criticism

Countries raise concerns after Chinese military test-launches ballistic missile from submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

China has test-fired a missile from a nuclear submarine that landed in “designated waters” in the Pacific Ocean, state news agency Xinhua reports, drawing criticism and concerns from Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

The Chinese navy test-launched the long-range ballistic missile at 12:01pm (04:01 GMT) on Monday from one of its nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific, Xinhua reported.

Xinhua said the test was a “routine arrangement” of China’s annual military training and was not directed at any specific target.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong confirmed that China had notified the government of plans to conduct a sea-based missile test into the Pacific but said the action was “destabilising” to the region.

“Australia has been clear that this proposed test is in the context of a rapid military build-up by China, which is lacking in the transparency and reassurance as to intent that the region expects,” Wong told reporters at a news conference in the Fijian capital, Suva.

Japan’s government said it was notified of the missile launch and had urged China to reconsider.

“We expressed our grave concern over the Chinese military’s increased activity,” the government said, adding that Japan’s coastguard had been notified on Sunday by ⁠Chinese authorities about falling space debris that could fall within Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

The New Zealand government said it was informed of the planned launch within hours of it taking place.

“New Zealand considers this an unwelcome and concerning development. We, like our neighbours in other ‌Pacific countries, have no interest in China using the South Pacific as a testing site for missile capability,” Foreign Minister Winston Peters said in a statement.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz’s defamation suit against CNN, refusing to reconsider the high bar for press freedom set in the New York Times vs. Sullivan case.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The no-comment decision may signal the justices are not anxious to revisit another civil rights era landmark.

But the Dershowitz lawsuit may have been a less than ideal test case.

He sued CNN for $300 million, alleging its commentators distorted his arguments during President Trump’s first impeachment trial before the Senate.

He lost before a federal district judge and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Judges said he had presented no evidence of “actual malice” or knowing falsehoods, citing the doctrine set in the landmark decision.

Dershowitz’s appeal urged the Supreme Court to reconsider and discard the “actual malice” rule or to limit its use against private citizens who are treated as public figures.

In 1964, a unanimous Supreme Court said the 1st Amendment’s protection for the freedom of speech and the press limited state libel verdicts.

An all-white Alabama jury had awarded a $500-million judgment to Montgomery city commissioner L.B. Sullivan over a fund-raising ad for the Rev. Martin Luther King that had appeared in the New York Times.

The ad did not mention Sullivan by name but he said he was defamed by the ad’s criticism of the police.

Reversing that verdict, the court’s opinion said the 1st Amendment was intended to protect debate and criticism of public officials.

With that goal in mind, the justices barred defamation suits over minor or honest mistakes and said plaintiffs must show the defendants displayed “actual malice” by making statements they knew were false or showed a “reckless disregard” for the truth.

The decision was later extended to include public figures like Dershowitz.

In 2020, he defended President Trump’s conduct and told senators it fell short of an impeachable offense.

The House had accused Trump of threatening to withhold military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into investigating his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.

In response to a question about an alleged quid pro quo, Dershowitz said a president can make deals that are in the public interest or his political interest, but not for a corrupt personal benefit.

“If a President does something which he believes will help get him elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he said.

That statement drew sharp and immediate criticism on CNN.

Commentator Paul Begala asserted the “the Dershowitz doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act.”

CNN aired the full video of Dershowitz’s testimony and invited him to appear twice in the next two days to clarify his comments.

Months later, he filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and said CNN had perpetrated “a deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience.”

His suit was dismissed by judges who said he did not have enough evidence to send the case to a trial.

“In his zealous and highly scrutinized representation, Dershowitz made a spontaneous series of remarks before Congress that, he says, were misinterpreted by pundits,” Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee wrote for the 11th Circuit Court.

“If anything, the evidence shows that they believed in the truth of their reporting, and that they formed their opinions independently. Without evidence of actual malice Dershowitz’s defamation claim cannot go forward,” she said.

Beirut, Lebanon – After the governments of Lebanon and Israel on Friday signed a United States-brokered framework agreement following months of direct negotiations, protesters took to the streets of the Lebanese capital to express their anger at the deal.

Many of the demonstrators waved flags of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which has been militarily confronting Israel’s ongoing invasion and occupation of large swaths of southern Lebanon.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting since October 2023, with varying levels of intensity, but the former has twice escalated the conflict – first in September 2024 and then nearly four months ago.

Some of the harshest critics of the framework, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, have been those most deeply impacted by Israel’s war, which has killed more than 4,200 people and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

“After everything my family, my village, the south, and Dahiyeh have endured – the destruction, the displacement, the grief and the loss – it is incredibly difficult for me to accept an agreement with the same state that carried out the military actions that devastated our communities,” said Ali Zaytoun, a resident of Beirut’s southern suburbs, known as Dahiyeh.

Zaytoun, who runs a popular Instagram account called History of Dahieh, said he had been displaced multiple times due to Israeli attacks.

“Imagine someone destroys your home and your life, and then you’re expected to simply move on as if nothing happened,” said Zaytoun. “My protest is about remembering those who suffered, standing up for my community, and expressing that this agreement does not reflect the justice or respect that people who lived through this war deserve.”

