NEWS

Media freedom advocates condemn move as latest effort to curtail independent reporting on the US military.

The United States Department of Defense has barred journalists from its press office, the latest move by the Pentagon to restrict media access since President Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

Acting Pentagon Press Secretary Joel Valdez said on Monday that the administration had re-designated the office as a “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility” due to its use by speechwriters with access to classified government information.

“These speechwriters routinely handle classified material and require SIPRNet access,” Valdez said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera, referring to the secure computer network used by the Pentagon to share classified information.

“As a result, journalists will no longer be permitted to enter the office space. Access to the office of the Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs and to the Press Secretary remains available by appointment only,” Valdez added, using the Trump administration’s preferred title for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The Washington Post first reported the change.

The move follows a slew of steps by the Trump administration to curtail the ability of US media outlets to report on the military and other areas of the government.

In March, the Defense Department said it would no longer allow media outlets to maintain offices at the Pentagon after a judge sided with The New York Times in a lawsuit challenging the imposition of new rules for obtaining press credentials.

The Pentagon also announced that journalists would require an official escort while inside the complex, a policy that The New York Times is seeking to overturn in a separate lawsuit filed in May.

The National Press Club, the main professional organisation for journalists in the US, condemned the latest restrictions as a “troubling escalation” in the Trump administration’s efforts to curtail media scrutiny of the Pentagon.

“Independent reporting on the US military is not optional,” National Press Club President Mark Schoeff Jr said in a statement.

“When journalists are pushed farther from the institutions they cover, the American people are left with less information, less transparency, and less oversight. Any effort to restrict that access should alarm everyone who values a free and informed society.”

The Freedom of the Press Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organisation, also criticised the move.

“It’s rare for anything other than disingenuous spin and outright lies to come out of the Pentagon’s press office these days, so it’s hard to imagine what basis they have to call the space classified,” Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the organisation, told Al Jazeera.

“The only thing sensitive or confidential about the information released by Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon is that it’s not true.”

The U.S. military has confirmed the loss of an “MQ-1” drone to Iranian fire this weekend. This has led many to question whether American forces are flying the venerable Predator again, some eight years after the type’s official retirement. It is also very possible, if not likely, that the uncrewed aircraft in question was an MQ-1C Gray Eagle, a related but different design still in active U.S. Army service. Regardless, rebooting U.S. Predator operations might still be an attractive course of action, especially to help plug gaps left by dozens of MQ-9 Reaper losses to Iran and the Houthis in Yemen, but actually doing it may be harder than it seems.

American forces “conducted self-defense strikes on Iranian radar and command and control sites for drones in Goruk, Iran, and Qeshm Island this weekend,” according to a brief press release that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) issued late yesterday. “The measured and deliberate strikes occurred on Saturday and Sunday in response to aggressive Iranian actions that included the shootdown of a U.S. MQ-1 drone that was operating over international waters. U.S. fighter aircraft swiftly responded by eliminating Iranian air defenses, a ground control station, and two one-way attack drones that posed clear threats to ships transiting regional waters.”

There has been a string of tit-for-tat attacks now between the United States and Iran despite an ostensible ceasefire between the two countries. The U.S. military also remains committed to a blockade of Iranian ports, while the regime in Tehran continues to take separate action to throttle routine maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Negotiations between the two sides toward a more definitive end to the conflict are ongoing, as well.

“No American service members were harmed,” yesterday’s release added. “CENTCOM will continue to protect U.S. assets and interests in response to unwarranted Iranian aggression during the ongoing ceasefire.”

What did Iran actually shoot down?

In response to a direct query from TWZ, CENTCOM declined to say whether the “MQ-1” mentioned in the release was a Predator or Gray Eagle. We also reached out to the U.S. Air Force to ask if it had lost a Predator over the weekend, and were directed to contact CENTCOM. We contacted the Army to ask if one of its Gray Eagles was shot down, as well, and were redirected to the Pentagon.

Army aviation units with MQ-1Cs are known to be deployed in the Middle East. In April, the Air Force notably released several pictures of Gray Eagles somewhere in the region, which misidentified them as Predators.

The AP initially reported that the drone Iran shot down was a Predator, but this appears to have been based on CENTCOM’s use of the MQ-1 designation in the press release and not confirmed. The outlet’s story originally said “the U.S. Air Force no longer flies the MQ-1 Predator, the U.S. Army still does,” which was inaccurate, and that passage no longer appears in the piece. While the Gray Eagle is derived from the Predator and has the related MQ-1C designation, it is a distinctly different design more tailored to the Army’s needs. This includes the ability to operate with a smaller logistical footprint and lower crew training requirements.

For its part, Iran has also described what it shot down simply as an “MQ-1,” and has released a video below that it says shows the engagement, as seen through an infrared camera. However, the footage is extremely low resolution, and it is impossible to tell what type of drone it might show. Iranian authorities (as well as the Houthis) routinely release similar, but generally higher-quality clips after claimed shootdowns.

Officially, the Air Force stopped operating the MQ-1 Predator in 2018. As of September 2024, there were 15 MQ-1Bs in storage at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, according to data the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) previously released. TWZ has also reached out to the Air Force for an updated inventory of Predators in storage, and to ask whether or not any retired examples have been returned to service.

In addition, TWZ has asked General Atomics, the company behind the Predator and the Gray Eagle, as well as the MQ-9 Reaper, for comment.

Factoring in MQ-9 Reaper losses

Despite not yet having an official confirmation one way or the other, it still seems more likely that what Iran shot down was a Gray Eagle, not a Predator. Still, there remains the potential for the U.S. to have resumed Predator operations, possibly on a contractor-owned and/or operated basis, or that it may be considering doing so in the near future. There is one factor in particular that could be a key driver here now, and that is MQ-9 losses.

At a recent hearing, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach had called the Reaper “perhaps the most valuable player” in the latest conflict with Iran. In early March, we commented on how it appeared MQ-9 strikes were by far the most numerous attacks featured in CENTCOM’s ‘highlight’ reels during the conflict.

However, in May, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported that “nearly 30 MQ-9 Reapers have been lost in the course of those operations,” citing “people familiar with the matter.” On April 9, CBS News said that tally had already risen to “up to 24” Reapers since the fighting began in February, citing unnamed U.S. officials.

This is all on top of the loss of dozens more MQ-9s to Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen in recent years. The Houthis separately claimed to have shot down another U.S. Reaper just this past weekend.

Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, told members of Congress at a hearing on May 13 that the service’s MQ-9 fleet had dwindled to 135 aircraft. This is down from the 165 Reapers the service said were in inventory as of the start of Fiscal Year 2026, according to official budget documents. The size of the fleet had already shrunk from 231 at the start of Fiscal Year 2025.

“We are concerned about how they’ve attrited,” Tabor said at that time, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We’re looking at options to buy back as many of the MQ-9As as we possibly can right now, so there’s a bit of a short-term effort to buy back things immediately, in this fiscal year.”

“We are not divesting the MQ-9,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink also said separately on May 20, per the same report from Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We have had some losses in that aircraft, and we’re working to fill those losses, but in parallel, we are looking at what is the follow-on to the MQ-9 aircraft.”

TWZ recently reported in detail on the Air Force’s latest plans, as they are known now, for a successor to the MQ-9. This effort is the latest in a series of abortive Air Force attempts to develop a Reaper replacement that have spanned more than a decade now.

It is also worth noting here that the U.S. Marine Corps has acquired its own much smaller fleet of Reapers in recent years, and plans to operate the type for the foreseeable future. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also operates Reapers, and has flown Predators, at least in the past.

Last month, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported that General Atomics had “less than 10 new or company-owned MQ-9As to offer to the Air Force,” but that “there are a number of decommissioned Reapers that could be brought back online and refurbished by the company,” citing company spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley.

The Reaper, also more formally known as the MQ-9A, is otherwise out of production. General Atomics has moved on to the MQ-9B, an evolved design with significant differences from its predecessor. Any new Air Force purchases of drones in this family would have to be of the new version.

TWZ has also reached out to the Air Force with questions about Reapers in storage and any efforts to return them to service.

Could Reaper losses prompt a Predator comeback?

The scale of MQ-9 losses, as well as the continued heavy use of those drones, brings us back to the possibility of returning Predators to service, even if this has not happened as of yet. Before their official retirement in 2018, questions had been increasingly raised about the risks of flying Predators in anything but permissive airspace.

For years now, Air Force officials have regularly raised similar questions about the Reaper’s vulnerability, as highlighted by an abrupt attempt to stop buying any more of the drones back in 2020. A self-protection pod has been developed to improve the MQ-9’s survivability, but there is no evidence that it has been fielded on a wide scale despite reported moves to do so in recent years.

More recently, the Air Force has shown a willingness to accept significant MQ-9 losses. Furthermore, many of the missions that Reapers are tasked with today could still be performed, at least to a degree, by Predators with an equivalent level of risk.

The piston-engined Predator is a smaller, shorter-ranged, lighter payload, and lower-performance design overall compared to the turboprop Reaper. At the same time, this would also be mitigated by the geography of the current operating environment in the Middle East vis-a-vis Iran, where the distances between available bases and likely operating areas wouldn’t be too far. This would be especially true for sorties in airspace over and around the Strait of Hormuz. As CENTCOM said, the “MQ-1” shootdown this weekend occurred somewhere over “international waters.”

The U.S. military previously used Predators exactly this way to monitor Iranian activities in and around the Persian Gulf from bases in the region. An Iranian Su-25 Frogfoot ground attack jet notably shot at an MQ-1 flying over that body of water back in 2012. That is just one example of Iranian harassment of U.S. drone operations in that timeframe, which got to be so bad that F-22 Raptors had to be called in to ward off Tehran’s tactical jet crews.

Beyond their continued ability to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance missions, Predators can carry a pair of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The Hellfire continues to be a very relevant weapon, including for use against small Iranian boats, including ones capable of firing anti-ship cruise missiles or laying mines. Predators could fire them at missile and drone launchers, road-mobile air defense systems, and other Iranian assets on land, too.

Though the MQ-9 can carry a wider selection of precision-guided munitions, Hellfire has remained a key element of that drone’s arsenal, too, including in recent operations against Iran.

The video below includes a clip of an Iranian Ghadir class diesel-electric midget submarine being struck by what has been confirmed to be an AGM-114 Hellfire missile, likely fired by an MQ-9.

Reapers can carry much more ordnance per sortie than the Predator, but the latter could still provide a useful boost in interdiction capacity even with a smaller payload. There is an argument to be made that interdiction would actually be a better role than surveillance and reconnaissance for any remaining Predators. The older drones could be treated as being more expendable than their Reaper cousins, and more readily sent to hunt targets in higher-risk environments as a result.

There is a question of what kinds of upgrades might be necessary in order to return Predators to active duty, such as new datalinks to connect to more modern networks and ground stations. We also do not know what new training might be required to operate them within the context of currently available infrastructure in the Middle East, or anywhere else.

