious persecution, which can make the crisis more difficult to properly understand, analyse, and address.”
Nwankpa reached a similar conclusion, though he warned against dismissing the suffering that fuels those narratives.
“Some evangelical networks and social media platforms have distorted global understanding of the violence, but not by inventing suffering,” he said. “The suffering is real. Many Christian communities, especially in parts of the North and Middle Belt, have experienced terrible violence.”
According to him, the distortion emerges when an entire national security collapse is reduced to a single religious explanation.
“Incentives also drive that simplification. In the US, persecution narratives mobilise donors and audiences very effectively. Clear stories raise more money than messy realities.”
He added that diaspora activism had amplified simplified narratives globally, often detached from the wider context of Nigeria’s security breakdown.
Kabiru Adamu was direct. “Yes,” he said when asked whether evangelical networks and social media had distorted international understanding of Nigeria’s violence. “Their narrative of Christian genocide and the bandying of falsified figures contributed to the Trump administration’s earlier stance.”
Still, he warned against swinging to denial. “This is not to say Christians are not being killed. They are. But so too are Muslims.”
Christians had been killed, churches attacked, villages emptied, and priests abducted. But Muslims are also dying in larger numbers as Nigeria’s conflicts defy simple religious labels. Islamic State affiliates targeted Muslim communities, soldiers, traders, aid workers, schools, and transport routes. Armed groups kidnapped indiscriminately. Farmer-herder conflict, jihadist expansion, criminal economies, land pressure, governance failure, and communal grievances all overlapped. The genocide frame compressed those realities into one dangerous explanation.
Trump turns pressure into a state crisis
In late 2025, Trump’s administration escalated pressure against Nigeria under international religious freedom frameworks, including the Country of Particular Concern designation. He accused Nigeria of allowing Christians to be killed by “Radical Islamists” and threatened possible military action.
For Abuja, the implications were dire. They could bring about diplomatic isolation, damage to intelligence and security cooperation, and investor panic in an already fragile economy. This was where Ribadu’s office became central. The National Security Adviser understood that Nigeria could not defeat the pressure campaign through blunt denial.
So, Abuja adopted a more difficult strategy that involved acknowledging the insecurity while rejecting the genocide label and repositioning the crisis as part of a broader counterterror and state fragility problem.
Kpilaakaa argued that, “The absence of proactive state action, credible investigations, and timely justice creates space for speculation and mistrust, while trauma inevitably shapes the perceptions and judgment of survivors.”
The Nigerian response, therefore, focused less on arguing morality and more on changing strategic calculations in Washington. The message became simple: weakening Nigeria would strengthen the so-called Islamic State.
Nwankpa believes Ribadu’s intervention succeeded not because it resolved the crisis, but because it changed how Washington interpreted it.
“Ribadu did not solve the crisis,” he said. “What he did was change the diplomatic framing, and he did it very effectively. He shifted the conversation from ‘Nigeria is allowing Christians to be killed’ to ‘Nigeria and the US are facing a shared terrorism problem.’ That helped cool tensions with Washington and turned pressure into cooperation.”
But he warned that the strategic success came with consequences.
“Once the relationship became centred on counterterrorism, the space for human rights and accountability pressure became smaller,” Nwankpa said. “The focus moved from protecting vulnerable communities to fighting shared threats. In that sense, the deeper issue of impunity remained unresolved. It was postponed.”
Ribadu’s reframing strategy

Ribadu’s role with coordination happened because many parts needed to move in specific directions. For example, the presidency had to provide political authority, the military had to provide operational credibility, diplomats had to reopen channels in Washington, intelligence officials had to frame the regional threat, lobbyists and intermediaries had to reach spaces formal diplomacy could not easily penetrate, and the central message itself had to remain consistent.
Nigeria was a battered state confronting overlapping extremist, criminal, communal, and regional threats, and if the state weakened further, Boko Haram and a confluence of other terror groups across the country would benefit.
Kabiru Adamu believes Ribadu deserves significant credit for the diplomatic de-escalation. “The NSA Nuhu Ribadu can be credited for de-escalating the earlier US stance when the Trump Administration, after designating Nigeria a country of particular concern due to perceived religious persecution and Trump’s threat to come ‘guns a blazing,’” he said. “Ribadu led a high-level delegation to the US and followed through with engagements that led to the creation of a joint working group between the two countries as well as deeper defence engagement.”
Barnett reached a similar conclusion. “The Nigerian government has responded pretty effectively on the diplomatic front so far,” he said. “After initially being caught unprepared for the Country of Particular Concern designation, it realised that it wouldn’t get very far by publicly protesting Trump’s narrative and instead sought to leverage Washington’s focus on Nigeria to secure new security cooperation.”
That recalibration reshaped the relationship because even though the United States still publicly raised concerns about religious freedom, Nigeria became increasingly valuable as a regional counterterror partner. Barnett noted that the new working relationship also elevated Ribadu internationally. “The US-Nigeria working group has boosted Ribadu’s profile internationally,” he said.
Kpilaakaa observed that Abuja’s strategy prevented a deeper rupture. “Despite recent joint military operations in Metele, Borno State, which reportedly led to the death of a senior ISWAP leader, some influential American politicians continue to frame US involvement as part of an effort to stop what they describe as a genocide against Christians in Nigeria only,” he said.
