TODAY

Northrop Grumman’s experimental XRQ-73 Series Hybrid Electric Propulsion AiRcraft Demonstration (SHEPARD) hybrid-electric drone has now taken to the skies. Newly released pictures show that the flying wing-type uncrewed aircraft’s design has also evolved since it first broke cover in 2024. A core goal of SHEPARD is to prove out high-efficiency and very quiet propulsion technology that could pave the way for new operational capabilities.

DARPA announced the XRQ-73 test flight, which was conducted in April from Edwards Air Force Base in California, in a press release today. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) was also involved in the milestone event.

Scaled Composites, a ‘bleeding edge’ boutique aircraft design house and wholly-owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, has been heavily involved in the development of the XRQ-73. The drone evolved directly from the XRQ-72A, another Scaled Composites design developed for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), which TWZ was first to report on in detail.

“This milestone is not just about a single flight,” Air Force Lt. Col. Clark McGehee, the SHEPARD program manager at DARPA, said in a statement. “The architecture proven by the XRQ-73 paves the way for new types of mission systems and delivered effects. We look forward to advancing this technology through the flight test program and delivering new capabilities for our warfighters.”

“This flight is a step forward in demonstrating the military utility of hybrid-electric propulsion,” DARPA’s press release adds. “Hybrid electric propulsion architectures will drive the development of revolutionary new aircraft designs by offering a combination of fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, and enhanced operational flexibility.”

“Developed to advance propulsion technologies for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Series Hybrid Electric Propulsion AiRcraft Demonstration (SHEPARD) program, the XRQ-73 advances next-generation propulsion for lightweight autonomous aircraft,” Northrop Grumman said in its own brief press release. “The XRQ-73’s innovative hybrid-electric propulsion system combines fuel efficiency, reduced emissions and enhanced operational flexibility – enabling new mission possibilities and supporting the evolution of new aircraft designs.”

DARPA had originally hoped to see the XRQ-73 make its maiden flight before the end of 2024, and what caused the subsequent delay is unknown. TWZ has reached out to DARPA for more information. What is clear is that the XRQ-73’s design has changed in notable ways since 2024.

Most immediately eye-catching is the addition of two vertical stabilizers, one on top of each wing. They are positioned near, but not at the very tips of the wings. It is possible that these might be removed as flight testing expands. The preceding XRQ-72A design also had vertical wingtip stabilizers.

In addition to the two large air intakes on top of the central section of the fuselage, there is now another, much smaller auxiliary dorsal intake in between. Details about the exact configuration of the drone’s hybrid propulsion system remain limited. There are also at least two new black-colored blade antennas on top of the fuselage.

A fairing with what appears to be a forward-facing camera system is also now present at the front of the center of the fuselage. This is likely intended to at least provide visual inputs for control and additional situational awareness during flight testing. The fairing also sits in between two additional rectangular ‘nostril’ intakes. We have noted in the past that they could help cool the hybrid powerplant and the aircraft’s electronics, or help provide additional clean airflow to the powerplant during takeoff and landing.

The XRQ-73’s design looks to be otherwise unchanged. A large, faceted fairing, very likely intended as a sensor enclosure, is notably still present below the central section of the fuselage. Test instrumentation and other systems could also be installed in that space to support the drone’s ongoing development.

DARPA has shared some other information about the design in the past, as TWZ has previously reported:

“No details about the XRQ-73’s expected performance appear to have been released so far, but DARPA says it is a Group 3 uncrewed aerial system (UAS) weighing approximately 1,250 pounds, which will include “operationally representative … mission systems.” By the U.S. military’s definitions, a Group 3 UAS weighs between 55 and 1,320, can fly at altitudes between 3,500 and 18,000 feet, and has a top speed of between 100 and 250 knots.

At 1,250 pounds, the XRQ-73 is set to be substantially larger than the XRQ-72A, the requirements for which called for a drone weighing between 300 and 400 pounds. The XRQ-72A also had a 30-foot wingspan, a length of 11.2 feet measured from the nose to the ends of the wingtips, and a height of four feet when including the vertical wingtip stabilizers, according to schematics The War Zone previously obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.“

What the future might now hold for the XRQ-73 is unclear. DARPA has previously talked about wanting to demonstrate a capability that could be operationalized relatively quickly with SHEPARD. The “RQ” intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) designation is a clear reflection of that, although the drone could be configured to perform other missions. Hybrid-electric propulsion offers inherent advantages when it comes to reducing infrared and acoustic signatures, and the XRQ-73’s overall design has low-observable characteristics that could help it evade detection by radar.

However, a cursory review of DARPA’s proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget does not appear to show a request for new funding for this effort. It is possible that it has been reorganized and/or rebranded, or has otherwise evolved in scale and/or scope, which is not uncommon for DARPA projects.

Last May, AFRL also awarded General Atomics a contract for a very similar-sounding “hybrid-electric propulsion ducted fan next-generation intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance/strike unmanned aerial system,” or GHOST. That deal was valued at just over $99 million.

“We’ve been promising something impressive related to hybrid-electric propulsion, and now I can’t talk about it anymore,” C. Mark Brinkley, a spokesperson for General Atomics, told TWZ at that time when asked for more information. “That’s how it goes with these things. Contrary to what you see on the news, the revolution won’t be televised.”

Other relevant hybrid-electric development efforts could be ongoing in the classified realm.

If nothing else, DARPA’s announcement today does show that work has continued on the XRQ-73 since 2024, and that the evolved design has now reached flight test.

Update: 4:46 PM EST –

DARPA has confirmed to TWZ that XRQ-73 flight testing began in April.

“X-plane programs are designed to push the extreme limits of aerospace engineering, integrating entirely unproven concepts and revolutionary designs,” Air Force Lt. Col. Clark McGehee, the SHEPARD program manager, also told TWZ in response to a question about why the first flight timeline was delayed. “As with the XRQ-73, this effort involved resolving complex, unforeseen technical challenges during ground testing and integration.”

“DARPA will continue maturing the hybrid electric propulsion system through a short flight test campaign currently underway,” Lt. Col. McGehee added.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

South Korea says it is investigating an incident on May 4 when two unidentified objects struck a Korean-operated cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz.
The strike caused a fire and damaged the vessel’s stern.

President Donald Trump has warned that the United States will target any Iranian trying to reach the country’s highly enriched uranium, saying that the nuclear material is under constant surveillance by the US military.

In an interview with the syndicated TV show Full Measure that aired on Sunday, Trump appeared to play down the significance of the uranium, which is believed to be buried under the rubble of nuclear facilities, remaining in Iran for now.

“We’ll get that at some point, whenever we want. We have it surveilled,” Trump said.

“I did a thing called Space Force, and they are watching. If somebody walked in, they can tell you his name, his address, the number of his badge … If anybody got near the place, we will know about it, and we’ll blow them up.”

Iran’s highly enriched uranium is one of the major sticking points between Washington and Tehran in ceasefire negotiations to end the 10-week US-Israel war on Iran.

The US wants Iran to transfer the uranium outside the country and completely shut down its nuclear programme, but Tehran has stressed that it will not give up its right to a domestic enrichment programme.