It’s also worth noting that other branches of the U.S. military beyond the Air Force could support a return of Predators to operational service, as well. The Army was actually originally the main operator of the MQ-1, as you can read more about here.

Back in the late 2010s around the Predator’s retirement, the Air Force confirmed to TWZ that there were active discussions about transferring retired MQ-1s to the Navy, either for use by that service or the U.S. Marine Corps. There is no clear indication the Navy or the Marines operated Predators in the end. At around the same time, the Navy was helping lay the groundwork for what ultimately became the Marines’ MQ-9 fleet.

That being said, as TWZ wrote at the time, the Air Force’s engagement with the Navy underscored how the Predator still offered relevant capability in a variety of operational contexts. We also noted that the steady miniaturization of sensors and other systems could open up new possibilities for the older MQ-1s.

If it is true that there were only 15 MQ-1Bs left in storage as of 2024, there is a separate question of what happened to the many dozens of other Predators the Air Force had in inventory when the type was retired. TWZ had previously raised the additional possibility that Predators could be employed as targets for live-fire training, as well as research and development and test and evaluation activities, or even converted into one way attack munitions.

What we do know is that MQ-9 remains in very high demand in the Middle East, now further driven by operations against Iran that continue to grind on. We also know that the Air Force has sustained what it has itself described as a concerning level of Reaper losses in recent years. It is unclear how many MQ-9s are out there for the service to ‘buy back’ or when its latest plans for a successor to the Reaper might bear fruit.

Even if the U.S. military has not currently put any Predator drones back on active duty, returning even a relatively small fleet of them to service might still be worth considering as a way to meet operational needs and ease pressure on the hard-hit MQ-9 fleet.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

From an early point in the Russian war in Ukraine, we’ve seen many unorthodox efforts to try to improve the chances of survival of fighting vehicles. Now, Russian trucks are receiving ‘dazzle paint,’ borrowing the same kind of tactic Russia has used for some of its most important military aircraft, to try to confuse seekers on standoff weaponry that use image-matching capability.

Several images showing the unusually painted Russian trucks have appeared on social media channels in recent days. So far, examples of Ural and KAMAZ heavy-duty truck designs have surfaced. There are at least two distinct patterns so far: a zebra-style application of broadly straight lines, and a more organic, leaf-like, swirling design. In both cases, they extend over most external surfaces, including the wheels and tires. It is not entirely clear if the white paint is applied over a layer of black, or portions of black, or if the white is simply coated over the standard base color of very dark green. It could be a mix of both application concepts, as well.

At first sight, the truck patterns recall the iconic paint scheme that the U.K. Royal Navy pioneered for its warships back in World War I. ‘Dazzle paint’ or ‘dazzle camouflage’ was devised in 1917 by official War Artist Norman Wilkinson, as a means of reducing losses to attacks by German submarines, or U-boats. The geometric patterns work by using highly contrasting color blocks, often heavily featuring black and white,  as part of a carefully constructed pattern that breaks up the form of the ship and makes it harder to judge range and perspective.

As you can read about here, this kind of naval camouflage scheme appeared again during World War II, and on several occasions since then.

When first introduced, dazzle paint was intended to trick the human eye, normally looking through a periscope. There was still a benefit to be had in protecting vessels after the introduction of improved rangefinders and radar. For the eye, it made it harder to judge a ship’s course and speed, as well as simply identifying it reliably.

The same basic principle is at work on the dazzle-painted Russian trucks, although now it’s an artificial eye — chiefly using electro-optical and/or infrared cameras — that is supposed to be fooled.

Increasingly, Ukrainian drones are using artificial intelligence (AI) to boost their combat effectiveness. The revolutions that are coming as a result of embedding of AI into lower-end drones is something you can read about in our past feature here. This includes machine vision: a process of the drone learning object recognition, identification, classification, and tracking, as well as providing recommendations for the operator on what to do, provided there is an operator at all and the drone is not running autonomously.

AI-enabled capabilities make lower-end drones more resistant to electronic warfare systems and make it easier for them to be employed in networked swarms. Above all else, they can result in the cutting of the invisible radio frequency tether of constant man-in-the-loop control that in many ways hampers the potential of this class of drones.

The drawback of machine vision that the Russian countermeasure is supposed to exploit is the onboard AI agent’s capacity for learning object recognition. While it may be able to recognize a 6×6 Ural, for example, out of a wide range of potential truck targets, if the appearance of the vehicle is distorted enough, it will not be positively identified, or at least meet the threshold of corroboration that would result in a kinetic act. However, still with many drones that feature AI assistance, a human operator stays in or on the loop for all critical decisions.

This raises the question of how successful the dazzle-painted trucks might be, although the thinking here presumably stresses avoidance of detection during the autonomous target-search phase, rather than the endgame of an engagement. It is also worth noting that these kinds of paint schemes only really have value in areas where they are unlikely to be seen by any Ukrainian human eyes, even remotely via a sensor; after all, they are far more conspicuous than their standard-painted counterparts. It’s also possible that a drone could be taught to specifically hunt these patterns, as nothing else on the battlefield would look like them and they would be confirmed hostile by default.

Overall, paint schemes are another logical, if extemporized response to a growing threat in the Russian rear areas, following the example of the Russian trucks loaded with logs as makeshift armor to protect against kinetic threats in the early phases of the war.

This has been followed by successive counter-drone measures, best exemplified by the increasingly complicated ‘cope cages,’ ‘turtle tanks,’ nets, and arrays of spikes that have appeared on a range of vehicles on both sides of the war.

Perhaps most apposite, however, is the example of Russian bombers and strike aircraft being covered with disused tires, something that first appeared in around August 2023. TWZ was first to postulate that these were most likely intended to confuse the seekers on Ukrainian cruise missiles and drones that use image-matching capability. This was subsequently confirmed by a senior U.S. military technologist.

A “sort of classic unclassified example that exists is like a picture of a plane from the top, and you’re looking for a plane, and then if you put tires on top of the wings, all of a sudden, a lot of computer vision models have difficulty identifying that that’s a plane,” Schuyler Moore, U.S. Central Command’s first-ever Chief Technology Officer, explained in September 2024.

Moore said this as part of a larger discussion about AI models and data sets.

It’s also worth noting that Russian combat ships based in Crimea also received unique shading to break up their silhouettes for the same purpose during this period.

As TWZ has explored in detail in the past, AI is now pushing drones toward a major new evolution, if not a revolution in capabilities.

As well as the possibility of operating in large groups or fully networked swarms, it means long-range one-way attack drones can conduct dynamic targeting deep in contested territory. Trucks, for example, can be hunted and struck far behind the front lines, where once they were safe and where air defenses are sparse.

This is a scenario we have set out in the past, too:

“Waves of similar drones could be sent to their own individual geographical ‘kill boxes,’ or defined areas of engagement. Collectively, they could put enemy targets at risk over a huge area persistently without ‘doubling up’ and attacking the same target twice. Using machine learning/AI and associated hardware, they could not just identify targets of interest, but also differentiate moving from still targets, to ensure they are indeed active (not destroyed or already damaged) vehicles. Meanwhile, they can be set to engage other target types, such as surface-to-air missile systems or other high-priority targets, regardless of whether they are static or not. Even troop movements on the ground could potentially be recognized and attacked. All the parameters as to what the drone can engage, and where it can do so, can be defined and tailored to each mission before launch.”

It is also worth noting that different types of sensors will be affected to different degrees by passive countermeasures like complex paint jobs. While electro-optical sensors may have issues with the patterns, infrared may not, especially at longer wavelengths.

TWZ has previously highlighted how AI algorithms can be rapidly trained in a digital environment, as well as incorporate data collected from actual real-world employment, to improve their ability to spot, categorize, and engage targets. It is, however, unclear how hard it would be to overcome infinite dazzle patterns. It could, as Schuyler Moore observed, lead to software programmers spending inordinate amounts of time on computer vision with very little to gain, once a new pattern arrived.

While it remains to be seen how effective the dazzle-painted trucks might be, they are another sign of drones, especially AI-enabled ones, being one of the key drivers of innovation on the modern battlefield.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Far-right outsider Abelardo de la Espriella will face left-wing Senator Ivan Cepeda in the run-off for Colombia’s presidential election next month. Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo explains what this means for Colombians.

Tournament director Amelie Mauresmo, herself a former women’s world number one, had regularly pointed to the possibility of short two-set matches as the reason for often overlooking the women.

“The match-ups are always interesting for both men and women, but there are multiple factors for us to make the choice,” Mauresmo said earlier on Monday.

“As you know, the potential length of the matches is something that we are also looking at.”

On picking Sabalenka against Osaka, she added: “It was obvious that it should be a night match tonight.”

There was a school of thought that Mauresmo might have looked elsewhere, though, had men’s world number one Jannik Sinner still been in the tournament.

Sinner would have been scheduled to play on the same day, but without him the men’s matches taking place on Monday lacked star power.

If Sabalenka against Osaka did not take place under the lights, then which women’s match would conceivably ever be picked?

With that came a sense of expectation.

If the match ended up being a dud, then it could have been used by critics as a stick to beat the women’s game with.

That, others argue, was a situation created by the French Open’s reluctance to showcase its female stars in the first place.

Was the burden which it placed on Sabalenka and Osaka to represent the women’s game fair?

“I don’t really care. There are so many different things to put pressure on myself – that was the last thing on my mind,” said Osaka.

“Shout out to the tournament for trusting us – I hope it was entertaining for people.”

As Israel faces growing international scrutiny for its actions in Gaza and Lebanon, Al Jazeera’s Ava Warriner takes a look at the Israeli and US officials who joined the annual Israel Day parade in New York – the world’s largest gathering in support of the State of Israel.

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Given the carrier picture is largely unchanged compared to last week, this week’s tracker highlights the big-deck amphibious fleet.

Much of America’s fleet of nine amphibious assault ships is hard at work as the U.S. opts to replace the Iwo Jima ARG in Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) with a “sub-optimized” Littoral Combat Force (LCF). The LCF appears to be the first deployment that embodies the Navy’s new more flexible deployment strategy, which could have wider impacts across the fleet in the future. “It’s the way to have force multiplication, to punch bigger than yourself, and that’s done through tailored offsets,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said at SNA earlier this year about the new tailored deployments concept. “That whole thing builds a way to present forces to allow me to do more with less.”

The 24th MEU, operating under the designation LCF-24, deployed to SOUTHCOM and replaced the Iwo Jima ARG. “Distinct from a standard Amphibious Ready Group/MEU deployment, LCF-24 is a purpose-built MAGTF engineered for distributed operations,” SOUTHCOM explained in a statement. The Marine Air-Ground Task Force, with more than 1,300 Marines and Sailors, will operate from both shore-based nodes and aboard Fort Lauderdale, and is certified to “execute a wide array of mission essential tasks, including but not limited to Quick Reaction Force operations such as embassy reinforcement and the tactical recovery of aircraft [and] personnel, while standing ready to support disaster relief activities.”