“That suggests the National Security Adviser has not fully succeeded in reshaping the narrative.” Even so, he argued that the cooperation itself remained strategically necessary. “Beyond the competing narratives, effective counterterrorism operations remain in Nigeria’s national interest,” he said. “If military cooperation is conducted professionally, ethically, and strategically, the outcome should contribute to greater security and stability for all Nigerians, regardless of religion or ethnicity.”
Why Trump changed course
Trump’s shift appeared dramatic from Abuja. One moment, he was threatening Nigeria. Months later, he was celebrating joint counterterror operations with Nigerian forces. But analysts say this logic was less ideological than transactional. “The change in stance by the Trump administration from declared hostility to now engagement is mainly because of the diplomatic engagements by Nigeria, including Ribadu’s engagements,” Adamu said.
“There is also the lobby group contracted by the Federal Government that may have played a role in supporting a de-escalation.” Barnett believes Nigeria itself was never central to Trump’s broader worldview. “Nigeria is not actually a foreign policy priority for Trump, despite how much it might feel to Nigerians like he is now a looming presence in their politics,” he said.
“The US government has dedicated much more time and resources to its Venezuela and Iran policies, for example, than it has to Africa. When Trump threatened to go into Nigeria ‘guns a blazing’ last year, he was essentially calling on the US national security bureaucracy to come up with ideas to ‘do something’ in Nigeria that would look impressive but not consume significant energy and resources or entail political risk.”
The solution Washington eventually settled on was a partnership rather than confrontation. “The US military, for its part, would always prefer to fight jihadists with the help of a capable local partner rather than opposition from the host government,” Barnett explained.
“So, when the Nigerian government signalled it was willing to work with the US military, that gave the Trump administration an opening to show its supporters that it was fighting terrorists, supposedly in defence of Christians overseas, without engaging in a messy humanitarian intervention or state-building exercise.”
Nwankpa argued that the political logic behind Trump’s shift reflected both American strategic interests and Nigerian sensitivity to external pressure.
“Trump changed position because the political framing changed,” he said. “Threatening Nigeria appealed to parts of his evangelical and religious freedom base. Working with Nigeria appealed to American security interests. Once Abuja accepted the counterterrorism framing, Trump no longer needed a public confrontation.”
But he also pointed to a deeper Nigerian calculation.
“Most Nigerians want stronger security responses, but very few want foreign powers taking over the process,” Nwankpa said. “There is a strong sovereignty instinct in Nigeria. External pressure that appears paternalistic often collapses domestic coalition support, even among people who agree with the underlying criticism… Ribadu’s approach worked partly because it allowed Nigeria to engage America as a partner, not as a country being lectured or managed from outside.”
Kpilaakaa argued that Trump never completely abandoned the persecution narrative. “I do not believe there has been a complete shift in position,” he said. “Even recently, Trump shared material on Truth Social that reinforced the same narrative that frames every attack as religious persecution targeting Christians alone.”
He added that religious framing remains deeply embedded in Trump-era politics. “The use of religion, in this case Christianity, as a framework for discussing political and security issues is synonymous with the Trump administration,” he said.
Yet, Abuja avoided turning the disagreement into a public confrontation.
“It is also significant that Nigerian authorities have largely avoided engaging in public confrontation with Trump or his allies,” Kpilaakaa said. “Instead, they have focused on maintaining cooperation around the shared objective of combating terrorism and protecting lives, irrespective of religion or ethnicity.”
The Sahel and Nigeria’s strategic value

Regional realities strengthened Abuja’s hand. The Sahel was deteriorating rapidly; Mali had drifted away from Western influence, Burkina Faso remained unstable, Niger’s political upheaval disrupted Western security architecture, and Russian-linked actors expanded across the region.
Washington needed a capable African partner, and Nigeria’s geography, population, intelligence infrastructure, military size, and position between multiple conflict systems made it indispensable. Ribadu’s team aggressively leveraged that reality.
Weakening Nigeria, they argued, would not save Christians. It would strengthen the very extremist groups killing Christians and Muslims alike. That logic resonated strongly inside American security circles because it aligned humanitarian concern with strategic necessity.
The limits of the recovery
None of this erased the suffering that produced the controversy. Benue, Plateau, and Southern Kaduna still bleed. Communities across Niger State, Borno, Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, Yobe, and Adamawa continue to experience displacement, extortion, killings, and fear.
The average Nigerian, irrespective of their faith and ethnicity, genuinely believes the Nigerian state has failed them and the state must do more, not only to save lives, but to regain their trust in governance. The deeper question now is whether security cooperation alone can sustain the diplomatic recovery if the violence continues unresolved.
Kpilaakaa warned that “military cooperation alone will not resolve the deeper structural issues driving instability in the Middle Belt.” “Addressing land disputes, prolonged displacement, impunity, and the absence of justice remains critical,” he said.
He pointed to one grievance. “One of the most persistent grievances among affected communities is that many victims have spent more than a decade in displacement, with little accountability for the violence they endured. Without credible justice, reconstruction, and long-term conflict resolution, security cooperation may contain the violence temporarily, but it will not produce lasting peace or stability.”
“No,” Adamu said when asked whether security cooperation could survive if killings and impunity continue. “Evangelical groups will continue to mount domestic pressure on the Trump administration should the killings continue.”