Several international media reports have said that the uranium remains under nuclear sites that the US bombed in June 2025, but Tehran has not confirmed the location of the nuclear material.

Last month, Trump announced that Iran had agreed to allow Washington to retrieve the uranium and bring it to the US – claims that Tehran quickly dismissed.

Trump told Reuters on April 17 that the US would work with Iran “at a nice leisurely pace, and go down and start excavating with big machinery” to retrieve the uranium stockpile at the sites.

“We’ll bring ⁠it back to the United States,” he added.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei denied Trump’s claim. “Enriched uranium is as sacred to us as Iranian soil and will not be transferred anywhere under any circumstances,” he said.

Iran is estimated to have more than 400kg (882lb) of uranium enriched at 60 percent purity.

Uranium enrichment is a complex process of isolating and garnering the most radioactive variety – isotope – of the element to produce nuclear fuel.

When enriched to around 90 percent purity, uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons.

In 2015, Iran agreed to a multilateral deal that saw Tehran scale back its nuclear programme and cap its uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent under strict international supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.

Trump nixed that agreement – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and started reimposing sanctions on Iran.

In response, Tehran – which denies seeking a nuclear weapon – began to advance its enrichment programme well beyond the limits set by the JCPOA.

Trump has argued that the ongoing conflict with Iran aims to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Asked about the rising oil prices due to the war, Trump said: “We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon because they’re crazy.”

The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol or gasoline in the US has risen to more than $4.50 due to supply issues linked to the Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, fuelling inflation. It was less than $3 before the war.

Despite the truce that came into effect last month, skirmishes have erupted in the Gulf over the past week as the US continues to enforce a siege on Iranian ports amid Tehran’s Hormuz blockade.

Iranian state-affiliated news outlets reported on Sunday that Iran has delivered its response to the latest US proposal to end the war to Pakistan, which is mediating the talks.

But Trump said the war is not over while reiterating his claim that Iran has been “defeated”.

“They are defeated, but that doesn’t mean they’re done,” the US president said. “We could go in for two more weeks and do every single target. We have certain targets that we wanted, and we’ve done probably 70 percent of them, but we have other targets that we could conceivably hit.”

Iran may negotiate on how it uses nuclear facilities, but it will not destroy uranium or allow it to be moved overseas, senior researcher Sultan Al-Khulaifi says.

San Francisco, United States – Greer Dove’s days are packed with studying business and finance, as well as doing administrative work at college, along with caring for her eight-year-old daughter with special needs. But once a week, Dove, a single mother, makes sure to drop in at the food bank in California’s Marin County to pick up vegetables, fruit and other food. Along with the federal government’s food benefits, they keep her housing running.

“We need this so we can keep functioning at a high level,” she says. “She loves fruit, so I make sure to get it,” she says of her daughter.

Dove, who is also looking for a full-time job, has worked in restaurants, event management, retail, television shows, office administration and payroll over the years. But she has been on the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) for six years, and with the food bank, for more than three years. Before she got food benefits, Dove fed her daughter all she had and skipped meals or looked around for snacks in the offices she worked at to get her through the day.

United States President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), passed in June, cut SNAP benefits by more than $186bn over the next 10 years to make up for extending cuts to income tax. This could lead to more than 3 million people nationwide, and 665,000 recipients in California, losing such food benefits, according to estimates.

“This will bring a series of cuts that collectively present an existential threat to food benefits,” says Andrew Cheyne, managing director of government relations and public affairs at the County Welfare Directors Association of California.

California’s proposed billionaire tax, which seeks to impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the assets of the state’s more than 200 billionaires to make up for the funding gap created by the OBBBA, got more than 1.5 million signatures in April. It is likely to be on the ballot for the November midterm election.

While most of the nearly $100bn expected to be raised through the tax will go towards filling the gap in health insurance created by the OBBBA, 10 percent will be used to make up for the retrenchment in food benefits.

In California, where more than 5.3 million people, more than any other state, receive food benefits, the impacts of the cuts began to be felt in April when 72,000 immigrants started losing benefits. June onwards, nearly 600,000 recipients will be screened for work eligibility. Recipients, including those who are homeless, seniors, foster youth and veterans, will have to work, study or volunteer to receive food benefits. Failing the screening to meet work requirements for three months will lead to their food benefits being cut.

Brian Galle, professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley and one of the tax measure’s authors, says that in California, the state that introduced gig work, “jobs are increasingly precarious. You may find enough work or not. You may get tips or not. But nutrition needs are steady.”

Making impossible choices

On a recent Friday morning, new members lined up to enrol at a whitewashed, bunting-festooned La Ofrenda food bank in San Francisco’s Mission district. The food bank doles out fresh vegetables, fruit and bread that have been donated by large grocery stores once those products neared expiration date.

Gladys Lee had taken a 45-minute train ride after a friend told her about it. Lee worked at downtown San Francisco’s Hyatt hotel as a room cleaner for three decades until a back injury meant she could not push the heavy cleaning carts any more and had to leave. After seven years of struggling to find work, food was getting scarce, and Lee found her way to La Ofrenda. She packed what she could into a carton and held it in her arms for the train ride back.

Food benefit rolls have shrunk by more than 3.3 million nationally in the six months from July 2025, when the OBBBA was enacted, to January 2026.

In California, the rolls of Calfresh, as food benefits are known in the state, shrank by 288,000 or 6 percent from July 2025 to February 2026, according to analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, DC-based think tank. This reduction in rolls happened even before the OBBBA cuts began.

Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, wrote in a recent essay that the shrinking of SNAP rolls reflected an ebullient economy and buoyant job growth.

“The drop in SNAP recipients affirms that many Americans are moving from welfare to work,” she wrote. “It is no secret that Trump’s massive tax cuts and deregulation efforts are unleashing robust, private sector-led economic growth, which are fueling trillions in investments, booming wage growth”.

But unemployment remained stable at about 4.4 percent since July 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, while SNAP rolls shrank.

“This last time we saw such a steep, quick decline, other than during natural disasters, is three decades ago when welfare reform was enacted,” says Dottie Rosenbaum, senior fellow and director of  Federal SNAP Policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Nationally, SNAP rolls shrank by 8 percent, while in California, they shrank by 5.5 percent, in part because the work eligibility requirements were delayed until June, while some other states have already implemented them.

At La Ofrenda, Roberto Alfaro, executive director of the nonprofit Homey, says he started the food bank when food costs went up during the pandemic. They have stayed high, he says. Now he sees people doing day jobs and night jobs and coming for food when they have paid rent.

“People are making impossible choices,” says Keely O’Brien, a policy advocate at the Western Center for Law and Poverty.

While California is the world’s fourth-largest economy, growth has come with a soaring cost-of-living crisis.

“With rising housing and utility costs, few households can dedicate that much of their income towards food,” O’Brien says.

The OBBA has also shifted the administrative cost of meeting work eligibility requirements to states, and beginning next year, part of the cost of SNAP will also fall on states.

“To make requirements more stringent, you are creating more government, more bureaucratic logjam,” says Jaren Sorkow, state director for the Children’s Defence Fund.