A Gaza-bound ship carrying aid has begun its voyage from Sweden, weeks after Israeli forces abducted activists on a similar mission in international waters. The ‘Handala II’ vessel says it is carrying humanitarian supplies for Palestinians to break the Israeli blockade on the enclave.

Nvidia is set to bring artificial intelligence to laptop and desktop computers with brands like Microsoft and Dell later this year as the US tech giant broadens its AI presence.

The Santa Clara, California-based AI chipmaker unveiled on Monday at its annual Nvidia GTC event in Taipei new powerful chips that would bring advanced AI functions to laptops and desktop computers.

CEO Jensen Huang said that the new development is “going to reinvent the PC [personal computer]”.

The changes come amid three years of collaboration between Microsoft and Nvidia and pit the latter against companies like chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices and personal computer brands Intel and Apple.

“This is going to be the new PC,” Huang said as he unveiled Nvidia’s RTX Spark superchip — which combines CPU, or central processing unit, and GPU, or graphics processing unit, capabilities — that would power new Windows laptop and desktop computer models in what the company called “AI personal computers”, expected to debut in the fall of this year.

The chip, developed with Taiwan’s MediaTek, will be in compact desktops from Dell, HP, Lenovo, ASUS, Microsoft Surface and MSI, with models from Acer and GIGABYTE to follow.

Nvidia, which is already the world’s most valuable company, said the reinvention will be for creating and gaming.

“When it has an autonomous [AI] agent, an agent that’s helping you, that understands you, you could talk to it. It could look at you. You could ask it to read files, go help you do some research. It could do a lot more,” Huang said.

Microsoft said in a separate statement that the personal computers running on Nvidia’s RTX Spark superchips would be able to support “highly capable AI models” and complex workloads. With the new superchips, these personal computers can run AI agents locally, Nvidia said.

“This is the first across the lineup of PC reinvention for 40 years,” Huang said.

Nvidia’s move is significant at a time when demand is growing for the use of personal AI agents, said Lian Jye Su, chief analyst at the technology research and advisory group Omdia.

“For consumers, it means more choices, which is always a good thing,” Su said.

Neil Shah, analyst and co-founder of Counterpoint Research, described Nvidia’s announcement as a move that’s “revolutionising how PCs would look like in the next 10 years”.

The new laptops and desktop computers “will drive agentic AI applications in every home”, Shah said, with an aim of having an “AI supercomputer” in each household.

Also during Monday’s speech, Nvidia’s Huang said its new Vera CPUs for data centres are in full production and are “going to be our new major growth driver” on the boom of AI agents, with early customers including Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceXAI.

Huang also revealed a humanoid robot reference design that could act as a blueprint for future research, especially within the higher education sector. Nvidia said its “Isaac GR00T” stands nearly 1.83 metres (6 feet) tall and has the humanoid chassis of Chinese robot maker Unitree’s H2. It is equipped with five-fingered dexterous hands, made by Singapore-based robotics startup Sharpa, that are capable of finely controlled movements.

Reception for AI PCs has been mixed so far. HP reported last week that the devices helped prop up quarterly sales, but Dell said earlier this year that demand had fallen short of initial expectations. Qualcomm, looking to capitalise on AI demand, has also been offering AI PCs with Microsoft.

On Wall Street, Nvidia stock rose nearly 4 percent on the news in midday trading. Microsoft ticked up 2.5 percent and Dell surged 9.3 percent. Competitors AMD and Intel, on the other hand, are on the decline. AMD is down 0.1 percent from the market open, and Intel is down by 2.5 percent.

Caracas, June 1, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – A Venezuelan delegation representing the acting Delcy Rodríguez administration held talks with the International Monetary Fund leadership on Saturday in Washington, DC.

The Venezuelan team was led by Economy Vice President Calixto Ortega alongside Central Bank (BCV) President Luis Pérez and other finance officials. In a statement, Caracas called the meeting “productive,” focused on “technical assistance mechanisms” and the Caribbean nation’s efforts to “recover funds” to boost economic recovery.

“With these kinds of meetings, Venezuela ratifies its disposition for dialogue and international cooperation, with independence and self-determination,” the communiqué read. Venezuelan authorities emphasized the country’s “new stage of stability and growth” alongside a commitment to “reestablish ties with multilateral organizations.”

For her part, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva also classified the meeting as “productive” and reiterated the US-based institution’s disposition to “support efforts to strengthen macroeconomic stability.”

Venezuela reestablished ties with the IMF and the World Bank in April after a seven-year hiatus. The move followed the Trump administration’s recognition of Rodríguez as the South American country’s “sole leader” as part of a fast-tracked diplomatic rapprochement between Washington and Caracas.

The acting president hosted a World Bank delegation on May 15 and emphasized “technical cooperation” prospects.

Though Venezuela has been a member of the IMF and the World Bank since 1946, former President Hugo Chávez effectively disengaged from both bodies in the 2000s, labeling them “instruments of US imperialism” and seeking to create Global South integration and lending alternatives.

The Rodríguez government’s IMF meeting came amid announced plans to execute a “comprehensive and orderly” restructuring of the country’s foreign debt, estimated to be as high as US $170 billion.

Caracas’ liabilities stem from a combination of defaulted bonds and loans, international arbitration awards, and accrued interest. Venezuela began to default on its debts in 2017 as US sanctions heavily aggravated the Caribbean nation’s economic crisis and blocked payments. The restructuring process may be one of the largest in history, surpassing Russia (1998) and Argentina (2001).

The acting Rodríguez government is scheduled to present its macroeconomic framework and public debt sustainability analysis to the international finance community this month. The Trump administration issued a license allowing Venezuela to contract financial and advisory services, but direct negotiations with creditors remain prohibited.

The Venezuelan executive hired Centerview Partners as financial advisor for the debt restructuring process. According to Reuters, the decision was taken without a thorough selection process and on the recommendation of Mauricio Claver-Carone, a former Trump administration official and close associate of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Multiple reports in recent days have documented Claver-Carone’s role as a “gatekeeper” for businesses interested in investing in Venezuela as well as a conduit between Rodríguez and the Trump White House.

Venezuelan bonds have risen significantly in recent months as investors expect a windfall after purchasing the defaulted bonds at highly depreciated levels.

Venezuelan authorities have stated that there are “no plans” to take on IMF loans, instead prioritizing access to around $5 billion in Special Drawing Rights (SDR) to address infrastructure and public services needs. The IMF issued the SDRs to help countries deal with a liquidity crunch during the Covid-19 pandemic, but its non-recognition of the Nicolás Maduro government barred Venezuela from accessing its share.

For her part, Georgieva has previously stated that Venezuela “desperately needs help” and that the fund would support a loan program, but that prior steps, including clarity on macroeconomic data, are necessary.

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro, the Trump administration has extracted significant concessions from the Venezuelan government, including pro-business oil and mining reforms, lucrative deals for Western corporations, and external auditing of the Central Bank. The White House has also seized control of Venezuela’s oil export revenues.

Acting President Rodríguez has additionally installed a commission to evaluate the “strategic” value of Venezuelan state assets and possible privatizations. Plans to reform the country’s tax, labor, and pension laws are likewise underway.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

On a modest bed inside his war-battered home in the Khartoum North neighbourhood of the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, Murtada Mohieddin, a diabetic patient in his early 50s, carefully counts his remaining doses of insulin. His search for medicine has transformed into a harrowing battle – not just to find the treatment he needs to survive his diabetes, but to ensure the medicine is not expired or ruined.

“Sometimes the insulin is spoiled,” Mohieddin tells Al Jazeera, inspecting his limited supply. “You wouldn’t know if it is ruined or expired. You can check the expiration date, but it could still be damaged from poor storage.”

More than three years of civil war have crippled Sudan’s healthcare infrastructure: hospitals, health centres and pharmaceutical factories have been shut and vital medical supply chains and storage across the country have been disrupted.

The war, which erupted as a power struggle between Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has killed more than 50,000 people and displaced 14 million – nearly a quarter of the country’s population.

The devastating conflict has paralysed domestic pharmaceutical production and collapsed vital supply chains across the country.

According to a World Health Organization (WHO) news release dated April 14, 2026, Sudan represents the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 21 million people lacking basic healthcare services out of 34 million needing aid.

In the void left by the closure of pharmaceutical companies, smuggling networks have flourished, flooding the market with unregulated drugs locally known as “Boko” medicines.

These include critical intravenous malaria medications smuggled across borders. Because they completely bypass strict temperature controls and quality checks during transit, these drugs are frequently spoiled, rendering them either totally ineffective or lethally toxic to patients.

A double threat

Inside local pharmacies in Omdurman, located on the outskirts of Khartoum, the crisis is not just limited to scarcity. Patients now face the double threat of exorbitant costs and life-threatening quality issues, as these illicit medicines are often severely spoiled due to a lack of proper storage and refrigeration.

Mutawakil Hamza, a pharmacist based in Omdurman, said the reliance on unregulated channels is putting lives at immediate risk.

“Most malaria medicines are now brought in through smuggling,” Hamza said. “These are ultimately injections for intravenous use, and this is highly dangerous to a patient’s health.”

Because intravenous treatments bypass the body’s natural defences and require absolute sterility, administering improperly stored or degraded smuggled injections can rapidly cause severe bloodstream infections, systemic shock, or death.

The war has effectively dismantled local manufacturing, reversing years of medical self-reliance. Yasser Ahmed Youssef, a pharmaceutical industry expert whose factory is located in Khartoum, noted the stark contrast to the pre-war era, when local factories managed to produce “very large quantities of life-saving medicines, including drugs for blood pressure, diabetes, colds, and paediatric care”.

Now, the majority of those production lines are silent, leaving the population dependent on a shattered healthcare system. According to the October 2025 Health Resources and Services Availability Monitoring System (HeRAMS) report cited in a WHO Public Health Situation Analysis from January 6, 2026, 40 percent of health facilities nationwide are entirely nonoperational.

The situation is even more drastic regionally, with 87 percent of facilities shut down in Khartoum and 85 percent closed in North Kordofan, whose control is contested between the rival sides.

In active conflict zones such as Gezira, Khartoum, Darfur and the Kordofan regions, the shortages are particularly dire.

A United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) emergency report from August 2025 highlighted that the only functioning maternity hospital in the besieged city of el-Fasher faces critical medicine shortages and risks imminent closure.

El-Fasher, the last SAF stronghold in the western region of Darfur, was taken over by the RSF in late October 2025, trapping approximately 700,000 civilians – mostly women and children. People have been cut off entirely from food and medicine and subjected to attacks.

Collapsed warehouses and supply lines

In the government-funded public sector, the National Medical Supplies Fund maintains that it is working to secure essential medicines despite the fighting, claiming to have achieved 75 percent availability for cancer medications and fully secured supplies for kidney patients.

However, officials admit the overarching infrastructure is in ruins, with the local health ecosystem almost destroyed.

“We have been massively affected by the ongoing war inside Sudan,” said Abubakar Salouha, a department director at the fund. “The medical supplies have been severely impacted; there has been a collapse at the level of the main warehouses at the headquarters.”