Barnett also cautioned that Abuja should not assume permanent stability in the relationship. “You can’t be too certain where things go from here as Trump is notoriously unpredictable,” he said.
“He might be satisfied with periodic strikes against the Islamic State that make for good Fox News content while the militaries engage in more routine behind-the-scenes coordination and training.”
But the pressure networks inside American politics remain active. “There is also a vocal American constituency on this issue,” Barnett warned. “Those folks can be highly critical of the Tinubu government, and they are likely to perceive any continued violence, particularly in the Middle Belt, as justification for sanctions or even more radical forms of intervention.”
His conclusion was stark. “Tinubu can’t be certain he’s out of the woods just yet.” That is the reality beneath Nigeria’s diplomatic recovery. Abuja escaped one dangerous moment in Washington, but it has not solved the crisis that created it.
Back in Abuja, Ribadu remains trapped in a far more complicated war. His growing influence has unsettled opposition figures, threatened entrenched interests within the ruling party, and fuelled quiet anxieties about his long-term political ambition, multiple sources within Abuja policy networks implied. “If Ribadu misreads that terrain, his ambition could become his greatest vulnerability.”
Mandy Moore weighs in on Ashley Tisdale’s mommy group essay
Mandy Moore shared her take on the drama swirling around her celebrity mommy group, months after fellow child actor Ashley Tisdale shaded the bunch in scathing essay last winter.
The “This Is Us” star and mother of three, during a recent appearance on Andy Cohen’s Sirius XM show “Radio Andy,” said she found the former “Suite Life of Zack & Cody” star’s article “very upsetting” and that it shocked both herself and fellow mommy group member Hilary Duff. “We have both grown up in this business and had people dissect who we are and the choices we make and all of that,” Moore, 42, told the Bravo host, “but this was something altogether different and decidedly way more upsetting … because it just cuts to the core.”
In December, New York magazine published “High School Musical” star Tisdale French’s essay for its “It’s Been a Year” series. The actor’s piece, titled “Breaking Up With My Toxic Mom Group,” accused other group members of snubbing Tisdale French from various gatherings and group chats. “‘This is too high school for me and I don’t want to take part in it anymore,’” Tisdale French, who shares two children with composer Christopher French, recalled texting the group.
As Tisdale French’s essay sparked speculation online about the identity of the group members, Duff’s husband Matthew Koma appeared to confirm his wife’s membership in a since-expired Instagram story post throwing the shade right back at Tisdale French.
For Moore, married to musician Taylor Goldsmith, kindness is “the most important thing” in her life, as is creating a legacy of kindness, she told Cohen. She said that she finds “anyone even insinuating that might not be the case” to be “very upsetting.” Moore said she is a “huge proponent” of addressing conflict head-on via face-to-face communication.
“‘I wouldn’t have handled the situation this way,’” she recalled feeling about the essay. Moore did not mention Tisdale French by name.
Moore said she also felt the scandalous essay “perpetuates this silly trope that women can’t be supportive of one another” and that women, specifically mothers, are “inherently petty” and committed to “one-up each other.”
“I have not felt that one iota since becoming a parent,” Moore said, adding she has formed “meaningful relationships” with other parents. She further stressed the importance of parents finding their community wherever they can.
Duff, 38, addressed the mommy group drama with The Times in February, telling pop music critic Mikael Wood that “this is not new for me” and she felt the situation was “escalated by the talking heads on TikTok that need clickbait.” Amid the social media chatter, Duff said her family is her focus.
”Knowing that I get to open up the back doors and play soccer as a family and take a hot tub and go get our chicken eggs — that’s the purpose of life,” she said. “On the days when crazy s— happens, I go home and quiet the noise.”
Costco trades at over $1K but hasn't split its stock since Y2K
Costco trades at over $1K but hasn't split its stock since Y2K
Source link
California, other states sue over new Trump limits on loans for nurses, PAs, therapists
California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states are suing the Trump administration over new limits on federal borrowing by aspiring nurses, physician’s assistants, therapists, social workers, mental health practitioners and other healthcare workers, arguing the changes will further reduce a struggling but vital workforce.
“This case is about protecting access to education, protecting our healthcare workforce, and protecting patients who rely on these providers every single day,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said during a virtual news conference Tuesday. “The Trump administration is going out of its way to make it harder and more expensive for students to pursue the advanced degrees necessary to serve their communities and pursue meaningful careers that allow them to support themselves and their families.”
Bonta said the new limits on loans sought by nursing and other healthcare students — which the U.S. Department of Education initiated in response to Republicans passing broader student loan caps as part of last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — was an illegal overreach by the agency that was “deeply shortsighted” and went beyond the scope of the legislation.
“Congress can act,” he said. “But what the Department of Education can’t do is — contrary to law and in an arbitrary and capricious way and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act — redefine what a professional student is.”
In response to the litigation, Trump administration officials defended the new rules, saying they will help student borrowers in the long run by driving down schooling costs at universities nationwide and preventing them from taking on too much debt.
“After decades of unchecked student loan borrowing that gave schools no reason to control costs, these commonsense loan caps — created by Congress — are already incentivizing colleges and universities to lower tuition,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement to The Times.
Kent said Bonta and his fellow Democratic litigants “are more concerned about institutions’ bottom-line [than] American students and families’ ability to access affordable postsecondary education.” As one example of institutions responding to loan caps by lowering costs, Kent pointed to UC Irvine reducing the costs of its master’s in business programs by up to 38% to keep them below a federal loan cap for such programs.