This has already led to a 51 percent drop in SNAP rolls in Arizona, which has begun implementing the OBBBA cuts, according to data by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Making something from nothing

Several measures to counter the $100bn gap in funding for health insurance and food benefits created by the OBBBA have been floated in California. The biggest of these is the one-time 5 percent tax on those with assets of more than a billion dollars. The tax will raise $100bn, its authors estimate.

As it seems set to be voted on in the November election, it faces mounting opposition from the state’s tech entrepreneurs who have funded measures to undercut the tax.

Tech entrepreneurs have called it an economic 9/11, saying taxing their assets, including shareholding in startups, will lead to a flight of capital and innovation from the state. Sergey Brin, a cofounder of Google Inc, now spends a week in Nevada and a week in his Bay Area offices and has spent more than $57m on opposing the billionaire tax. He has backed two measures that undercut the billion tax, which have also received 1.4 million and 1.5 million signatures and are also set to be on the ballot for the November election.

One of these measures prohibits future taxes on personal property, including financial assets, savings and retirement accounts, as well as intellectual property. The other would increase audits of taxpayer-funded programmes, and includes language that would essentially invalidate the billionaire tax.

In a recent statement to The New York Times, Brin said, “I fled socialism with my family in 1979 and know the devastating, oppressive society it created in the Soviet Union. I don’t want California to end up in the same place.”

The coalition of unions backing the billionaire tax is bracing for the fight ahead. “We expect to be outspent,” says Kris Cuaresma-Primm, director of partnerships for the coalition that is backing the billionaire tax. “We will keep communicating to people that there is a tidal wave of pain coming from the cuts, and we want to reclaim the losses from the OBBBA.”

Giulia Varaschin, senior tax policy adviser at the International Tax Observatory, who recently coauthored a study on wealth taxes, says there is little academic evidence that such taxes cause the wealthy to leave at a notable scale. “There is only a marginal flight with very little, if any, economic impact,” she says.

The study, coauthored with the economist Gabriel Zucman, who supports the California billionaire tax, did find that wealth taxes had not raised as much revenue as estimated in several European countries and became less popular as a result.

Varaschin says this was because these taxes were levied on a larger set of the wealthy, which included homeowners or small businesses, rather than the ultra-rich or billionaires. The taxpayers could hardly afford to pay it, and the government made exemptions instead. These taxes also did not touch assets, where much of the wealth of the ultra-rich lies, Varaschin says.

The California tax remedies this by taxing only billionaires and taxing assets, including shares in companies.

Daniel Shaviro, Wayne Perry professor of taxation at New York University, says, “Traditionally, these taxes can be hard to enforce because tax administration don’t want to go after these people.”

Even if it passes, “The governor could just say this is not a high priority for him and not enforce it,” Shaviro says, referring to Governor Gavin Newsom, who has opposed the tax.

But Primm says, “The governor is out of touch with Californians on this”.

Newsom is in the last year of his last term as governor. However, nearly all the candidates running for the June 2 primary for governor, except billionaire Tom Steyer, who is running as a progressive Democrat, also oppose this measure. While some have said this will lead to a flight of capital, others say the spending plan does not include expenses for education, which was not cut in the OBBBA.

Greer Dove, who gets food through Calfresh and the San Francisco Marin Food Bank for herself and her daughter, says the looming food benefit cuts are worrying. “The anxiety of it all is adding up. I could be next.”

HumAngle Media, a Pan-African publication covering conflict, humanitarian, and development issues, held an X Spaces on Saturday, May 9, to discuss ethical dilemmas surrounding financial assistance to vulnerable sources, especially for journalists reporting from conflict zones and areas affected by humanitarian crises. 

The conversation was inspired by a recent HumAngle analysis examining the issue. Ahmad Salkida, HumAngle’s Editor-in-Chief and a veteran journalist who authored the article, argued that “in theory, [journalism] is expected to observe some emotional distance from its sources and the stories they tell. However, that model is inoperable in conflict-affected regions of northern Nigeria and the Sahel.” 

The article sparked widespread debate, particularly among journalists and media educators. While some argued that reporters should remain strictly bound by professional ethics, others contended that it is difficult not to extend a helping hand, especially when the source is struggling with basic needs like food and water. 

Hauwa Shaffii Nuhu, HumAngle’s Managing Editor, who moderated the X Spaces, opened the conversation with the story of Kevin Carter, a South African journalist who died by suicide three and a half months after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. The award-winning image showed a visibly malnourished child in Sudan who collapsed to the ground while a vulture lurked in the background. 

In his suicide note, Kevin said, “I am haunted by the vivid memories … of starving or wounded children”. Hauwa noted that Kevin’s experience shows that the conversation about offering support to vulnerable sources in conflict-affected or humanitarian crisis-hit regions has serious emotional and ethical real-world consequences. 

The conversation was enriched with insights from other speakers, including Lami Sadiq, a data and investigative journalist; Daniel Ojukwu, an investigative journalist with Foundation for Investigative Journalism; and Ibrahim Adeyemi, HumAngle’s Investigations Editor. 

The speakers shared instances in which they felt compelled to offer bags of water, food, and sometimes money to people who were evidently struggling. They agreed that being a journalist does not excuse one from basic human decency and empathy.

Lami stressed that it is important to distinguish between support offered out of humanity and responsibilities carried out in a professional journalistic capacity. She emphasised that when the source outrightly demands payment at the start of an interview, journalists should not only not pay the source but also seek other sources to replace them, to maintain credibility.

“It makes everything transactional, and that affects the credibility of the journalists and the report in question,” she said. 

While it is sometimes difficult to deal with sources who are used to getting humanitarian aid in exchange for information, Lami said journalists must stand their ground and use other sources, especially if the issues to be reported are not exclusive.

Hauwa emphasised that helping vulnerable sources to understand that telling their story is in their best interest will help address issues such as financial compensation, especially when dealing with sources who can be very demanding. 

While speaking on the risks of financially supporting sources, Daniel urged journalists to be mindful of directly supporting sources, as doing so might incriminate them if the sources are later engaged or are linked to criminal networks. 

“If a source you once offered money to is later linked with criminal activity, it could look really bad on you. In Nigeria, you might even be dubbed a terrorist financier when all you are doing is your job as a journalist. We have seen this happen many times in Nigeria,” he said. 

Daniel added, “When I interact with sources or with fixers, I have to profile everyone I’m interacting with. Sometimes, I have to withdraw from sources or fixers because of the manner in which they approach matters.”

While paying for information remains unethical in principle, there are distinct instances in which journalists say they must step in to provide financial aid. 

Drawing on his field experience, Ibrahim recounted a time when he had to assist a source in taking her child to the hospital due to a medical emergency. He paid for the medical bills, and when the doctor said the child might have died if they had shown up an hour later, Ibrahim said he was glad he had helped. 

“Acting first as a human is at the core of humanitarian journalism,” Ibrahim stated. 

However, he stressed that moments requiring urgent humanitarian intervention should not blur ethical boundaries in reporting. Ibrahim further called on editors to educate reporters on the challenges they might face when dealing with sources who require monetary compensation for information. 