International aid deliveries from neighbouring countries also face enormous logistical hurdles.

The WHO’s January 6 situation analysis detailed that cross-border transit times for medical commodities can take up to 90 days to reach remote regions like Darfur from the Cameroonian city of Douala via Chad. Compounding these suffocating delays, armed groups have repeatedly targeted medical infrastructure, looting pharmacies and stripping remaining hospitals of their vital medical supplies.

Recent attacks highlight this systematic destruction by rival sides. On March 20, 2026, a drone attack on Al-Daein Teaching Hospital in East Darfur state killed at least 64 people, including medical personnel, and injured 89 others. Sudanese rights group the Emergency Lawyers reported that the army was behind the attack.

On April 2, another drone attack struck Al-Jabalain Hospital in White Nile state, killing 10 staff members, including the hospital’s director while he was performing surgery. That same day, the Family Hospital in el-Daein was looted, and patients and health workers were assaulted and expelled. Similarly, a hospital in Kurmuk, Blue Nile state, was looted on March 25, its equipment destroyed, and patients forced out. The RSF was blamed for these attacks.

“Sudan is confronting one of the gravest humanitarian and public health emergencies in the world today. The ongoing conflict has pushed the health system to the edge of complete collapse,” warned WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on April 4.

“These incidents are stark reminders of the urgent need for renewed international solidarity and decisive political and humanitarian action. Sudan cannot endure this crisis alone.”

Malaysia has introduced new regulations preventing children under the age of 16 from registering accounts on social media platforms as part of a broader effort to improve online safety and protect minors from harmful digital content.

Under the new rules, major social media companies including Meta Platforms, TikTok, and Alphabet will be required to verify users’ ages using government issued records before allowing new account registrations.

The policy took effect on Monday and is being enforced by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. Companies that fail to comply could face fines of up to 10 million ringgit, equivalent to approximately 2.5 million dollars.

Authorities emphasized that the measure is not intended to block children from using the internet entirely, but rather to ensure greater responsibility among technology companies, parents, and guardians in protecting young users online.

How the New Rules Will Work

The new framework requires social media platforms to implement age verification systems that cross check user information against official government records.

While the restrictions immediately apply to new account registrations, existing users will also be subject to age verification measures during a six month implementation period.

The move places greater responsibility on technology companies to ensure that underage users are not able to bypass age requirements through inaccurate information during the registration process.

Growing Concerns Over Children’s Online Safety

Malaysia’s decision reflects increasing global concern about the impact of social media on children and teenagers.

Governments around the world have raised alarms over issues including exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, online exploitation, misinformation, and the effects of excessive social media use on mental health.

Policymakers argue that stronger safeguards are needed as digital platforms become a central part of daily life for younger generations.

Malaysia’s Wider Crackdown on Online Content

The age restrictions are part of a broader effort by Malaysian authorities to regulate online platforms more aggressively.

Officials have reported a significant increase in harmful online content in recent years and have intensified monitoring of material that could inflame racial or religious tensions. Authorities have also targeted content viewed as insulting or critical of the country’s monarchy.

The government says social media companies must play a more active role in preventing harmful content from reaching vulnerable audiences.

Why It Matters

Malaysia’s decision places it among a growing group of countries seeking stricter regulation of social media platforms and greater protections for children online.

The policy could become a model for other governments considering similar measures, particularly as concerns over digital safety continue to grow worldwide. It also increases pressure on technology companies to develop more reliable age verification systems while balancing privacy concerns and user accessibility.

The move highlights the growing debate over who should bear responsibility for protecting children online, governments, technology firms, or parents.

Key Stakeholders

Children and Teenagers

Young users will face stricter age verification requirements before being allowed to create social media accounts.

Parents and Guardians

Families are expected to play a larger role in monitoring children’s online activities and ensuring compliance with age restrictions.

Social Media Companies

Major technology platforms must implement and maintain age verification systems while ensuring compliance with Malaysian regulations.

Malaysian Government

Authorities aim to reduce children’s exposure to harmful content and strengthen oversight of online platforms.

Digital Rights and Privacy Advocates

Advocacy groups will closely monitor how age verification systems are implemented and whether they affect privacy and data protection standards.

What Happens Next

Social media companies now have six months to complete age verification checks for existing users and fully integrate compliance systems for new registrations.

Regulators are expected to monitor implementation closely and may impose penalties on platforms that fail to meet requirements. The effectiveness of the policy will likely be assessed based on whether it reduces underage access and limits exposure to harmful content.

Other countries in the region may also watch Malaysia’s experience as they consider similar online safety measures.

Analysis

Malaysia’s new restrictions reflect a broader global shift toward stronger regulation of digital platforms, particularly where children are concerned. Governments are increasingly moving away from voluntary industry guidelines and toward legally enforceable requirements that place direct responsibility on technology companies.

The success of the policy will depend largely on the effectiveness of age verification systems. If implementation is weak, underage users may still find ways to access platforms. If verification measures are too strict, however, concerns about privacy, data security, and accessibility could emerge.

The regulation also signals a growing willingness among governments to intervene in how social media platforms operate. As concerns about online safety continue to rise, Malaysia’s approach may become an important test case for balancing child protection, digital rights, and platform accountability in the years ahead.

With information from Reuters.

South Korea has confirmed plans to develop a new class of nuclear-powered submarines under the Jang Bogo N Project. These will put South Korea in an exclusive class of nations operating nuclear-powered subs, with currently only China, France, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States having them in active service. The move has larger implications than providing the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) with just more capable submarines.

South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) today published a document, the Basic Plan for the Development of Nuclear-Powered Submarines in the Republic of Korea, that sets out its ambition for a major advance in the country’s naval capabilities. The name of the program alludes to South Korea’s first submarine, the Jang Bogo class.

The MND has presented the thinking behind its nuclear-powered sub plans, noting that the vessels will offer “dramatically enhanced operational capabilities” compared to the ROKN’s existing diesel submarines. As well as their functionally unlimited range, the MND says the new nuclear-powered submarines will offer “higher mobility” than their predecessors, which pairs with nuclear submarines’ abilities to travel farther, and do so faster, as well as their underwater agility, at least in certain performance envelope areas.

The ministry also outlines that the new submarines “will play a core role in responding to threats such as North Korea’s submarine-launched nuclear and missile threats.”

“The Republic of Korea will transparently and firmly fulfill its nuclear non-proliferation obligations based on the trust of the international community,” the MND adds.

Clearly, this is a long-term program, with it being Seoul’s first venture into nuclear propulsion for a military application, although it does develop reactors for civilian purposes, which could be leveraged for such work.

The defense ministry expects that the construction process will take up to 10 years, after which the boats will be operated for more than 30 years.

A precise timeline has not been released, and it is also unclear how many hulls are expected to be built.

Back in October last year, TWZ reported on a key milestone toward the program launch, when U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he’d signed off on the plan.

“Our Military Alliance is stronger than ever before and, based on that, I have given them approval to build a Nuclear Powered Submarine, rather than the old fashioned, and far less nimble diesel powered submarines that they have now,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

The U.S. leader also claimed that at least some of the boats would be built in the United States. The MND hasn’t mentioned this possibility, and the wording of its announcement stresses the sovereign nature of the program and local industrial participation. However, with South Korean firms already building ships in Philadelphia and the United States needing more nuclear shipbuilding capacity, this dynamic could also come into play as a result of the Jang Bogo N Project.

Collapse of U.S. shipbuilding poses national and economic security risks | 60 Minutes

Before Trump’s remarks, South Korea had been open about its nuclear-powered submarine ambitions for years. In fact, related discussions date back to at least around 2003.

However, the plans long faced pushback, including from the United States, especially over nuclear proliferation concerns.

The ROKN already operates a sizable diesel-electric submarine force made up of 12 Jang Bogo class boats, nine Sohn Won-yil class submarines, and three Dosan Ahn Changho class vessels — these are also referred to under the Korean Submarine (KSS) nomenclature, being the KSS-I, KSS-II, and KSS-III, respectively.

The Jang Bogo and Sohn Won-yil classes are based on the German Type 209 and Type 214 designs, respectively, while the Dosan Ahn Changho class is a fully South Korean design.

Last year, South Korea also launched the first of three planned Jang Yeongsil class (KSS-III Batch II) submarines, the nation’s largest and most technologically advanced submarine class so far. You can read more about them here.

Whatever Seoul’s plan is for the production of the new boats, it is still possible, indeed likely, that the United States will provide assistance at least in relation to their propulsion systems.

Last year, South Korea’s defense minister said that South Korea would build its own submarines and modular reactors, but would receive a supply of enriched uranium fuel from the United States. Seoul’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), meanwhile, said that the country was already working on developing small nuclear reactors.

This fuel issue is interesting, bearing in mind that one of the hurdles for the program is a bilateral agreement that prevents it from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel without Washington’s approval. Today’s announcement would suggest that the U.S. government has given the program the green light.

When it comes to the nuclear issue, it’s worth noting that, as it now stands, all nations operating nuclear-powered submarines also field nuclear weapons. Already, however, Australia is moving to acquire nuclear-powered submarines through the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement. Canberra has no plans for fielding nuclear weapons.

For South Korea, however, there remains a possibility that it may seek to develop a nuclear deterrent, something South Korean officials have talked about in the past, and that we have discussed on many occasions. The primary driver for this is the fact that neighboring North Korea possesses a ballooning nuclear arsenal and a growing number of delivery systems to convey it. Furthermore, it may now be pursuing its own nuclear-powered submarines with assistance from Russia. The degree to which Moscow is providing assistance is unclear, but it may well be propelling the program forward significantly. There is also the factor that, at least in some cases, the United States is not seen globally as the strategic partner it once was. In a South Korean context, Trump has reportedly talked about pulling some U.S. troops out of South Korea.

As a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), this would also stand in the way of South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons. Indeed, separate from weapons, the process of building enrichment or other nuclear facilities, or otherwise acquiring the highly enriched fissile material to power the submarines, would be an issue for the NPT.

The Jang Bogo N Project is certainly ambitious, and not just in terms of constructing the boats and securing the fuel required for them.

There will also be enormous investments required to develop suitable infrastructure to sustain a fleet of nuclear-powered subs, as well as training personnel in the operational and maintenance of naval reactors.

Beyond that, there is the question about the degree to which Seoul even needs nuclear-powered submarines. South Korea is already developing conventionally-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) that can be fired from some of its more modern diesel submarines. These would already offer a conventional second-strike capability to help deter North Korea. The ranges involved in striking North Korean targets hardly need a launch platform with nuclear propulsion.

At the same time, South Korean diesel-electric submarine technology already outstrips North Korea’s limited anti-submarine warfare capabilities.