The One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress in July 2025, placed new limits on student loans, which could previously be sought for the full cost of such degrees. Starting this July, applicants categorized as “graduate students” will be capped at borrowing $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total, while applicants categorized as “professional students” will be allowed to borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in total.
On May 1, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new rule defining the “professional student” category as including those pursuing degrees to become doctors, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, various medical specialists, pastors and other religious academics, and excluding those pursuing nursing and other advanced healthcare degrees.
In announcing the change, Kent said it would “simplify our complex student loan repayment system and better align higher education with workforce needs,” “drive a sea change in higher education by holding universities accountable for outcomes and putting significant downward pressure on the cost of tuition,” and “benefit borrowers who will no longer be pushed into insurmountable debt to finance degrees that do not pay off.”
Others fiercely disagreed, including healthcare industry leaders who also had objected to the rule change during a public comment period. Some said the changes would simply increase student reliance on less favorable, private-sector loans.
The American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing, in a statement, said it and its members were “angered by the Department of Education’s failure to support the nursing profession as the demand for patient care services rises.”
Nearly 150 members of Congress — including more than a dozen Republicans — wrote a letter the day after the rule was promulgated expressing “disappointment” over the exclusion of post-baccalaureate nursing degrees.
“At a time when our nation is facing a health care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs,” the lawmakers argued.
Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, which is not party to the lawsuit but operates a vast network of public health programs, said in a statement Tuesday that UC “strongly opposed” the administration’s new caps on federal loans for nurses and other health professionals, which she said “will be felt most strongly by lower-income graduate students.”
“UC will continue to do all we can to ensure that cost is not a barrier for anyone who wants to pursue higher education, and we will continue to advocate with our federal partners for the programs and policies that make this possible,” Zaentz said.
Bonta rejected the administration’s argument that the new caps would help students pursuing a dream of a medical career avoid taking on too much debt — calling it “tone deaf.” He said those students are already “struggling with all costs right now” thanks to the Trump administration’s tariffs, war in Iran and lax approach to regulating monopolies and other big business.
He also rejected the idea that the new loan caps would force institutions to reduce costs for students, calling that “wishful thinking.”
The lawsuit is the 68th filed by Bonta’s office against the second Trump administration. Joining Bonta in the lawsuit — which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland — were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.
Texas Tech QB sues NCAA to play in 2026 despite gambling infractions
Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has sued the NCAA in an attempt to be allowed to practice and play with the Red Raiders in 2026, his final season of college eligibility.
Late last month, Sorsby and the Red Raiders announced that the fifth-year player had entered a residential treatment program for gambling addiction and would be away from the team for an indefinite period of time.
A lawsuit filed Monday in Texas’ Lubbock County District Court requests that Sorsby be declared eligible for all team activities because the NCAA “failed to comply with its contractual commitments” to him as a student-athlete and therefore “is precluded from enforcing its gambling bylaws against Mr. Sorsby to deny or withhold his reinstatement.”
The filing also asks for “temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the NCAA from interfering with his ability to practice, play, and participate fully as a member of the Texas Tech football team for the 2026 season.”
If he remains ineligible for college football, Sorsby intends to declare for this summer’s NFL supplemental draft. Athletes who enter that draft forfeit all remaining college eligibility.
“The relief is narrow: one student-athlete and one senior season,” the filing states. “The NCAA will suffer no cognizable harm from letting Mr. Sorsby play football while this case proceeds. But if this Court does not act, no future judgment can give Mr. Sorsby what the NCAA will have taken from him.”
As a freshman at Indiana and a low-ranked quarterback on the Hoosiers’ depth chart, the lawsuit states, Sorsby “placed small bets — typically between $5 and $50 — on the Indiana football team to win or for teammates to exceed expectations. He was not traveling with the team, and not privy to game plans; betting was his way of feeling connected to a team he could only watch from the sidelines.”
The most recent NCAA guidelines about sports wagering state that student-athletes who bet on their own games or on other sports at their school could “potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility.”
Sorsby stopped betting on Indiana football once he became the backup quarterback, according to the filing, and since then hasn’t bet on any of his teams (he transferred to Cincinnati in 2024 and to Texas Tech this offseason). However, the lawsuit states, “his gambling escalated into a compulsion he could not control.”
According to the filing, Sorsby and Texas Tech were notified by the NCAA in mid-April that it had opened an investigation into the quarterback’s gambling.
“Mr. Sorsby did not deny, deflect, or delay in response,” the lawsuit states. “He immediately admitted to Texas Tech that he had placed bets in violation of NCAA rules, but he also emphasized that he never bet on a game he played in and never took any action to influence the outcome of any game because of a bet. He recognized he had a gambling addiction.
“In response, Texas Tech determined that it would declare Mr. Sorsby ineligible, as required by the Bylaws. But unlike the NCAA, Texas Tech decided to support him in seeking treatment for his addiction and to seek reinstatement of his eligibility in light of the undisputed evidence that Mr. Sorsby had not committed any integrity violation; his gambling was the product of a mental health disorder.”
The lawsuit states that Texas Tech has made multiple attempts to initiate Sorsby’s reinstatement with the NCAA. “Throughout the process, the NCAA has arbitrarily stalled at every turn,” the filing states, “despite the fact that it knows that the clock is ticking for Mr. Sorsby.”