“They [reporters] should always look for ethical alternatives rather than compromising their standards just to get the stories,” he said. 

The speakers also urged journalists to be mindful when dealing with displaced persons or vulnerable communities, as they may exaggerate their situation to generate sympathy, believing it might lead to aid. For journalists, this makes verification especially important, even in highly emotional reporting environments.

That same need to maintain professional boundaries also came up in discussions about interviewing experts. Daniel, when asked whether experts should be paid for granting interviews, stated: “Never do so.” Instead, he stressed that building rapport with experts before they are needed helps address such issues. 

As Russia held its most scaled-back Victory Day parade in years with Vladimir Putin suggesting the war on Ukraine is ‘coming to an end’, Theresa Fallon argues Volodymyr Zelenskyy has played a bad hand of cards very well in order to gain momentum against Moscow.

Caught between rising inflation and slowing growth, the United States Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England are keeping interest rates and borrowing costs steady.

That’s despite rising energy bills, fuel and food costs squeezing businesses and households worldwide.

The International Monetary Fund is warning of a global slowdown, and no one knows how long the energy shock set off by the US-Israel war on Iran will last.

The impact will be felt hardest in emerging markets and developing nations. Central banks face a tough choice: fight rising prices or support a weakening economy.

Adelmo Becerra is a Venezuelan trade union representative from the National Institute for Training and Socialist Education (INCES) and also a member of David Hernández Oduber Revolutionary Current (CREDAHO). In the past, he worked as an instructor at INCES and as a worker in the steel industry in Ciudad Guayana. In this interview, Becerra discusses the Venezuelan government’s recent labor policies under US sanctions, the growing labor reform prospects, and the present struggles and challenges facing the working class.

On May 1, the Venezuelan government raised non-wage bonuses while maintaining the minimum wage frozen. What was your reaction to these announcements? How do you place them in the context of recent labor policies in Venezuela?

The announcements represent a continuity of the labor policies of recent years. There had been expectations for restoration of the minimum wage in the short term. According to Article 91 of the Constitution, it must be adjusted once a year. Naturally, it would be a partial and limited restoration. But it is important to place the announcements in the context of various processes currently unfolding in the labor sphere.

In Venezuela, the Social Dialogue Forum, a body coordinated by the International Labour Organization (ILO), has been in place since 2021. Several trade union federations participate in this forum, including the Independent Trade Union Alliance of Venezuela (ASI), to which the INCES union belongs, the Venezuelan Workers’ Confederation (CTV), the Bolivarian Socialist Workers’ Federation (CBST), as well as government representatives. The Social Dialogue Forum is not binding, but Venezuela has ratified conventions, including Convention 26, which establishes consultations with trade union organizations for setting the minimum wage. However, a mechanism for establishing it has not yet been agreed upon.

At the same time, the government led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has established the National Dialogue for Labor Consensus, which includes the CTV, ASI, and CBST labor federations, along with representatives from business associations FEDECÁMARAS and FEDEINDUSTRIA, and government officials.

Then there is the struggle on the streets that has unfolded in the country in recent years. I would single out the August 2018 Program for Growth, Recovery, and Economic Prosperity as a starting point. This program produced two instruments that have denied wage and labor rights established in collective bargaining agreements, even disregarding the Constitution and labor legislation. I am referring to Memorandum 2792, from October 2018, which sets out the broad guidelines regarding the suspension of collective bargaining rights. And then there is the 2021 ONAPRE Directive, which addresses its specific application. Both instruments remain in force, and their repeal has been a constant demand in the workers’ struggles.

So, back to May 1, there was no restoration of the minimum wage. However, the announcements stem from agreements reached at the National Dialogue for Labor Consensus. And the signed minutes refer to a “wage consultation process” that will begin in May. This indicates that the issue of the minimum wage is far from settled. Similarly, the agreements “urge” the private sector to establish this same US $240 income floor, specifying that it may be through “non-wage bonuses,” although in reality there are no mechanisms to enforce it.

But the minimum wage is not an isolated issue. We have heard spokespersons from both the government and the private sector speak of labor reform. Just in recent days, in a meeting of the Social Dialogue Forum, one of the agreements was to “coordinate consultations of labor-related laws with the National Assembly.”

Let us take a closer look at the issue of bonuses versus wages. What are the consequences of this “bonus-ization” policy?

The main impact is on workers’ entitlements, specifically in the form of social benefits. These benefits accumulate over the course of the employment relationship, and their primary function is to recognize seniority so that it can be taken into account when paying out benefits.

But there is also another concept: retroactivity. This means that benefits are paid based on the final salary. Thus, when an employment relationship ends at a private company, the benefits paid as compensation are calculated based on the final wage and the duration of the employment. The same applies to those retiring from the public sector, or from a private company that offers a retirement plan –which is very rare in Venezuela.

This issue is very important because it has been at the center of the historical Venezuelan working-class struggles following the oil-led industrialization and the 1936 Labor Law. Social benefits allowed Venezuelan families to have assets, purchase homes or other property, and also served as a safety net in contexts of unemployment or economic crisis. This safety net no longer exists today because the minimum wage has been effectively eliminated.

Then there are other important factors, such as social security contributions, which fund the Venezuelan Social Security Institute (IVSS). This is a universal solidarity-based system in which both employers and employees contribute, and it serves as the economic foundation for old-age pensions and other IVSS social support initiatives, such as in healthcare. So, this system is also in crisis because contributions are computed based on wages.

The result is that for the private sector, both social security contributions and severance pay are practically free right now, and that in turn affects job stability.

Speaking specifically about INCES, which is a state-run training institute, what is the current employment situation like? Do the staff work full-time?

According to data recently provided to us by the authorities, there are approximately 11,500 people on the payroll, 6,800 of them active workers, and the rest are retirees. The vast majority receive only the “economic war” and bonuses, now set at $200 and $40 a month, respectively. Through our collective bargaining agreement, retirees also receive the food bonus, which is not the case in general in the public sector.

In recent years, as a union, we have held discussions with INCES authorities and the Ministry of Labor –which oversees the institute –to ease the requirement that people come to work every day while we try to secure better conditions. Simply put, if their income isn’t enough, they should have the option of trying to find a second or third job. With the recent increases in bonuses, the authorities are putting more pressure on workers to return to full-time work, but it’s complicated.

We are still in that struggle to improve conditions, even though we have not even been able to make progress on a memorandum of understanding to improve the socioeconomic clauses of the current collective bargaining agreement. But that’s the priority.

Turning now to the private sector, you have participated in the Observatory for Labor Dignity, which has investigated current working conditions in Venezuela. In general terms, why the focus on the private sector? And what is the reality of that world?

The first reason is that unionization rates in the private sector have historically always been very low in our country. At its peak, in the 1970s, it reached 30%, and today it is likely below 15% –and that is being optimistic. We must take into account the massive migration of recent years. It is a very low unionization rate, and in sectors such as retail or services, there are practically no unions.

Consequently, the level of job insecurity and vulnerability is much higher, especially given the government’s policy of restraining official workplace inspections based on tacit agreements with the private sector under the pretext of “promoting employment.”