South Korea Test Launches Ballistic Missile From Submarine

On the other hand, while South Korea’s new diesel-electric subs offer a conventional quasi-second strike capability, it is not anywhere comparable to a true strategic nuclear second-strike deterrent of the kind that highly survivable nuclear-powered boats could provide, if South Korea one day chooses to go nuclear. Even with just conventional ballistic missiles aboard, the ability of a nuclear submarine to disappear out to sea for long periods is unmatched, which would enhance the survivability of the boats and their missiles, and help the credibility of a far more limited conventional second strike deterrent.

Beyond the North Korean threat, the nuclear-powered submarine program promises boats with extreme endurance and a higher level of underwater performance that can range much farther afield, reflecting Seoul’s growing focus on a broader regional security picture. With this in mind, it’s clear that the Jang Bogo N Project is also directed against the threat posed by China. Beijing’s military capabilities are a growing concern for South Korea, a fact reflected in Seoul looking increasingly toward security challenges beyond the peninsula. 

In an underwater warfare context, China maintains a very large submarine force that includes diesel-electric and nuclear-powered types, and which it continues to expand in both size and capability.

The Chinese government has also previously spoken out against South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarine plans, calling for Seoul and the U.S. “to fulfill their nuclear non-proliferation obligations and do things to promote regional peace and stability, and not the other way around,” according to Reuters.

South Korea’s burgeoning submarine plans underscore how quickly its naval ambitions in general are evolving from coastal defense to a far more capable regional deterrent force, and one that will increasingly be able to undertake long-duration bluewater operations.

With the Jang Bogo N Project now underway, the ROKN can look forward to fielding its most advanced vessels yet. Depending on final plans for the production of these boats, it may well also cement its position as one of the few countries capable of designing and building nuclear-powered vessels. At the very least, it should put yet another piece in place should South Korea decide it needs a true second-strike strategic nuclear deterrent.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Previous World Cup appearances: 16
Best performance: Winners (1966)
First appearance: 1950 (Brazil)
Top goal scorer: Gary Lineker (10)
Most appearances: Peter Shilton (18)
Player to watch: Harry Kane
FIFA world ranking: 4
Fixtures: Croatia (June 17, Dallas), Ghana (June 23, Boston), Panama (June 27, New York)

It has now been 60 years of hurt for England, who lifted their only World Cup title in 1966. But while the Three Lions are certainly genuine contenders this time around, they come into the 2026 edition in a rather unsettled mood.

The Three Lions strolled through their group, becoming the first European team to qualify for the 2026 World Cup as they booked their place with two games to spare.

However, it’s fair to say that it was not the toughest group, and their performances in recent friendlies have drawn boos from fairly unenthused Wembley crowds, not least the defeats to Senegal and Japan.

Can England get a tune out of the likes of Jude Bellingham and Harry Kane? Can the Three Lions find a way back to playing entertaining football? And does coach Thomas Tuchel actually know his best team?

Tuchel gambles on ‘chemistry’

The German manager’s squad selection raised a few eyebrows as several key names were left out amid a few surprise inclusions.

Chelsea’s Cole Palmer and Man City’s Phil Foden, two of England’s most creative players, did not make the cut after disappointing seasons, while Real Madrid’s Trent Alexander-Arnold and Man United’s Harry Maguire also missed out.

Meanwhile, striker Ivan Toney – who plays for Saudi Arabia for Al-Ahli and has barely featured for England under Tuchel – has made the squad, along with some other debatable choices in Tottenham’s Djed Spence, Brentford’s 35-year-old midfielder Jordan Henderson, and Bayer Leverkusen defender Jarell Quansah.

Nine members of the 26-man squad have no previous tournament experience.

Tuchel defended his selections by stressing the importance of unity.

“From day one, we were clear that we are trying to select and build the best possible team, which is not necessarily to select and collect the 26 most talented players,” Tuchel told reporters.

“Teams win championships. It’s as simple as that. Everything I know and hear about international football is that it is about the team and the chemistry.”

Unimpressed fans

England’s previous boss Gareth Southgate had his detractors, namely over in-game decisions and for presiding over some pretty stodgy, risk-averse football at times. But he did take England to the finals of two European Championships, as well as a World Cup semifinal in 2018.

In addition to contending with this record, the former Chelsea and PSG boss Tuchel has also faced criticism over the failure to improve England’s style of play, which is still often marred by slow, sideways passes.

And while it’s logical to experiment, it’s also not clear he really knows his best team, and attempts to play a false nine or two number 10s have not come off.

Nevertheless, there’s no doubt that Tuchel is an elite manager and his solid, well-organised England side won their group with a 100 percent record (eight wins from eight), including tough wins away at Serbia and Albania, and conceded zero goals in the process.

Amid some consternation among the tabloid press over appointing a German to the role, Tuchel would delight in confounding the naysayers by leading the England men’s side to a first major trophy since 1966.

The Kane conundrum

Despite winning the golden boot at the 2018 World Cup, England have often failed to get the best out of their captain and record goalscorer at major tournaments.

By the end of a long season, Kane is frequently struggling for fitness and contending with knocks, and often comes into major tournaments looking off the pace.

However, if England can field a relatively fresh Kane in North America, the 33-year-old should be high on confidence following his best-ever season in front of goal.

Kane has averaged more than a goal a game on his way to scoring 61 times in 51 appearances across all competitions for Bayern Munich, who were crowned Bundesliga champions in April but were defeated by PSG in the Champions League semifinal.

England’s captain also has his country’s World Cup scoring record in sight as he needs just two more strikes to equal Gary Lineker’s record of 10 goals in the tournament.

The battle for number 10

Bellingham is perhaps the most effective out of several talented England number 10s, but the 22-year-old has had a frustrating club season as he has contended with injuries and his side’s frequently poor form, and accordingly, his England appearances have also been sporadic recently.

Aston Villa’s Morgan Rogers may have staked a strong claim to start ahead of him based on appearances under Tuchel and his sparkling club form.

Bellingham can also play further back in midfield, but assuming that Declan Rice and Eliot Anderson are fairly nailed on as holding midfielders, there may not be a space for him there either. So the Real Madrid player may have to initially look to make an impact from the bench.

Have England finally solved their perennial left-back weakness?

England have probably not had a truly world-class left-back since Ashley Cole. However, that may be about to change with the rapid rise of Nico O’Reilly.

The 21-year-old Manchester City player also offers an attacking threat as he has grabbed seven goals and three assists in the Premier League this season, and scored a brace as City won the League Cup final.

While some of these goals have come from midfield, O’Reilly looks to have the defensive skills and positional nous to become a world-class full back – although he’s still a work in progress.

How does their group look?

Group L contains some tricky opponents, and England face a particularly tough opener against 11th-ranked Croatia, who beat England in the 2018 semifinal.

Panama are ranked a perhaps surprisingly high 33rd and beat the United States en route to becoming CONCACAF Nations League runners-up last year.

And while 74th-ranked Ghana are the four-seeded underdogs, they could also pose a stiff test as they boast the likes of Antoine Semenyo and Mohammed Kudus.

England’s group stage match dates and kickoff times:

⚽ June 17: England vs. Croatia (Arlington, Texas, US), 4pm (20:00 GMT)
⚽ June 23: England vs. Ghana (Foxborough, Massachusetts, US), 4pm (20:00 GMT)
⚽ June 27: Panama vs. England (East Rutherford, New Jersey, US), 5pm (21:00 GMT)

Al Jazeera’s prediction

Quarterfinals.

Is it coming home? Probably not, but England still expects.

Full squad

Goalkeepers: Jordan Pickford (Everton), Dean Henderson (Crystal Palace), James Trafford (Man City)

Defenders: Reece ‌James (Chelsea), ‌Ezri Konsa (Aston Villa), Jarell Quansah (Bayer Leverkusen), John Stones (Man City), Marc Guehi (Man City), Dan Burn (Newcastle), Nico O’Reilly (Man City), Djed Spence (Tottenham), Tino Livramento (Newcastle)

Midfielders: Declan Rice (Arsenal), Elliot Anderson (Nottingham Forest), Kobbie Mainoo (Man Utd), Jordan Henderson (Brentford), Morgan Rogers (Aston Villa), Jude Bellingham (Real Madrid), Eberechi Eze (Arsenal)

Forwards: Harry Kane (Bayern Munich), Ivan Toney (Al-Ahli), Ollie Watkins (Aston Villa), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Marcus Rashford (Barcelona), Anthony Gordon (Newcastle), Noni Madueke (Arsenal)

The most recent flare-up of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran yet again highlights that while the future of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions remains at the heart of peace negotiations, the status of the Strait of Hormuz is the key flashpoint. On Tuesday, Tehran vowed retaliation a day after U.S. forces struck several targets in southern Iran on and near the Strait. Exacerbating the problems, another vessel was reportedly attacked near the mouth of the vital waterway on Tuesday.

These incidents are complicating work toward a peace deal amid an increasingly fragile ceasefire. After the start of the war on Feb. 28, the strategic chokepoint was closed to most traffic by Iran, which is now letting some vessels through under a new fee system that the U.S. vehemently rejects. The closure is having global economic impacts.

“Undoubtedly, the Islamic Republic of Iran will not leave any act of mischief unanswered and will not hesitate in defending the country’s integrity,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on X in which it labeled the U.S. strikes on Monday “a gross violation of the ceasefire enacted on April 8. 

The ministry offered no specifics about what actions it could take.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei issued a threat against U.S. allies in the region. Countries like Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Oman and Iraq all house U.S. facilities, many of which have already come under attack during Epic Fury and even after the April 8 ceasefire.

“The hand of time does not turn back, and the nations and lands of the region will no longer serve as shields for American bases,” he stated on X. “America will no longer have a safe haven for mischief and the establishment of military bases in the region.”

The statements were among many from Iran decrying the latest kinetic exchange with America. On Monday, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) told us it hit targets being used to endanger its personnel.

U.S. forces “conducted self-defense strikes in southern Iran… to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces,” Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, CENTCOM’s chief spokesman told TWZ Monday evening. “Targets included missile launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to emplace mines. U.S. Central Command continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire.”

CENTCOM carried out the strikes after Iran deployed mine-laying boats in the Strait of Hormuz and flew attack drones near American ships, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.

The U.S. “observed Iranian forces taking several actions, including launching the drones and activity at missile launch sites,” the newspaper noted.

CENTCOM’s statement followed reports of explosions in the key southern Iranian city of Bandar Abbas, the epicenter of Iranian naval operations around the Strait of Hormuz. It was attacked repeatedly during Operation Epic Fury and again earlier this month after the ceasefire was in place.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) organization reported that the Olympic Life, a Marshal Islands-registered oil tanker, was attacked 60 nautical miles east of Muscat, Oman on Tuesday.

The maritime security firm Ambrey told us the ship was struck by an unknown projectile, which resulted in an explosion on the vessel’s port side along the waterline, creating a discharge of bunker fuel. There were no injuries reported and neither UKMTO nor Ambrey said who launched the projectile.

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish demonstrators stormed a police station in Beit Shemesh, Israel, to protest the arrest of a man who abandoned military service. Israeli police used sound bombs and tear gas to disperse the crowd.