The NCAA said in a statement to media outlets Monday that it “has not received a reinstatement request for this case.”
“The NCAA generally doesn’t comment on pending reinstatement requests, but the Association’s sports betting rules are clear, as are the reinstatement conditions,” the NCAA said. “When it comes to betting on one’s own team, these rules must be enforced in every case for the simple reason that the integrity of the game is at risk. Every sports league has these protections in place, and the NCAA will continue to apply them equally because every student-athlete competing deserves to know they’re playing a fair game.”
Texas Tech said in a statement emailed to The Times: “After finalizing an agreed-upon stipulation of facts between Texas Tech University, the NCAA and Brendan Sorsby, the University has declared Sorsby ineligible for competition. Texas Tech intends to quickly initiate the reinstatement process.
“Texas Tech’s primary focus remains supporting Sorsby’s health and well-being.”
Most young South Koreans distrust election polls, survey finds

1 of 2 | Employees of the National Election Commission take part in a campaign in Ilsan, just outside of Seoul, South Korea, 26 April 2026, to encourage voter participation in the June 3 general election. Photo by YONHAP / EPA
May 19 (Asia Today) — More than 60% of young South Koreans and college students do not trust elections or political opinion polls, according to a survey released ahead of the June 3 local elections.
The Korean Law Consumers Federation, a legal advocacy group, released the results Monday after surveying 1,201 young people and college students from 119 universities nationwide. The respondents had an average age of 23.4.
The survey found that 60.37% of respondents said they do not trust elections or political opinion polls, while 38.80% said they do.
Despite the distrust, 59.95% said they would definitely vote in the local elections, and 35.89% said they would try to vote.
Asked whether one vote can have an important effect on election results, 75.27% agreed, while 24.56% disagreed.
On early voting, 53.54% said there is a possibility of election fraud, while 40.30% said such claims are completely false.
The survey also asked about possible constitutional revisions. A total of 62.28% supported including language related to the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement in the Constitution, while 35.97% opposed the idea.
However, 91.01% opposed removing the word “freedom” from the Constitution.
The survey included 53 questions and was conducted with the help of student volunteers. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.83 percentage points at a 95% confidence level.
— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI
© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.
Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260519010005434
AC-130J Gunship With Mini Cruise Missiles Paired With AESA Radar To Undergo Tests
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is moving to demonstrate a new, fully integrated extended-range strike capability for the AC-130J Ghostrider gunship. The two core elements of this effort are an active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar and the AGM-190A Small Cruise Missile (SCM), work on which has been underway separately for some time now. TWZ has long highlighted how giving the AC-130J an AESA radar would boost its ability to engage targets at longer ranges. This, in turn, could also help ensure the Ghostrider’s relevance in future high-end fights, especially in the Pacific region.
Col. Justin Bronder, head of SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Fixed Wing (PEO-FW), discussed the integration of the radar together with the AGM-190A on the AC-130J earlier today. Bronder spoke to TWZ and other outlets alongside other SOCOM acquisition officials at a roundtable on the sidelines of the annual SOF Week conference.

AGM-190A is the formal U.S. military designation for the SCM, developed by Leidos, originally under the name Black Arrow. It has now also emerged that SOCOM refers to the missile by the nickname Havoc Spear. With a demonstrated range of at least 400 miles, the missile has far greater reach than any of the other missiles and precision bombs that the AC-130J is known to be able to employ now by a huge margin. The Ghostrider’s current armament package, which also includes a 30mm automatic cannon and a 105mm howitzer, is focused on close air support and interdiction missions against targets at much closer ranges.
“A lot going on in that space,” Col. Bronder said today. “Our unique teaming with Leidos, that started with a CRADA [Cooperative Research and Development Agreement], that accelerated through an express development program on the now called AGM-190 Havoc Spear affordable cruise missile.”
A CRADA is a non-traditional research and development mechanism through which elements of the U.S. military can pool resources with private companies and other organizations. These agreements allow the parties involved to pursue mutually beneficial work, but without a typical contract or even money necessarily changing hands.
“That program [the AGM-190] has really been moving along quite, quite quickly,” Bronder continued. “We’re looking at ways to kind of accelerate fielding of that weapon in the not too distant future with close teaming with AFSOC [Air Force Special Operations Command] partners to really collapse that development and operational test timeline. So, real big acquisition success there.”
Leidos completes successful test launch of a Small Cruise Missile
“We have tech demonstrations with the AESA radar and the small cruise missile that we’re now looking to see how we can augment and accelerate fielding those types of capabilities for the SOF [special operations forces] fleet,” Bronder added.
“CRADAs produced the AGM-190A Havoc Spear small cruise missile that offers an affordable mass solution with significant range to our service partners,” U.S. Navy Adm. Frank Bradley, head of SOCOM, also said separately during his keynote address at the SOF Week conference earlier today. “Integrated with the AESA radar on the AC-130 gunship, [it is] a formidable capability.”
SOCOM’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, released last month, had hinted at plans to demonstrate the new combination of capabilities for the AC-130J in the next year or so. The command is asking for nearly $5.9 million to support work on the so-called Precision Strike Package (PSP) for the AC-130J. PSP is the overarching system through which all weapons and associated sensors are integrated onto the Ghostrider.