One issue that came up repeatedly was the lack of maternity protection which was one of the advances of the 2012 Labor Law. Right now, in the companies we investigated, such as [department store chain] Traki or [textile distributor] El Castillo, no woman wants to get pregnant because that would mean immediately losing their job. Not only that, but it would also make it impossible to get a reference letter or a recommendation for another job.

It is important to stress that the approach to undermine or marginalize collective bargaining agreements was not limited to the public sector. The private sector also adopted it. Under the guise of “protecting jobs”–claiming that companies would go bankrupt otherwise –many employers sent workers home on minimum wage, with some being called back to work at the employer’s discretion.

Given the context of crisis and precariousness, under US economic sanctions, that has persisted for several years now, is the impact on workers’ awareness noticeable?

Indeed, there is a very acute lack of awareness regarding labor rights. The new generation of workers is entering the workforce with virtually no knowledge of the rights they hold by law, in part because they have never had access to them.

So, issues like employment contracts, pay stubs, or even working hours themselves are a problem. It is very common to have 10, 12, or even 14-hour workdays, or for the two days off per week not to be upheld. At Traki, this is usually respected, although the two days are not necessarily consecutive. In El Castillo, the average is one and a half days. In El Castillo, there is also a practice of having workers sign their contract and a resignation letter at the same time, which is obviously illegal.

Another characteristic is high turnover. Fixed-term contracts have become the norm. Although after several contracts the law grants the right to continued employment, this is practically nonexistent. The vast majority of people move around a great deal between jobs. This is, of course, made possible by the fact that benefits are nearly non-existent and it is extremely cheap to dismiss a worker, which in turn keeps people in a much more precarious situation.

But there is an important factor to consider: the shift in subjectivity –and this, of course, is not a phenomenon unique to Venezuela. A few days ago, I watched an interview with a North American researcher who found that for young people in the US a job at Starbucks seems like a good opportunity –better than average. Here, in some of the testimonies we collected, young people expressed satisfaction with working at the Traki department stores. They earn some $250 a month, work 9- or 10-hour shifts –while conditions elsewhere are worse –have two days off a week, and would like to stay there. Therefore, the notion of work with rights has also eroded. Issues like overtime pay, not to mention social security, become irrelevant due to the precariousness of the present. The employment relationship, which includes rights and mechanisms to protect them, is beginning to be viewed simply as a commercial transaction.

Labor reform talks are underway. Government spokespeople talk about “updating” the law following the impact of US sanctions, while private sector spokespeople are also voicing their demands. What is currently at stake?

I think there are several aspects to consider. We are clearly witnessing an aggressive campaign being waged by the media, along with well-known economists and influencers, to impose a narrative that any wage increase will cause inflation. As such, the only way to raise wages is to reduce employers’ responsibilities and eliminate the retroactive nature of labor benefits.

The 2012 Labor Law reinstated the calculation of benefits based on the last salary. This had been modified, amid much controversy, during the Caldera administration in the 1990s. Still, unlike proposals we see now, retroactivity was not completely eliminated. There is a proposal to let workers choose between receiving benefits immediately or accumulating them, which completely distorts the concept and takes advantage of current economic difficulties. If wages are insufficient, workers obviously prefer to collect as much as they can right away. Even if the current $240 minimum income was turned into salaries, this would represent less than 50% of the food basket for a family, according to different estimates.

I believe it is essential to reject the narrative promoted by groups like Fedecámaras, to reject the premise that we must give up our rights and historic achievements because there are no conditions to sustain them. For starters, there is a lack of transparency and information. We do not even have reliable information on the size of the economically active population. The last census was in 2011, and following the massive migration over the past decade, we do not know what the current picture looks like.

According to 2021 data from the National Institute of Statistics (INE), there were roughly 4 million workers in the formal private sector, just over 3 million in the public sector, and around 5 million pensioners. Therefore, with that precise data, and with transparent information on revenues, it would be possible to quantify whether or not there are resources. Because GDP was heavily hit by the US blockade but has been growing—according to the Central Bank, for 20 consecutive quarters –but the last adjustment to the minimum wage, to $30 per month, was in March 2022.

Another piece of data we lack is the distribution of surpluses among the workforce, private capital, and the state. According to research by former Minister Víctor Álvarez, the labor share reached 40% by 2010. Currently, according to estimates by researcher Carlos Dürich, that figure may be around 20%, which is what is typically observed in African countries with high levels of poverty and inequality.

We need all that data if we want to discuss what is possible or not, and how the wealth that is generated will be distributed. This is especially true in this context, where, outrageously, the US controls Venezuela’s oil sales. Now the Central Bank will be subject to external auditing, but the public still lacks information. So there is a second layer of opacity there.

In summary, under the present conditions, with an unfavorable correlation of forces and foreign control over the Venezuelan economy, it is not possible to restore the minimum wage and have it cover living costs, as established in Article 91 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, economists and trade union federations have argued that there are conditions for a partial restoration.

In this complex context, both domestically and internationally, what is the path forward for the workers’ struggle in the country?

For me, there is one fundamental factor –one that has been evident in recent years –and that is social pressure. Workers are the only force that has exerted pressure on the government, and to some extent on the private sector as well, particularly since 2022. In 2023, the government placated the protests by introducing the “economic war” bonus. The minimum wage had been devalued to $5 at the beginning of the year, and 15 days later the government set the bonus at $25, and then in May at $70. Even if it happens through non-wage bonuses, it is a struggle with the bourgeoisie over the country’s income.

The May 1 increase, again via bonuses, is also a response to pressure from the streets. We will now see what happens with the wage consultations and labor reform plans. The challenge is to sustain the actions and protests over time. But that sustainability depends on unity.

And what are the challenges to building unity around the labor agenda? A few weeks ago, we witnessed an absurd demonstration by certain union factions asking for support at the US Embassy.

Precisely. On May 1, there was a unified demonstration that likely drew 3,000 to 4,000 people in Caracas, along with smaller marches in other parts of the country. Various labor federations were present, ranging from the more left-wing ones like the CUTV to those social-democratic or Christian-democratic like the CTV or ASI.

On March 12, we also had a united mobilization, but since then the forces have split. And that weakens us because it reduces our impact; the business leaders rub their hands together.

This division has partly to do with issues of leadership and protagonism, and with the fact that not all federations understand that we must play on two chessboards at this moment: on one hand, the negotiating tables, and on the other, applying pressure in the streets.

But the division is also due to a particular factor: a group called the Coalición Sindical, whose main focus is not so much labor or wages, but politics. It serves as the vehicle within the labor movement for María Corina Machado’s political faction, which is obviously trying to capitalize on labor issues for its own agenda. This group has no interest in joint actions to secure better conditions –even if only partial –for the working class; rather, its priority is to stoke conflict.

That is why we see actions such as demonstrations in front of the US Embassy, calling on Trump to intervene. But right now, the priority for the US is stability, so it can advance its energy and mining interests. It views social pressure as something the Venezuelan government must handle on its own.

In short, it is essential at this moment to have a united force with a specific agenda: to fight for the restoration of wages, for the reopening of collective bargaining negotiations, for the release of unjustly imprisoned workers and trade unionists, and to defend labor rights against regressive reform efforts.