Muhammed Kaumi had just stepped out of the mosque when his phone rang on the evening of Friday, May 29. He had recently returned from Dikwa, a town in Borno State, northeastern Nigeria, and assumed the call was from a relative checking on his journey home. Instead, the voice on the other end delivered news that left him numb.

“Bulama has been killed,” the caller said. “They have killed Bulama.” Muhammed felt his chest tighten. “I instantly felt a sharp pain in my heart,” he recalled.

Bulama Ali was his cousin, a farmer, a father of five, and one of thousands, like him, who have been displaced by the Boko Haram insurgency that has scarred the region for more than a decade.

Within minutes, Muhammed was on his way to the Custom House Internally Displaced Persons’ Camp in Muna, on the outskirts of Maiduguri, where Bulama had lived with his family for nearly a decade.

As he rushed there, questions flooded his mind: “What had happened? Who had killed him? Why?”

When he arrived, residents told him that Bulama had allegedly been beaten by men they identified as “repentant Boko Haram fighters”, locally known as “Hybrids”.

For many residents of Maiduguri, the allegation struck a painful nerve.

For years, former insurgents who surrendered to authorities have passed through government rehabilitation and reintegration programmes such as Operation Safe Corridor and the Borno Model, before returning to civilian communities. However, some have bypassed both interventions completely. 

The Nigerian authorities have involved some of these deserters in security operations, where they help troops with intelligence gathering, their knowledge of terrorist-held terrain, and even operational activities. The arrangement has remained controversial among many survivors of the conflict and among security analysts. 

Now, residents in these communities say their fears have been justified. 

They brought him back dead

Bulama’s final hours began shortly before the Friday Muslim congregational prayers.

Muhammed was told by relatives and eyewitnesses that “[Bulama] was on his way to the mosque on his bicycle when he received a phone call. He stopped by the roadside [close to Muna, on the Maiduguri-Gamboru highway] to answer it.” Behind him was a vehicle carrying armed men dressed in black uniforms. “They honked at him to move,” Muhammed said. “But he was speaking on the phone and did not hear them.”

Abbas Shettima, who witnessed the incident, said the confrontation, which occurred between 1:15 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., quickly escalated. 

“We were all heading to the mosque when we saw them beating him,” Abbas recounted. According to him, the group consisted of about ten men carrying guns and sticks. “They said he was blocking their way,” he said.

Bulama tried to explain. He apologised repeatedly, but his pleas fell on deaf ears. 

“He kept begging them to spare him,” Abbas said. “He crouched down and covered his head with his hands while they beat him.” When bystanders attempted to intervene, the armed men threatened them. Residents watched helplessly. Eventually, the men forced Bulama into their vehicle and drove away.

No one knew where he had been taken.

At the time, witnesses said they believed the group were members of the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) because of their uniforms.

Hours later, shortly after 3 p.m., the vehicle returned. “They brought him back severely wounded,” Abbas recounted. “He could barely move.”

Residents rushed toward him to help, but within ten minutes, he died.

The incident was immediately reported to the soldiers stationed at the camp’s entrance. According to Muhammed, the soldiers said they had seen the vehicle dropping Bulama but did not know what had transpired. “They were the ones who told us the men were Hybrids and that they had come from the Maiwa axis,” he said.

Residents later learned that Bulama had allegedly been taken to Maiwa Kura, a remote village in Mafa Local Government Area, Borno State, where the group was reportedly stationed. 

Although “Hybrids” are often perceived as operating independently, they are typically attached to military formations and work alongside security forces, according to a member of a local volunteer security outfit involved in counterterrorism operations who spoke to HumAngle.

“The commanding officer of the military base gives instructions to the ‘Hybrid’ commander attached to that formation, who then relays orders to his men,” the source explained. “During broader operations involving multiple locations, they also have a state commander from whom they receive directives.”

However, this does not necessarily imply military involvement in the attack that claimed Bulama’s life, as Hybrid patrols sometimes operate independently.

Bulama’s family subsequently reported the matter to the police. 

Muhammed said that soldiers, police officers, and members of the CJTF later travelled to Maiwa, where they arrested three suspects, including a commander. “They told us the others had travelled to Mafa for an operation,” he said.

The suspects were taken into custody and transferred to the Borno State Criminal Investigation Department for further investigation.

According to family members, the suspects claimed Bulama died after jumping from the back of a moving Hilux vehicle. But the relatives remain unconvinced. “The doctors told us he had been severely beaten,” Muhammed said. “His hands were tied, and he had internal bleeding.”

The family retrieved the body on Saturday morning and buried him later that afternoon. When the body was prepared for burial, he said, blood continued to seep from his eyes, ears, and nose. “It stained the white shroud.”

When HumAngle contacted the Borno State Police Public Relations Officer, Nahum Kenneth Daso, he said he was not aware of the case and would make inquiries. As of publication, no official update had been provided.

The men known as ‘Hybrids’

In many communities across Borno State, the word “Hybrid” carries different meanings depending on who defines it. 

To security officials, they are a practical asset in a war that has stretched for more than 15 years. For many residents, they are former terrorists trying to rebuild their lives. To others, especially those who lost relatives, homes, farms, and livelihoods during the conflict, they are a constant reminder of wounds that have never fully healed.

The term is commonly used to describe some former Boko Haram members who surrendered and passed through official rehabilitation and deradicalisation programmes, and later became attached to security operations in various capacities.

Since they possess intimate knowledge of terrorist operations and hierarchy, security agencies have increasingly relied on some of them to help in identifying former colleagues, navigating difficult terrain, and providing information that security forces may otherwise struggle to obtain.

For authorities, the arrangement is often viewed as a necessary component of the counterterrorism campaign. However, many civilians find it deeply unsettling.

That is why, for some residents, the sight of former terrorists carrying weapons or working alongside security forces can be difficult to accept.

Bulama’s death has reopened those anxieties. Yet, the resentment many residents express today did not begin with his killing. It has been building for years.

In August 2021, as thousands of terrorist deserters began surrendering from the Sambisa Forest and the Lake Chad region, the Borno State Government convened a high-level stakeholders’ meeting at the Government House in Maiduguri. Government officials, security agencies, traditional rulers, religious leaders, civil society organisations, journalists, and community representatives gathered to discuss the reintegration of former insurgents into society.

At the end of the meeting, participants agreed in principle to forgive and accept these deserters back into their communities. Their acceptance, however, was not unconditional. The stakeholders insisted that surrendered terrorists must be thoroughly screened before reintegration. They also warned against the release of hardened extremists into the communities. They further called for meaningful reconciliation between victims and former terrorists.

The gathering was widely presented as a collective endorsement of reconciliation.

But beyond the conference hall, acceptance has proved far more complicated.

Many residents who had survived the violence felt they had not been part of that conversation. Some had lost parents, spouses, siblings, and/or children. Others had spent years moving between displacement camps, uncertain whether they would ever return home. For them, forgiveness was not a policy decision that could be reached through consensus among stakeholders. It was an intensely personal choice shaped by trauma, memory, and loss.

“The people making these decisions are not always the people who suffered directly,” Abba Gana told HumAngle.

Over the years, some residents have complained of harassment and intimidation by former terrorists and their families. Others say they simply feel the reintegration process has moved faster than community healing.

The debate became even more sensitive as some former terrorists began assisting security operations. To many survivors, the transformation can be difficult to reconcile: people who once arrived as attackers returning as neighbours and protectors, and in some cases, as men carrying authority.

Some government officials have repeatedly defended the reintegration policy. Recently, General Olufemi Oluyede, the Chief of Defence Staff and chairperson of the Operation Safe Corridor National Steering Committee, likened terrorist deserters to the biblical Prodigal Son, arguing that they deserve rehabilitation because they remain Nigerian citizens. 

Those concerns were further amplified by reports that not all former terrorists were passing through official rehabilitation channels. In 2025, a HumAngle investigation documented allegations that some defectors were quietly leaving the forest and reintegrating into communities without participating in formal deradicalisation programmes, raising questions about screening, accountability, and oversight.

Over the years, several incidents involving terrorist deserters have also contributed to public unease. In April, a former Boko Haram member allegedly shot and killed a CJTF member during an argument in the Mafa LGA. According to reports, the victim was rushed to the hospital but was confirmed dead on arrival, while the suspect was later arrested and handed over to the police.

Two years earlier, some deserters reportedly stormed a police station in Maiduguri in an attempt to secure the release of their colleagues arrested over alleged drug-related offences. In another case that generated public outrage in 2023, a deserter was accused of killing his wife at the outskirts of Maiduguri.

Concerns about the reintegration programme are not new. As far back as 2020, Ali Ndume, the senator representing Borno South Senatorial District, publicly criticised aspects of the government’s amnesty efforts, recounting the case of a deserter whom he alleged killed his father and later absconded with his property. The senator argued that the victims and survivors’ concerns were not receiving the same level of attention as the rehabilitation of the deserters.

Taken individually, the circumstances surrounding these incidents differ significantly from Bulama’s case. Collectively, however, they have helped shape public perceptions of the reintegration programmes and deepened anxieties among some residents about the monitoring, supervision, and accountability of deserters, particularly those involved in security-related activities.

For many survivors of the conflict, such incidents reinforce a lingering fear that rehabilitation alone may not be enough. Bulama’s death has now brought those long-simmering concerns into sharper focus. 

“The community is deciding on an action,” Abbas said.

Residents gathered after Bulama’s burial to discuss possible legal steps. Some suggested pooling money to hire a lawyer. Others proposed approaching human rights organisations.

“We are thinking of contributing money and hiring a lawyer,” Abbas said.

Justice and unfinished wounds

For Muhammed, grief and anger now coexist. His cousin survived displacement and years of uncertainty. He, however, did not survive a short journey to the mosque.

When asked what justice would look like for his family and the displaced community, Muhammed replied, “The law does not play by sentiments; it follows laid-down rules. I hope they will do what is right. If it is by my sentiments, I would not want them to be free. I would want them imprisoned for life.”

He paused.

“I don’t care about compensation. I don’t care about apologies. Justice for me is their imprisonment.”

A family left devastated 

Bulama was only 30 years old. He left behind two wives and five children.

He earned a living as a farmer. And before displacement forced the family from Boboshe in 2016, his father was killed. His elderly mother remains alive and still lives with them at the displacement camp.

The survival of his family, which was Bulama’s responsibility as the breadwinner, hangs uncertainly over relatives, who are also struggling to survive. “We are not rich people,” Muhammed said. “Caring for five children in addition to our own children will be difficult.”

Around the camp where he lived for over a decade, residents gather beneath makeshift shelters to rest, but the conversations about Bulama’s death remain on their lips. 

What remains immediate is his nuclear family, and the space left by a man who left home for Friday prayers and never returned.

The cost to connect each of the U.S. military’s Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) one-way attack drones to space-based networks has risen from $5,000 to $25,000 a month, according to a new report. This is said to be the result of a switch from using the commercial Starlink network to its more secure government-focused cousin Starshield, which SpaceX demanded after extensive use of LUCAS drones in the latest conflict with Iran. The Pentagon has pushed back on the story, but it still highlights how critical SpaceX’s networks and other space services have become across the U.S. government, which TWZ has previously explored in detail.