The new funding “is required to integrate AESA radar capabilities into the PSP,” according to SOCOM’s budget documents. The planned work “includes software and hardware development to incorporate the AESA functionality into the Battle Management System and other associated AC-130J systems.”
What specific AESA radar is going on the AC-130Js is unclear. At last year’s SOF Week conference, Col. Bronder said there was “pathfinding” underway involving Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-83, also known as Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR).
SABR AESA Radar for the F-16
“AFSOC is exploring the development and use of the AESA Radar on the AC-130J as the command continues to operate as both the SOF component to the Air Force and air component to USSOCOM,” AFSOC told TWZ when asked for an update in August 2025. “We cannot discuss the type of radar due to operational security.”
The APG-83 does remain a very plausible choice. The Air Force has already been in the process of integrating this radar onto a significant portion of its fleets of F-16C/D Viper fighters for years now. Beyond its target detection and tracking capabilities, the AN/APG-83 has a synthetic aperture mapping mode and is capable of producing ground moving target indicator data. Also referred to as SAR mapping, this mode allows SABR to produce high-resolution radar imagery. GMTI tracks can be overlaid on those images. All of this, in turn, can be used for target acquisition and identification purposes, as well as general reconnaissance.

There are other AESA radars on the market, as well, including a growing number of compact designs. Radars of this type, in general, can spot objects of interest, even ones with smaller radar cross-sections, faster and do so with greater precision and fidelity compared to older mechanically-scanned models. They can also just scan faster and perform multiple functions near-simultaneously, and do so with improved resistance to radiofrequency jamming and far greater reliability.
As mentioned, TWZ has long pointed out that the addition of an AESA radar would be a huge upgrade for the AC-130J’s ability to spot, track, and engage targets at extended ranges, even in bad weather. The radar would be able to provide real-time midcourse updates to a stand-off weapon if it had a data link capability. This would make engaging moving targets possible if the missile also had a terminal seeker capable of doing so.
Overall, the capability boosts the AESA radar offers are especially important when paired with new, longer-range strike munitions like the AGM-190A. The radar could also help improve the Ghostrider’s effectiveness when employing other shorter-range munitions, including GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) now and GBU-53/B StormBreakers (also known as SDB IIs) in the future.

AESA radars will also expand the AC-130J’s general surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as provide improved general situational awareness.
This is all reflected in SOCOM’s budget documents, which state: “AESA radar enhances the AC-130J’s situational awareness, precision targeting, and survivability while replacing phased-out legacy radars, enabling the Gunship to close Joint Force kill webs and expand its role in support of USINDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] and Western Hemisphere operations.”
The mention here of the Indo-Pacific region underscores broader questions about future operational relevance that have been facing the AC-130 fleet in recent years. The Ghostrider and its immediate predecessors were workhorses during the Global War on Terror era, flying heavily over countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Even so, they flew almost exclusively under the cover of darkness to help reduce vulnerability to ground fire.
Can The AC-130 Gunship Stay Relevant?
Threats to AC-130s would be far more pronounced in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific. For years now, this has been the chief scenario driving U.S. military planning around force structure and other requirements. The latest conflict with Iran, as well as other U.S. operations in and around the Middle East in recent years, have made clear that more capable air defense systems are steadily proliferating to smaller nation states and even non-state actors, as well.
The integration of a new stand-off strike capability paired with an AESA radar is one way for the AC-130J to respond to this evolving threat ecosystem. It could also open the door to other new capabilities for the Ghostrider, as well as other AFSOC aircraft like the OA-1K Skyraider II light attack plane. Similar questions about future relevance have been raised about the OA-1K, a design that is also primarily geared toward counter-terrorism missions and other low-intensity conflicts.
The AC-130J fleet is also in the process of receiving a number of other upgrades, including improvements to its defense countermeasures suite.
It is very possible that the AGM-190A could find its way out of the special operations community and into more widespread U.S. military use. The Air Force is currently planning to buy nearly 28,000 low-cost strike munitions over the next five years through its Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program.
“We’re also continuing to talk to the Air Force about what they’re doing with their Family of Affordable Mass Munitions [sic]” to see “if there’s some continued interplay there for us to do a service-to-SOF or SOF-to-service transition,” Col. Bronder said today.
Last week, the Pentagon also rolled out a plan to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles, primarily for surface-launched applications from containerized launchers, in the next three years. Leidos is among the companies now involved in this Low-Cost Containerized Missiles (LCCM) program, and is developing a derivative of the AGM-190A to meet those requirements.

For the AC-130J, a full-up demonstration of the pair of an AESA radar and the AGM-190A cruise missile will mark another step toward giving the gunships a valuable, if not increasingly essential, boost in capability.
Contact the author: joe@twz.com
Kylie Minogue reveals she secretly battled breast cancer for second time in 2021 & tried to have kids via IVF in new doc
POP singer Kylie Minogue tried to have children via IVF and secretly battled breast cancer for a second time in 2021, she has revealed.
She uses her self-titled three-part Netflix docuseries to speak candidly about struggling to conceive after a fight with cancer in 2005.
Kylie, 57, says in the show, which is out today: “It was always with such a thread of hope but I couldn’t not try.
“I did try IVF a number of times. If it had happened it would have been just shy of a miracle. But it didn’t work out that way.”