More than 30 Global Sumud Flotilla vessels have reached Marmaris on Turkiye’s coast, preparing for the final leg of their mission to break Israel’s siege of Gaza. At the end of April, Israel intercepted 22 boats off Greece and detained activists.

The cruise ship hit by a deadly hantavirus outbreak has arrived near the Port of Granadilla in Tenerife in the Canary Islands.

The Dutch-flagged MV Hondius arrived at the Spanish port early on Sunday, escorted by a Civil Guard vessel, according to data from the maritime tracking service VesselFinder.

The ship had left for Tenerife on Wednesday from the coast of Cape Verde after the World Health Organization (WHO) and European Union asked Spain to manage the evacuation of its passengers after the hantavirus outbreak was detected.

The WHO said on Friday that at least eight people on the ship had fallen ill, including three who died – a Dutch couple and a German national. Six of these people are confirmed to have contracted the virus with another two suspected cases, the WHO said.

All passengers on the luxury cruise ship are being considered high-risk contacts as a precautionary measure, Europe’s public health agency said late on Saturday as part of its rapid scientific advice.

In Tenerife, the passengers will be tested by Spanish health authorities to ensure they remain asymptomatic and will then be transported to land in small boats, according to Spanish officials.

Sealed-off buses will take the passengers to the Spanish island’s main airport about 10 minutes away, where they will board planes heading to their respective countries.

The evacuation is expected to begin between 7:30am and 8:30am (06:30 and 07:00 GMT), according to Spanish authorities.

Spanish nationals are set to disembark first with other nationalities to follow in groups, government officials said. Thirty crew members will remain on board and will sail to the Netherlands, where the ship will be disinfected.

‘This is not another Covid’

Hantavirus is usually spread by rodents but can in rare cases be transmitted person to person.

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus arrived on Saturday evening in Tenerife with Spain’s interior and health ministers and its minister for territorial policy to coordinate the arrival of the ship.

He gave people in Tenerife assurances and thanked them for their solidarity.

“I need you to hear me clearly,” Tedros wrote in an open letter to the people of Tenerife on Saturday: “This is not another Covid.”

WHO’s epidemic and pandemic preparedness and prevention director, Maria Van Kerkhove, said that while everybody on board will be classified as “a high-risk contact”, the risk to the general public and the people of the Canaries remained low.

In the city of Granadilla de Abona early on Sunday, life appeared largely normal. Some people were swimming, others shopping at the market or sitting at cafe terraces.

“There are worries there could be a danger, but honestly, I don’t see people being very concerned,” David Parada, a lottery vendor, told the AFP news agency.

Tracking and tracing around the world

The MV Hondius left Ushuaia, Argentina, on April 1 for a cruise across the Atlantic Ocean to Cape Verde.

Argentinian provincial health official Juan Petrina said there was an “almost zero chance” the Dutch man linked to the outbreak contracted the disease in Ushuaia based on the virus’s incubation period, among other factors.

Health authorities in several countries have been tracking passengers who had already disembarked and anyone who may have come into contact with them.

A flight attendant on the Dutch airline KLM, who came into contact with an infected passenger from the cruise ship and later showed mild symptoms, tested negative for the hantavirus, the WHO said on Friday.

The passenger, the wife of the first person to die in the outbreak, had briefly been on a plane bound from Johannesburg to the Netherlands on April 25 but was removed before takeoff. She died the following day in a Johannesburg hospital.

Spanish authorities said a woman on that flight was also being tested for the hantavirus after having developed symptoms at home in eastern Spain. She is in isolation in hospital, Secretary of State for Health Javier Padilla said.

Two Singapore residents who had been on the ship tested negative for the disease but will remain in quarantine, the city-state’s authorities said on Friday.

British health authorities also said on Friday that there was a suspected case on Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic, one of the world’s most isolated settlements with about 220 residents. The MV Hondius had stopped there on April15.

Daniel Dubois recovered from two knockdowns to win a second world heavyweight title with a stoppage of Fabio Wardley.

Daniel Dubois ⁠came back from two ⁠knockdowns to deal Fabio Wardley a brutal and bloody first defeat as a professional and take the WBO heavyweight title in a thunderous all-British clash in Manchester, United Kingdom.

Referee ⁠Howard Foster finally stepped in at the start of the 11th round to signal the end of the fight at the Co-Op Live Arena on Saturday. Wardley was bleeding heavily from the bridge of the nose, with his right ⁠eye almost closed .

Dubois rose twice from the canvas, including being dropped by a right hook in the first 10 seconds of the fight, to pulverise Wardley and become a world heavyweight champion for the second time in his career.

“It was a war. We came through the sticky moments. Thank you Fabio for that,” ‌said Dubois, who was previously IBF champion after the belt was vacated by Oleksandr Usyk in 2024, with the Ukrainian winning it back in July 2025.

“What a great fight. What a great battle, man”.

The win was Dubois’s 23rd as a professional in 26 fights while Wardley now has a 20-1-1 record.

Veteran promoter Frank Warren, who manages both men, said it was the best heavyweight fight he had ever put on and confirmed there was a rematch clause in the contract.

For ⁠some viewers, however, it was also an uncomfortable watch that could have ⁠been stopped earlier.

The 31-year-old Wardley, who was promoted to WBO champion last November after Usyk vacated the title, was making his first defence and showed immense heart as he took a tremendous beating yet refused to capitulate.

He had his opponent ⁠on the floor, a blow Dubois, 28, later dismissed as a ‘flash knockdown’, almost with the opening bell still sounding.

Dubois was back on one knee in ⁠round three but came close to a stoppage in the ⁠sixth with the reigning champion bleeding heavily and on the ropes.

The Londoner continued to land blow after blow on Wardley, who wobbled but refused to give up.

His corner inspected the facial wounds after the eighth and doctors and the referee took a ‌look in rounds nine and 10 but still the fight continued, with Wardley increasingly struggling to stay on his feet and fighting on instinct.

“You witnessed something special tonight,” Warren told the BBC. “Two men baring ‌their ‌hearts and souls in the ring, gave everything, didn’t leave one bit outside the ring.

“They were getting hit with bombs that would take people out and they stood it.”

A Frontier Airlines plane has hit and killed a person at Denver’s international airport, prompting the evacuation of passengers. Authorities say the man jumped a perimeter fence and ran in front of the plane as it was taking off to Los Angeles.

The U.S. government has released 162 declassified videos, pictures, and documents regarding so-called unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), which are also still commonly referred to as unidentified flying objects (UFO). The records span in date from the 1940s to the 2020s, come from multiple agencies, and include materials related to claimed UAP sightings at home, abroad, and even on the surface of the moon. Upon initial cursory review, there doesn’t appear to be anything groundbreaking in this release, which should come as no surprise. That assessment could change as we have more time to examine the files, but as it sits now, that is where we are at.

American authorities say this is just the first batch of records to be shared as part of a new push for “total transparency” on this topic, which has long been a source of controversy and criticism. National security concerns have been increasingly raised about UAP sightings, many of which have been determined to be drones or balloons. The very real and worrisome prospect that adversary intelligence-gathering and other malign activities have become muddled with the matter of UAPs is something TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for years now.