Reuters first reported on the price increase to connect the datalinks on LUCAS drones to SpaceX’s space-based networks earlier today. The story cites anonymous sources, as well as Pentagon documents the outlet says it reviewed. This follows the recent announcement that the Pentagon is working to make LUCAS more autonomous with new artificial intelligence (AI) driven swarming capabilities, which could impact future connectivity demands.

Produced by SpektreWorks, LUCAS was developed in close cooperation with the U.S. military. It is a reverse-engineered clone of the Iranian-designed Shahed-136 and has a unit cost of around $35,000. The American drone already comes in multiple variations, and there is a related target drone design for use in training and test and evaluation activities. Versions fitted with miniature beyond-line-of-sight satellite datalinks, allowing for dynamic control and for their progress to be otherwise monitored after launch, have been a fixture in official pictures of LUCAS drones in the Middle East.

In the video in the social media post below, the satellite communications terminal can be seen hanging from a cord on a LUCAS drone said to have been recovered largely intact in Iraq.

The U.S. military announced it had begun fielding LUCAS drones operationally last December with a special operations-led task force in the Middle East. LUCAS’s official combat debut came in the opening wave of strikes on Iran on February 28. U.S. Navy Adm. Brad Cooper, head of U.S. Central Command, subsequently described the one-way attackers as an “indispensable” component of that operation, dubbed Epic Fury.

What we know about SpaceX’s reported upcharge for LUCAS

“Within weeks of the United States launching its bombing campaign, SpaceX executives met Pentagon officials and argued ​the military had been paying about $5,000 for connection per terminal while effectively using a higher tier of service worth closer to $25,000,” according to Reuters. “SpaceX argued the ⁠LUCAS drones were operating under conditions that aligned more closely with its aviation tier subscription rather than a lower priced land or mobility service. Pentagon officials argued that the $25,000 price tag – a monthly fee – was designed for aircraft, not kamikaze drones that used Starlink connection for a matter of minutes ​or hours.”

“The Pentagon, which was ramping up strikes on Iran, ultimately agreed to pay SpaceX’s proposed price increase,” Reuters‘ report added.

The story also said this reflected broader “tensions” between the Pentagon and SpaceX that have been growing recently over Starlink fees.

“The Fake News media has the story wrong, again,” top Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell subsequently wrote in a post on X. “The claims in this article are simply not based in reality and do not reflect the close, effective collaboration between our teams.”

When reached for comment by TWZ earlier today before Parnell’s post, the Pentagon did not directly address Reuters‘ report.

“The Department of War is committed to fostering a competitive environment for commercial satellite communications and is conducting comprehensive market research to continuously monitor commercial offerings that align with government requirements,” a Pentagon official told us. “We are actively engaging with industry to identify innovative solutions and new entrants, ensuring acquisitions are inclusive of a diverse range of capable vendors.”

“The Commercial Satellite Communications Office is working on additional options with other proliferated low earth orbit partners as part of its strategy to leverage the unprecedented capabilities provided by the commercial SATCOM industry,” that same official added. “The U.S. Space Force is operating in accordance with the terms and conditions of its contracts.”

TWZ has also reached out to SpaceX for more information.

“It is a violation of commercial Starlink terms of service to use the terminal for weapon systems. This applies to all users and is shut down when discovered,” Elon Musk, who is the founder and CEO of SpaceX among his other endeavors, had written on X on March 1 in response to a post about LUCAS making use of Starlink. “There is a separate network called Starshield, which is operated by the US government. This is not under SpaceX control.”

SpaceX’s networks and the LUCAS cost equation

Though described as a “monthly fee,” Reuters‘ report indicates that the U.S. military pays the $25,000 only once to employ a LUCAS drone. As the piece points out, the Pentagon reportedly argued that it should get to pay the lower $5,000 rate because it was only using the network to support LUCAS in timeframes measured in “minutes ​or hours.” This is also in line with Reuters describing the added cost as effectively approaching doubling the LUCAS drone’s $35,000 unit price.

The entire point of these one-way-attack drones is to offer a lower-cost complement to traditional exquisite long-range strike munitions. The Tomahawk cruise missile, the unit cost of a current-generation version of which is generally said to be in the $2 to $2.5 million range, is often used as a point of comparison, although they are far from equal in many ways. The underlying argument for LUCAS also relies on the drone being relatively cheap and easy to produce, as well as employ in large volumes. TWZ laid all of this out in a detailed case for the Pentagon acquiring exactly these kinds of drones in mass, which we published just three months before LUCAS was confirmed to be in operational service.

A combined price tag of some $60,000 (the unit cost plus one month’s fee to connect to Starshield, as reported by Reuters) would still be far less expensive than the cost of a single Tomahawk. Using Starlink/Starshield terminals to begin with, beyond their connectivity advantages, offers the benefit of miniaturized high-bandwidth hardware that is being produced at a commercial scale.

Plans to make LUCAS more autonomous through the addition of new swarming capabilities could affect future network connectivity requirements for the drones. This will be enabled by the integration of Shield AI’s Hivemind autonomy software, as you can read more about here.

Shield AI flies Hivemind AI Pilot on 6th Aircraft

As TWZ recently wrote:

“For the time being, the U.S. military demands a human operator is ‘in or on the loop’ for kinetic or otherwise potentially deadly actions, as opposed to letting autonomous weapons choose what targets to attack on their own without any extra authorization. While less controversial morally, this can also be a tactical hindrance, slowing the swarm’s potential and adding complexity and vulnerabilities to its operations. The debate around this choice will only get more heated as adversaries bypass this elected restriction in order to get an upper hand in future combat scenarios.”

“As we pointed out in our initial reporting on LUCAS’s emergence, the fact that some of the LUCAS drones already include miniature SATCOM terminals is very noteworthy. After all, ‘human in the loop’ swarming would not be possible without this form of communications at the beyond line-of-sight ranges these drones fly. At the same time, an entire swarm can be controlled in this manner, even if just a handful are equipped with SATCOM terminals. While a swarm can be mesh networked within line-of-sight, it has to relay all the important information back to an operator. By using some of the drones as SATCOM relay nodes, the entire swarm can be controlled remotely from most places on the planet.”

“Regardless, the Hivemind AI pilot will allow appropriately equipped LUCAS drones to perceive their environment, make decisions, and act autonomously without continuous human input. Unlike conventional autopilots tied to fixed flight paths, Hivemind is designed to dynamically adjust mission plans, react to unforeseen conditions, avoid obstacles, and carry out complex tasks with minimal operator oversight.”

An increase in fees to connect individual SATCOM terminals to SpaceX’s networks, as well as cost savings on hardware, might further push the Pentagon toward a hub-and-spoke mesh-like networking arrangement like the one described above. LUCAS drones could also be employed in other contexts where satellite connectivity throughout the course of a mission might not be required, including if used essentially as fire-and-forget missiles aimed at fixed target coordinates. A SATCOM terminal would not be necessary at all for this kind of mission set, although it would be beneficial.

There is also a question about the total bandwidth that might be required to support swarms of LUCAS drones. From Reuters‘ reporting today, the increased load on its networks was a central factor in SpaceX’s demands for higher fees after strikes on Iran began. That being said, as already mentioned, Starlink/Starshield terminals are already designed with relatively high bandwidth use in mind.

These same considerations will apply to current and future programs that rely heavily on SpaceX’s satellite communications networks.

Dependence on SpaceX and U.S. national security

Specific cost figures aside, the LUCAS drone’s reliance on Starlink/Starshield underscores SpaceX’s dominance in the satellite communications market globally. It also highlights how essential the company’s space-based networks have already become for the U.S. military. TWZ explored this reality in detail amid open feuding between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk last year. The relationship between Trump and Musk has since rebounded, with the latter accompanying the President on his recent state visit to China.

Reuters reported today that there are some 10,000 satellites in SpaceX’s constellation supporting Starlink and Starshield, and that this represents more than 60 percent of all satellites currently in orbit. The company’s space-based networks, far and away, dominate the commercial satellite communications space globally. Offerings from competitors like OneWeb and Amazon Leo are more limited in scale and scope.

Watch SpaceX deploy Starlink satellites into space

This is reflected in the U.S. government’s ever-growing use of Starlink/Starshield on aircraft, ships, and in settings on land. This includes integration on some very high-value assets, including the U.S. Marine Corps’ VH-92 Patriot presidential helicopters and U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. There has also been a steadily growing push to use these networks to support tactical operations, as now highlighted by the link to LUCAS. The U.S. military had first demonstrated the ability to use Starlink to transmit targeting data years ago.

The U.S. government’s increasing use of Starlink/Starshield has already prompted operational security questions, even just in the context of supporting day-to-day peacetime operations, as you can read more about here. Starshield is designed to be more secure to help address these concerns for government customers.

At the same time, heavy use of Starlink on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine, including as a means of guiding one-way attackers in the air and at sea, has further underscored potential risks associated with the use of the networks in tactical scenarios. SpaceX and CEO Musk have faced particularly significant criticism in the past over limiting some Ukrainian use of the network. Actions SpaceX took earlier this year to block unregistered Starlink terminals also had major consequences for Russian forces, which were sent scrambling to find alternatives to fill the massive resulting communications gaps.

What SpaceX might have been prepared to do if the Pentagon did not agree to pay increased fees to support LUCAS is unknown. We also do not know what kind of protections are currently baked into U.S. contracts with SpaceX to prevent government users from being suddenly disconnected without warning. Regardless, as noted earlier, the Pentagon could deploy LUCAS swarms with just a handful of drones equipped with terminals to relay the critical info needed to control the rest of the formation, and LUCAS can still be used as a fire-and-forget weapon without any beyond line-of-sight connectivity, although this would greatly curtail its flexibility and, in some cases, its efficacy.

As the Pentagon official noted to TWZ today, there is a push to explore commercial alternatives to Starlink/Starshield and promote further competition in this space. At the same time, part of the attractiveness of Starlink/Starshield for the U.S. government has been the relatively low costs and other benefits associated with leveraging such well-established networks, as well as the knowledge base that comes along with that pedigree. Just today, the U.S. Space Force announced it had finalized a new Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreement with SpaceX, valued at $2.29 billion, for work on the Space Data Network (SDN) Backbone program. The SDN is tied to work on new space-based sensing and targeting capabilities, particularly for missile defense, which could now feed into the Golden Dome initiative.

Beyond satellite communications, SpaceX is reportedly also now a critical player in U.S. military efforts to increasingly move air and ground moving target indicator (AMTI/GMTI) tasks into orbit.

On top of all this, SpaceX is also by far the top provider of space launch services globally, as well as other space-related services, including for the U.S. government. The core elements of Golden Dome, including the sustainment of planned batteries of space-based interceptors, require reliable, routine access to space at a frequency that only SpaceX can provide within budget constraints.