Poignantly, she adds: “One can’t help but wonder what it would have been like.”
Kylie’s singer sister Dannii, 54, has one son, as does her brother Brendan, 55.
Dannii said of Kylie: “She is amazing with kids. Just naturally incredible. She is amazing with her nephews.
“I never saw myself being a parent and she always did. And that is heartbreaking.”
The lyrics of Kylie’s 2012 song Flower dealt with the pain of not having children.
It includes the line: “Distant child my flower, are you blowing in the breeze?”
In another revelation, Kylie said she secretly battled cancer for a second time after being diagnosed with primary breast cancer in early 2021.
Kylie said: “I was able to keep it to myself and go through that year.
“I didn’t feel obliged to tell the world and actually I just couldn’t at the time as I was just a shell of a person.
“I didn’t want to leave the house again at one point.
“Thankfully I got through it again, and all is well.”
Kylie now has the all-clear and hopes that speaking out will encourage women to go for early screenings.
She said: “I know there will be someone out there who will benefit from a gentle reminder to do their check-ups.”
FIRST REVIEW
★★★★★
THIS went far beyond anything I thought she’d say.
Revelations on struggling to find love, cancer battles and heartbreaking attempts to conceive via IVF are here.
For someone who’s hardly spoken of life away from the stage they are jaw-dropping.
It is one of the most genuine and honest celebrity documentaries I’ve seen.
Wednesday 20 May National Day in Cameroon
Cameroon became a German colony in 1884, known as Kamerun. After Germany’s defeat in the first world war, the administration of the colony was divided between Britain and France, becoming UN Trust Territories after the end of the second world war and the creation of the United Nations.
The United Nations Trust Territory known as French Cameroun achieved independence from France on January 1st 1960, and British Southern Cameroons became a federated state within Cameroon on October 1st 1961.
On May 20th 1972, in a national referendum, Cameroonians voted for a unitary state as opposed to the existing federal state. President Ahmadou Ahidjo then abolished the federal system of government in favour of a unitary state, the Republic of Cameroon.
Most countries operate under a unitary system. A unitary state is governed as a single power under the control of a central government and any powers for administrative divisions are delegated from central government.
EU approves trade deal with the US despite uncertainty in transatlantic relations
Published on •Updated
Diplomats and MEPs reached an agreement late on Tuesday to implement the contentious EU-US agreement, which eliminates duties on most US industrial goods imported into Europe.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The negotiations concluded two weeks after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on EU cars if Europeans did not implement the agreement — clinched by Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland, last summer — by 4 July.
The so-called “Turnberry Agreement,” criticised by MEPs as unbalanced, raises US tariffs on EU goods to as much as 15%.
“The EU and the United States share the world’s largest and most integrated economic relationship. Maintaining a stable, predictable and balanced transatlantic partnership is in the interest of both sides,” Cyprus trade Minister Michael Damianos said, adding: “Today, the European Union delivers on its commitments.”
MEPs had kept the deal frozen for several weeks following Trump’s threats over Greenland earlier this year. They also suspended it after the US adopted new tariffs following a Supreme Court ruling that declared illegal the tariffs imposed by the White House since Trump’s return to power.
Demanding clarity from the Americans, EU lawmakers finally agreed to enter into negotiations with the EU Cyprus presidency — representing EU member states — after the Commission assured them that the US would honour its side of the agreement and cap its tariffs at 15%, as agreed.
Fragile EU-US relations
However, EU-US relations remain fragile and there is concern in Brussels that the US administration could still use tariffs to put political pressure on the EU if the bloc does not comply with the White House’s demands on other issues.
Trump’s threats over EU cars two weeks ago also targeted Germany, whose Chancellor Friedrich Merz has criticised the war in Iran launched by the Americans alongside Israel.
Trump has repeatedly called on European countries to deploy ships to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, a move Europeans have been reluctant to make.
Many disagreements also continue to strain EU–US relations over Ukraine — including the recent US extension of a sanctions waiver allowing purchases of Russian oil — and over NATO, which Trump has repeatedly threatened to leave.
On Tuesday night, MEPs tried to secure the deal by attaching conditions, risking US anger with additional provisions to which Washington had not agreed.
Under the Turnberry Agreement, the EU also committed to investing $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028 and to purchasing $750 billion worth of US energy.
Senate advances bill aimed at ending Iran war as Cassidy, after primary loss, flips to support it
WASHINGTON — The Senate advanced legislation Tuesday that seeks to force President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Iran war, as a growing number of Republicans defied the president’s wishes.
Since Trump ordered the attack on Iran at the end of February, Democrats have forced repeated votes on war powers resolutions that would require him to either gain congressional approval for the war or withdraw troops. Republicans had been able to muster the votes to reject those proposals, but Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy — fresh off a primary election loss in which Trump endorsed his opponent — switched sides to deliver a crucial vote to pass the legislation.
The 50-47 vote tally demonstrated the small but crucial number of Republicans voting to halt the war with Iran. The legislation will get a vote on final passage, but the timing was not immediately clear.
Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had all previously voted for similar war powers resolutions and did so again Tuesday. Cassidy voted for the legislation for the first time.
After his primary election loss last week, Cassidy returned to Washington saying that he was proud of his work to uphold the Constitution and would carefully consider how he would vote on several priorities of the Trump administration.