“Today, the Department of War [DOW] announced the initial release of new, never-before-seen files on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) as part of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE),” the Pentagon said in a press release today. “This interagency effort includes The White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Department of Energy (DOE), the DOW’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and additional components of U.S. intelligence agencies.”

The records that have been released so far come from the U.S. military, the FBI, NASA, and the State Department. In addition to videos and pictures said to show unidentified objects, there are also intelligence reports, statements regarding claimed sightings, diplomatic cables, and other documents. Many of the documents are redacted in part, particularly to omit names and other privacy-protected information. Some of the records, including ones from the FBI and NASA, are said to have been released, at least in part, in the past. We will come back to all of this later on.

The social media posts below show just some of the videos currently contained in the online PURSUE archive.

PURSUE is the result of a directive from President Donald Trump earlier this year. In February, Trump announced in a post on his Truth Social website that he would be “directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.”

“President Trump directed the Department of War to identify and release government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena, and unidentified flying objects because he is the most transparent president in history,” the White House told TWZ directly today when reached for more information about the new release of records. “While past administrations have sought to discredit or dissuade the American people, the President is focused on providing maximum disclosure to the public, who can ultimately make up their own minds about the information contained in these files. The American people asked, and President Trump delivered — enjoy!”

It is worth noting here that AARO had previously released multiple tranches of declassified UAP-related records, including imagery of unresolved sightings, but on a much more limited and inconsistent basis. The office has also released other assessments and reports over the years, including a review of historical claims, and has provided additional classified information to Congress.

AARO was established in 2022 to act as a central manager within the U.S. military for policies and procedures for tracking, reporting, and analyzing UAP incidents, as well as a repository for relevant intelligence assessments and other data. AARO has become a particular focal point for that criticism from members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle who have complained in the past about stonewalling on UAP-related matters.

“The Department of War is in lockstep with President Trump to bring unprecedented transparency regarding our government’s understanding of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena,” Secretary of War Pete Hegesth said in a statement today. “These files, hidden behind classifications, have long fueled justified speculation — and it’s time the American people see it for themselves. This release of declassified documents demonstrates the Trump Administration’s earnest commitment to unprecedented transparency.”

“The American people have long sought transparency about the government’s knowledge of unidentified anomalous phenomena,” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also said. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is actively coordinating the Intelligence Community’s declassification efforts with the Department of War to ensure a careful, comprehensive, and unprecedented review of our holdings to provide the American people with maximum transparency. Today’s release is the first in what will be an ongoing joint declassification and release effort.”

“The FBI is proud to stand alongside President Trump and our interagency partners in this landmark release of UAP records. For the first time in history, the American people have unfettered access to declassified government files on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon – a level of transparency that no prior administration has delivered,” FBI Director Kash Patel added in his own statement. The FBI remains committed to supporting this rolling declassification effort with the same rigor and integrity we bring to every national security matter. As these files continue to be reviewed and released, the American people can be confident that their security remains our highest priority.”

“I applaud President Trump’s whole-of-government effort to bring greater transparency to the American people on unidentified anomalous phenomena. At NASA, our job is to bring the brightest minds and most advanced scientific instruments to bear, follow the data, and share what we learn,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said, as well. We will remain candid about what we know to be true, what we have yet to understand, and all that remains to be discovered. Exploration and the pursuit of knowledge are core to NASA’s mission as we endeavor to unlock the secrets of the universe.”

At the time of writing, U.S. authorities do not appear to have briefed the press or the public on the current contents of the PURSUE archive, or called attention to the release of any information in particular.

“No media engagement is planned at this time,” a War Department official told TWZ today. “We are not providing any comment or assessment on the files overall or on any specific file, so that the American people can make up their own minds regarding the files.”

Images taken from the surface of the moon during several Apollo missions are certainly standouts, but it is unclear what they show. In some cases, like the image below taken during the Apollo 17 mission in 1972, there are already said to be indications that what is seen is simply a visual ‘artifact’ of some kind rather than an actual object.

There is also the image below, said to be of a “reported UAP that resembles a football-shaped body near Japan,” which very much looks like it could be a balloon of some kind. Chinese use of high-altitude balloons and other lighter-than-air craft for intelligence-gathering and other missions is well established, and there have been reported sightings of such platforms around Japan, as well as other countries in the Pacific, as TWZ has reported on in the past. China’s ‘spy balloons’ became a global cause celebre after one was shot down after passing across the United States in early 2023.

Questions are starting to emerge about what is really being seen in other ‘unresolved’ imagery now found in the PURSUE archive, as well.

What you see is not the shape of the object itself but a known flare that happens when a bright object is directly in frame of a FLIR camera, the video feed is inverted so it appears black pic.twitter.com/TXIB7PfzoX

— Leo Mozoloa (@LeoMozoloa) May 8, 2026

Overall, little additional context is provided for the records in the PURSUE archive, including about prior investigations into any claims and what conclusions, if any, may have been drawn. Investigations into some of the materials released today are said to still be ongoing. As noted, at least some of the records have been released in part in the past, as well.

In addition, some new criticism has already been leveled at U.S. authorities for proving that it is possible to redact and downgrade sensitive imagery related to UAP sightings for release, despite pushback in the past. Over the years, TWZ repeatedly highlighted the dichotomy between the rapidity with which the U.S. military can release post-strike and other incident videos and pictures from advanced sensors that fit a desired narrative compared to the time it takes for official disclosures regarding UAPs, if they ever come. As a prime example of this, American authorities still have yet to release any imagery from the shootdowns of three still-unidentified objects in the skies over the United States and Canada back in 2023. This is despite previous pledges to do so and subsequent releases from the Canadian government.

So what you are saying @DeptofWar, is that you can redact sensitive information on UAP imagery and release photos (and videos).

Gotcha. I’ll just forget you told me you couldn’t do that. Because we know Batch 01 doesn’t have the good stuff. pic.twitter.com/EPl4aLBPkB

— John Greenewald, Jr. (@theblackvault) May 8, 2026

The full scale and scope of new details to be found in the PURSUE archive remains to be seen, and, as noted, U.S. authorities have pledged more releases to come. At this point, there does not look to be anything really revelatory, and it seems to be more of the same, which is not necessarily a surprise. In other words, don’t get your hopes up.

TWZ will be taking a much closer look at the records in the coming days, and as any more information is released.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

There are six host cities (Miami, Houston, Dallas, Monterrey, Kansas City and Atlanta) where the WBGT could feasibly reach at least 32C (90F) during the afternoon which would be considered as extreme heat stress where the body really struggles to keep itself cool.

To reduce these risks, matches are generally scheduled outside the hottest part of the day, with many kick-offs taking place in the late afternoon or evening. Scotland’s group C game against Brazil in Miami, for example, will have a kick-off time of 18:00 ET (23:00 BST).

Some venues, including stadiums in Houston and Dallas, also have retractable roofs and climate control to moderate conditions.

Summer heatwaves are also a common occurrence in North America and Mexico where temperatures can rise 10C (50F) or more above average, potentially pushing conditions into much more challenging territory for both players and fans.