SpaceX looks set to remain a dominant force in this market space worldwide for the foreseeable future, and it continues to expand its presence, driven heavily by commercial demand. The company’s government contracts, though substantial, only account for around a fifth of its annual revenue, according to Reuters.

Despite the Pentagon’s response to the particulars of Reuters’ story today, being so heavily reliant on one provider for critical technologies still raises important questions not just for LUCAS, but for other efforts across the U.S. military that rely on robust and secure satellite communications connectivity.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Jerome Powell says the US central bank is undergoing a ‘stress test’ like other institutions in the current era.

Former US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has warned against the politicisation of monetary policy amid President Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on the independence of the central bank.

In a speech at an awards ceremony in Boston on Sunday, Powell said that the Fed had been undergoing a “stress test” like many other institutions in the Trump era.

Powell said the US Congress had “wisely” chosen to insulate the central bank from political pressure and that all other advanced economies had similar norms upholding the independence of monetary policy.

“These protections have served the public well, and administrations from both parties have respected them,” Powell said after accepting the 2026 John F Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

“If any administration finds a way to remove Fed officials over policy differences, then future administrations will do so as well,” Powell said.

“The public would lose faith that the central bank will make decisions based only on what’s best for all Americans.”

Powell, who stepped down as the head of the central bank last month, said that the Fed’s credibility would be “lost” in such a scenario.

“That credibility enables the Fed to support a strong and stable economy for the benefit of American families and businesses,” he said.

“Our credibility has been built and sustained over many decades, and we have a duty to safeguard that priceless asset for our fellow citizens and for generations to come.”

Powell, who made the usual decision to stay on as one of the seven members of the Fed’s Board of Governors after stepping down as chair, also offered a broader defence of democratic institutions generally.

“Partisan political differences are normal – indeed essential – in a thriving democracy. But we ought to be united in our commitment to the higher principles that define our nation,” Powell said.

“Chief among them is respect for the rule of law. As John Adams wrote, ours is ‘a government of laws and not of men’. Our public institutions carry us forward through change. These institutions embody our commitment to freedom, democracy, and service of the public good.”

While Powell did not mention Trump by name, the US president has waged a sustained pressure campaign against the central bank for not heeding his demands to cut interest rates more sharply.

Trump repeatedly threatened Powell with dismissal during his tenure, while Trump appointee and ally Jeanine Pirro opened a short-lived criminal investigation into Powell’s congressional testimony about ongoing renovation works at the Fed’s headquarters.

Trump also ordered the removal of Fed governor Lisa Cook over unproven claims of mortgage fraud, though the Supreme Court has ruled that she can remain in her position while it considers a legal challenge against her firing.

Under the Federal Reserve Act, the US president must demonstrate “cause”, widely interpreted to mean malfeasance, to remove any of the Federal Reserve’s governors.

The John F Kennedy Profile in Courage Award was created in 1989 to honour those who demonstrate courage in public service without regard to professional or personal consequences.

Past winners of the award, which is named after Kennedy’s Pulitzer-winning book Profiles in Courage, include former US President Barack Obama, then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, and then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The U.S. Navy appears to be preparing to replace its remaining F-5E/F Tiger II adversary jets with F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, continuing the modernization and rationalization of these critical training assets. The Navy’s apparent acknowledgment that even upgraded F-5s are no longer sufficient for top-tier adversary training reflects a broader Pentagon shift toward higher-end platforms in this role.

The House Armed Services Committee released its first draft of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization bill yesterday. Among the many provisions in the defense policy bill is a call for a report “on the status of efforts to transfer F/A-18E/F aircraft to the Navy Reserve to replace the F-5 aircraft.”

The report is to be delivered to the congressional defense committees by March 2027 at the latest.

This seems to be the first confirmation that further Navy adversary units will adopt the F/A-18E/F, the production of which is now ending, with the final deliveries expected next year.

As expected, the report will highlight any potential risk to mission execution, fleet readiness, and pilot and maintainer qualification during the period in which the older F-5s are being transferred and replaced by Super Hornets.

The Secretary of the Navy is also required to inform Congress of how long the transition process will take. This includes acquiring the required support equipment and spares, training for pilots and maintainers, and contracts related to the changeover.

Currently, the Navy has four Fighter Squadron Composite (VFC) squadrons responsible for adversary work.

One of these, VFC-12 “Fighting Omars,” has already transitioned to the F/A-18E/F at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia.

VFC-13 “Saints,” based at NAS Fallon, Nevada, is equipped with surplus, but significantly upgraded F-16C/Ds, having previously flown F-5s.

This leaves two F-5F/N units.

VFC-111 “Sundowners” flies out of NAS Key West, Florida.

Finally, VFC-204 “River Rattlers” is at NAS/Joint Reserve Base New Orleans in Louisiana. VFC-204 converted from the Legacy Hornet to the F-5 relatively recently.

The Navy has made efforts in recent years to enhance its F-5 fleet, under an effort formally known as the Avionics Reconfiguration and Tactical/Modernization for Inventory Standardization program, or ARTEMIS.

This includes new Mk 16 ejection seats, Digital Air Data Computers (DADC), and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) transponders, as well as upgrades to its cockpit, including flat panel displays.

The lead contractor for ARTEMIS is the private U.S. ‘red air’ adversary support company, Tactical Air Support, Inc., or TacAir. The ARTEMIS upgrade package is based on the F-5 Advanced Tiger, or F-5AT, configuration developed by TacAir. This includes Nemesis radar, mission computer, threat weapons engagement zone (WEZ) replication software suite, Argus radar warning receiver (RWR), Mason hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, Garmin wide area display, Scorpion helmet mounted display, open architecture mission system, and datalink, among other enhancements.

Transport of Swiss AF F-5 in a Navy C-130T

The Navy’s 28 single-seat F-5Ns and its pair of two-seat F-5Fs are being brought up to the ARTEMIS standard, as are a batch of 22 ex-Swiss Air Force F-5E/Fs that are being converted into adversary jets. The former Swiss airframes are being divided between the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps and are known as F-5N+/F-5F+s once the work on them is completed.

But even with these enhancements, the F-5s are dated aircraft and are increasingly unsuitable for meeting the Navy’s demand for more advanced red air capabilities.

As we have described in the past:

“At its core, the F-5 is a dated, non-stealthy Cold War-era design, but it still can replicate a wide variety of threats, including some capability aspects of fourth-generation fighters and cruise missiles. F-5s do lack the performance to truly mimic a fourth-generation fighter. At the same time, they offer a valuable dissimilar threat for Navy and Marine aviators to train against, thanks to their relatively small size and agility.”

Where the F-5 does come into its own is in economically helping to generate a greater volume of aerial threats to better represent higher-end large-scale conflict scenarios during exercises, something that is especially important as the U.S. military prepares for a potential major fight in the Pacific against China. The degree to which the F/A-18E/F will be able to meet this requirement will depend on how many airframes are made available for adversary work. This is something that will also have to be weighed up against frontline fleet demands, at a time when there is already a shortage of tactical aircraft. It’s also worth noting that the Blue Angels fly some of the oldest Super Hornets in a special display configuration.

You can read what it’s like to fly Navy F-5 adversary jets in this past feature.

As of April last year, the Navy had 325 single-seat F/A-18Es, 250 two-seat F/A-18Fs in inventory, according to official budget documents. These are the primary workhorses of the service’s carrier air wings, as well as for supporting operations from bases on land. Super Hornets and Growlers have been heavily involved in combat operations in the Middle East in recent years and remain heavily engaged today.

Meanwhile, to help meet the surging demand for adversary support, the Navy and other services have turned more heavily to contractors to help fill in for red air requirements. These include TacAir, with its own F-5ATs.

However, there is no escaping the fact that the Navy, and the U.S. military at large, increasingly requires more advanced adversary capacity, especially as it gears up to fight advanced fourth-generation combat jets, let alone stealthy fifth-generation threats. The U.S. Air Force has responded to this requirement by operating its F-35A stealth fighters as a dedicated red air adversary during high-end training, as you can read about here. That service has since stood up an F-35 adversary squadron, while reducing its reliance on contractor red air services flying dated, third generation types, like the F-5.

The Super Hornet, with its AN/APG-79 — arguably the most mature active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar available — as well as its ATFLIR targeting pods and a radar warning receiver, makes a very capable adversary in training scenarios and a good match for replicating advanced Chinese fourth-generation threats, like the J-16 Flanker. Navy Super Hornets can also carry an advanced infrared search and track (IRST) system, like the Flanker.

When flown in a relatively clean configuration, the F/A-18E/F becomes a more effective adversary, eliminating the drag issues caused by the canted underwing pylons. Even when fitted with wingtip stores and a centerline fuel tank, it offers good aerodynamic and energy-maneuverability performance, allowing it to more closely emulate agile adversary aircraft during dissimilar air combat training. In particular, its well-known slow-speed handling performance makes it a good surrogate for the Flanker family of threats. Clean Super Hornets also have the ability to ‘run down’ fleeing targets much better than an F-5 — one negative about the small third generation fighter going up against fourth- and fifth-generation jets.

Looking further ahead, as the program matures, it is likely that a Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) or an adversary variant will be used for more basic Navy red air tasks and for generating combat mass alongside the F/A-18E/Fs and F-16s. With that in mind, it is worth noting that Anduril’s CCA offering for the Air Force has its roots in an adversary drone, as you can read about here. Still, the Navy is moving a bit slower than the other services when it comes to CCA, but they could use the adversary role to reduce risk, increase trust, and as a gateway for fielding loyal wingman drones with its carrier air wings.

As of 2022, the Navy’s stated plan was to continue flying F-5s in the adversary role at least until 2035. It is unclear if this schedule might now change, but we have approached the service for more details.

There is also the question of what will happen with the Marine F-5s, flown by a pair of Marine Fighter Training Squadrons (VMFT). These are VMFT-401 “Snipers” at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona, and VMFT-402 “Grim Reapers” at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina. These jets are being upgraded with the Red Net system, providing them with a tactical and situational awareness datalink, achieved via a commercially available tablet-kneeboard display.

Ultimately, the Marine F-5s are to be replaced under a program named Adversary Next.

After the latest Marine Aviation Plan (AVPLAN) was released in February, the service told TWZ:

“Planning for Adversary Next is underway and will be detailed in future AVPLANs. Adversary Next is anticipated to be a family of systems that will provide world-class adversary replication to USMC and joint units to prepare for the next fight.”

The latest AVPLAN puts F-5 retirement at 2040-plus.

Until then, the Marines will continue to use their upgraded F-5s, valued above all for their low-cost and highly reliable adversary support. Potentially, they could also bolster their fleet with former Navy examples if the service jettisons them far before the USMC does. Otherwise, Navy F-5s could also find their way to contractor red air providers, once the service retires them.

As for the Navy F-5, it appears that officials are now drawing up plans to finally call time on the iconic jet’s career in the service, one that goes far back in the Navy’s adversary program and the successful operation of Top Gun.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com