Groves writes for the Associated Press.
Premier League: Arsenal rewarded for their patience with Arteta – Analysis
Speaking on Match of the Day, Danny Murphy and Joe Hart praise Arsenal for giving Mikel Arteta time after he guided the club to their first Premier League title in 22 years, following Manchester City’s 1-1 draw with Bournemouth.
Boats, fire and a TikTok song – inside Arsenal’s title win
Available to UK users only.
Vance speaks about Iran conflict, ‘anti-weaponization’ fund in press briefing

May 19 (UPI) — Vice President JD Vance took questions from reporters Tuesday at a White House press briefing
, reiterating President Donald Trump‘s repeated assertion that the conflict in Iran is meant to keep the country from developing a nuclear weapon but that it is “not a forever war.”
“We want to keep the number of countries that have nuclear weapons small, and that’s why Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” he said during the briefing, “on top of all the other things that we might be worried about, that they themselves could use it, that they could use it in leverage and economic control or economic negotiations.”
Vance was the second person, following U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to stand in for White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who is on maternity leave.
Iran was a dominant topic of the briefing. Vance said the United States has made progress in negotiations despite Iran’s position being “fractured,” but that U.S. forces are ready to attack again if necessary.
“We’re going to take care of business and come home,” he said.
Rubio and Vance are both considered presidential candidate contenders for Republicans in 2028, but the vice president demurred at a question
suggesting the press briefing role could be a sort of audition for candidacy.
“I’m a vice president,” he said. “I really like my job, and I’m going to try to do as good a job as I can.”
Vance also dealt with questions about the Justice Department’s new $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” which was created to compensate those who say they were unfairly targeted by former presidential administrations.
Some officials have criticized the fund as a way for the government to pay Trump allies who say they were targeted during the Biden administration. Earlier Tuesday, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said he could not rule out payments to convicted Jan. 6 rioters.
“We’re not trying to give money to anybody who attacked apolice officer,” Vance said at the briefing. “We’re trying to compensate people where the book was thrown at them, they were mistreated by the legal system.”
Iran war live: Tehran warns of ‘many more surprises’ if conflict resumes | US-Israel war on Iran News
Warning comes after Trump threatened military action against Iran and gave it ‘two to three days’ to strike a deal.
Published On 20 May 2026
Legendary Colombian folk singer Totó La Momposina dies at 85
Colombian folk music icon Totó La Momposina, known as the “Queen of Cumbia,” has died. She was 85.
The Colombian Ministry of Culture announced the lauded vocalist’s death Tuesday morning.
“Today we bid farewell to the eternal Totó. (1940-2026) To the eternal teacher who traveled the entire world to the rhythm of cumbias, porros, mapalés, and bullerengues born in the heart of our land,” the ministry wrote in an X post. “To the eternal Momposina who spoke of the traditional music of the Caribbean, empowered it, and enriched it for decades to write an entire chapter in the cultural history of our country.”
In an Instagram post from the artist’s official account, her children provided a cause of death.
“With profound sorrow, we, her children Marco Vinicio, Angelica Maria, and Euridice Salome Oyaga Bazanta, announce the passing of our mother, Sonia Bazanta Vides, better known as Totó la Momposina, surrounded by her family in Celaya, Mexico, on Sunday, May 17. Cause of death: myocardial infarction,” the post read.
The children also touched on the enduring legacy that their mother left behind.
“Totó was a woman who, with her voice and extraordinary dedication, carried the culture and memory of the Colombian people to the far corners of the world. Her joy, light, wisdom, talent, generosity, and many other virtues touched the lives of countless people,” they continued in the post. “She shared with the world the music, culture, dances, and essence of Colombia’s Caribbean coast. Her name will forever remain in the memory of those who admired her, accompanied her and loved her.”
Born Sonia Bazanta Vides in 1940 in the Colombian town of Talaigua Nuevo, Totó la Momposina was born to a family with Afro-Colombian and Indigenous roots. Her music was renowned for incorporating the percussive and melodic instruments unique to her cultural identity. Both of her parents were amateur musicians and she began performing on stage at the age of six.
Her musical taste and sound was informed by the Afro-Indigenous rhythms of the traditional mapalé, chalupa, porro, bullerengue and cumbia genres that originated in Columbia and which she studied by visiting musicians in neighboring villages throughout her youth.
After moving to the Colombian capital of Bogotá in the 1960s, she immersed herself in the city’s music scene and began performing as part of a group. Totó la Momposina moved to Paris in the 1980s to study music at the Sorbonne University.
When Colombian author Gabriel García Márquez received the Nobel Prize in literature in 1982, she accompanied him to Stockholm and was among several Colombian artists to perform at the ceremony.
Hot on the heels of some international recognition, Totó la Momposina released her debut solo album “La Verdolaga” in 1983. She would later catapult to greater worldwide fame after she formed an artistic relationship with English musician Peter Gabriel. Under Gabriel’s Real World Records label, Totó la Momposina released her 1993 album “La Candela Viva,” which received international acclaim and a formative text in the cumbia and bullerengue genres.
In 2011, she was award record of the year at the 12th annual Latin Grammy Awards, alongside Calle 13, Susana Baca and Maria Rita for the track “Latinoamérica.” The singer also received a Latin Grammy lifetime achievement award in 2013.





