In New York for example, the location of this year’s World Cup final on 19 July at 15:00 ET (20:00 BST), a typical heatwave could result in air temperatures in the mid-30sC (mid 90F) and WBGT of around 30C (86F) leading to extreme heat stress.

Satellite images have captured a suspected oil slick spanning dozens of square kilometres near Iran’s Kharg Island, the country’s main oil export hub. Despite fears of a disaster, environmental observers say the slick is shrinking.

US-Iran ceasefire holds as Tehran warns Washington against attacks on tankers and Israel kills 24 people in Lebanon.

In a surprising development this week, Turkey unveiled a model of a previously unknown intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), named Yildirimhan (Turkish for lightning). In recent years, Turkey’s defense industries have been pumping out a remarkably wide range of weapons, including multiple missiles and drones, but the apparent plans to field a weapon in this class are something new.

The full-size Yildirimhan model was first shown publicly this week at the SAHA 2026 International Defense and Aerospace Exhibition in Istanbul, where it gained much attention. The program was presented by Turkish Minister of Defense Yasar Guler and is said to have been in development for around a decade.

The Yildirimhan is a conventionally armed non-tactical longer-range ballistic missile, which is itself a somewhat novel concept, albeit one that we have discussed in the past, in relation to China, Israel, and Russia.

The missile is planned to have a range of 6,000 kilometers (3,728 miles), which puts it just into the ICBM category. Missiles in this class are considered to have a range of over 5,500 kilometers, and most can reach considerably further.

The Yildirimhan is powered by four rocket engines and uses only a single stage, which is also unusual. It may be a measure of technological limitations, since Turkey hasn’t previously embarked on a missile that can fly this far.

The Turkish Ministry of Defense says the Yildirimhan will be road-mobile — as seen in the accompanying video, embedded below — and will be able to carry a very large warhead weighing 3,000 kilograms (around 6,600 pounds). It will be liquid-fueled, powered by a combination of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine.

This means the ICBM would have to be fueled before launch. As a result, its response time would be reduced compared to a solid-fuel weapon. This would also make the missile far more vulnerable to preemptive strikes and more complicated to handle.

At this stage, there are no details about the timelines for the potential introduction of the Yildirimhan to service, although Turkish media reports claim that production of the fuel and development of the warheads are already underway.

Notably, of the NATO nations in Europe, only Turkey currently fields a conventional ground-launched missile with a range of more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) — the locally developed Tayfun (previously Bora-2) short-range ballistic missile (SRBM).

In the past, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for Turkey to field missiles with ranges beyond 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), reflecting concerns about growing regional threats.

“As Turkey, we are located in a geography of high strategic importance, located in the heart of three continents, where global arm wrestling is never lacking … the first condition for survival in such a geography is deterrence,” Erdogan said at the time.

As we have discussed in the past, Turkey unveiled its Tayfun Block IV missile in 2025. This is the largest and heaviest member of the shorter-range Bora/Tayfun weapon family and is considered likely to have a range of around 1,000 kilometers (621 miles). A test firing apparently occurred in the fourth quarter of 2025.

“The Tayfun Block IV achieves long ranges, setting another record for the Turkish defense industry,” manufacturer Roketsan said in a statement at the time, according to Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency news outlet. Roketsan added that it “will be capable of destroying numerous strategic targets, such as air defense systems, command and control centers, military hangars, and critical military facilities.”

Furthermore, Turkey has been working on a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM), known as Cenk, with a range of 2,000 kilometers, which would meet the ambition set out by Erdogan. In the past, there has been speculation that Cenk could be a further development of the Bora/Tayfun family, which should make development more straightforward, although the precise relationship between these weapons remains unclear. Like the Yildirimhan, Cenk could also be an all-new design.

The Cenk MRBM would already put most of Turkey’s potential adversaries within range. Even the Tayfun Block IV has the reach to strike anywhere in the eastern Mediterranean and deep into the Middle East.

As it stands, Turkey has developed its strike capabilities primarily to counter its regional rival, Greece, while it has also reportedly used short-range ballistic missiles against Kurdish militants in Iraq in the past. Of course, neither of these threats requires an ICBM.

There is also the fact that Turkey has limited means of testing a missile with a range of 6,000 kilometers. Turkey’s primary missile-test range is on the Black Sea, but the distance from east to west is under 1,000 kilometers. This would require longer-range missiles to be launched on a steep parabolic trajectory, something that North Korea has repeatedly done for its missile tests.

However, there has been talk of developing a spaceport in conjunction with Somalia, which could provide a solution to this problem, offering the potential to launch ballistic missiles — as well as space launch vehicles — far out into the Indian Ocean.  

Unlike the earlier Bora/Tayfun family, which utilizes aero-ballistic trajectories, within the atmosphere, the MRBM and ICBM would complete much of their flight in the exo-atmospheric regime. As well as enhanced performance, larger missiles like the Cenk and Yildirimhan also introduce the option of carrying larger or multiple warheads and potentially decoys and other countermeasures against anti-missile defenses.

All of this poses a greater technological challenge, but it’s clearly one that Turkey is now grappling with.

Over the past quarter-century, Turkey has rapidly expanded its missile industry to encompass both ballistic and cruise systems, many of which have since entered service with the Turkish Armed Forces. Some of these weapons have also been offered for export, where the Turkish defense sector has profited from the fact that its products are free from the restrictions imposed by the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) guidelines. ITAR serves to limit the transfer of defense and military technologies and services — especially the more sensitive ones — to certain countries. There is an argument that bringing a conventionally armed ICBM to the export market might be considered logical, albeit potentially geopolitically disruptive, in this context.

On the other hand, Turkey is a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) arms control bloc, an arrangement that puts severe restrictions on the export of missiles that can carry payloads of more than 1,100 pounds to distances of more than 190 miles. This would rule out exports of the Yildirimhan, unless Ankara were to walk away from MTCR.

Most likely, therefore, is that Turkey is looking to field the Yildirimhan to extend the reach and firepower of its own conventional deterrent, allowing it to hold at risk targets as far away as Beijing.

As planned, the ICBM also carries a very heavy warhead that would have a significant bunker-busting effect, as well as being able to take out certain area targets. At the same time, interest is growing in having a strategic conventional ballistic missile deterrent to go against a nuclear foe, a concept that Iran has adopted.

There are, so far, no indications that Turkey might be seeking to develop nuclear warheads, with Ankara having relied on NATO’s collective defense and U.S. nuclear guarantees ever since the Cold War. However, the new ICBM would provide a potential stepping stone to such a capability, were priorities to change. This is a reality that has been identified in the case of South Korea and its ballistic missile developments.

It should also be noted that Turkey has a track record of developing high-end defense products as flagships of the country’s military aerospace capacity and as points of pride for the nation as a whole. The TF Kaan new-generation fighter is a prime example of this trend.

Regardless of the utility of an ICBM to Turkey, the political leadership in Ankara has consistently supported its missile sector, including promoting increasingly longer-range weapons. With that in mind, the Yildirimhan represents the latest outcome of a wider research-and-development effort, and one that reflects the country’s aim to strengthen its conventional deep-strike deterrence.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com