A new Oslo?

The Israeli intensification on March 2 came after Hezbollah fired on Israel for the first time in more than a year following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli air attack on Tehran two days earlier, and as a response to more than 10,000 Israeli violations of a ceasefire reached in November 2024.

On the same day, the Lebanese government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal and later tried – unsuccessfully – to expel the Iranian ambassador.

Its position was that Hezbollah’s actions invited Israel’s wrath in a war fought on behalf of Iran and not the people of Lebanon.

Hezbollah, however, continued fighting Israel in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli army has established what it calls a “security zone” that goes as deep as 10km (6.2 miles) into the country.

As attacks continued, Lebanon’s government entered the United States-brokered negotiations with Israel, despite Hezbollah’s objections.

The final text of the 14-point Washington agreement states Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will eventually be the authority in southern Lebanon, “pending the verified disarmament of” non-state armed groups such as Hezbollah.

Proponents point to Israel recognising Lebanon’s authority over its own territory, though critics say the framework relies too heavily on the US – Israel’s main military and diplomatic backer and a signatory to the deal – to enforce it.

“The United States is unlikely to act as a neutral mediator and will almost certainly align with Israeli positions whenever disputes arise over the interpretation or implementation of the agreement,” said Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut.

“This creates a fundamentally asymmetric negotiating environment in which Lebanon has little leverage and few effective guarantees.”

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the agreement “null and void”, calling it “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty”, while Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah lawmaker, warned of “internal conflict” in Lebanon.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called for calm but also declared that the deal was an attempt to incite strife.

Those who backed the government said it had originally little choice but to enter direct negotiations, given its limited leverage in a war where Israel has technological superiority and unwavering US support.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on social media after the agreement’s signing that it “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”, while President Joseph Aoun called it “a first step” towards restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Still, the final terms of the deal were criticised by many analysts.

“This framework agreement essentially mirrors the reality of the military and political balance on the ground, which is decisively tilted in Israel’s favour,” said Bitar.

Bitar said the agreement was reminiscent of the Oslo Accords, a series of US-brokered agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel in the 1990s.

“We see a similar pattern here: Israeli negotiators seek recognition and get the other side to relinquish leverage while offering no binding timetable or reciprocal obligations,” he added.

On Saturday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted soldiers will remain in Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed.

US reliance

Days before the signing of the Washington framework, Iran and the US agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that aims to end the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran in late February.

The MoU declared, among other things, “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”, between the two countries and their allies.

Lebanon’s inclusion in the MoU was reportedly an Iranian priority, while a “deconfliction cell” was formed to bolster the supposed ceasefire in the country.

Throughout the war and the period of negotiations, Lebanon’s government has tried to separate itself from Iran – but some said it may have gone too far in the other direction.

“We are seeing the confirmation of what Hezbollah has been warning all along. Not because Hezbollah got it right, but because the Lebanese state got it so wrong,” said Lebanese writer Elia Ayoub.

“I understand the need to not depend on Iran, but what we’ve instead done is become even more dependent on the US than we’ve previously been,” added Ayoub, the founder of the podcast The Fire These Times.

“And it’s the US that has been bankrolling Israel’s genocide in Palestine and war crimes in Lebanon,” Ayoub added.

Analysts also questioned whether the government would be able to implement the deal.

“It appears that the Lebanese side has come under significant US pressure to sign an agreement that is very likely to remain little more than ink on paper, and very unlikely to be implemented in any meaningful way,” said Bitar.

Karim Safieddine, a nonresident fellow with the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, said the framework left the Lebanese government with “very little agency”.

“It’s Israel imposing a deal,” he added. “It’s very clear what this deal is. It’s just a surrender agreement.”

At the same time, some pointed to similarities to the 2024 ceasefire agreement, expressing doubt whether Israel will be incentivised to respect the framework.

“It’s one thing to sign a declaration of intent; it’s another thing to have it implemented, and I can see all kinds of problems emerging from this,” said Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of a book on Hezbollah.

Last year, Israel repeatedly complained that LAF’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah were either too slow or ineffective. The US often sided with Israel despite diplomatic attempts from European and other officials encouraging it to support LAF.

In a call with his US counterpart, President Donald Trump, on Saturday, Aoun said Lebanon “would assume its responsibilities” in implementing the framework and expressed hope Washington would help ensure that commitments ‌are fulfilled, particularly by pressing Israel to pull out from the areas it occupies.

Point 9 of the agreement states Lebanon’s government commits to a “rigorous, performance-based program to enable the capacity of the LAF to assert full military and security control within Lebanon … to implement the disarmament of all non-state armed groups”.

This provision has some in Lebanon worried about potential confrontations between LAF and Hezbollah, but Blanford said the possibility of a large escalation is currently not likely.

“The Lebanese army and the government are unwilling to use force against Hezbollah,” he said. “Forcibly trying to disarm a group that is refusing to disarm is an act of war. And I think the Lebanese army and the Lebanese government would be extremely wary of that.”

WASHINGTON — California’s two Democratic senators on Thursday criticized the Trump administration after it requested $87.6 billion from Congress to address some of the nation’s most “urgent needs” but omitted funding for victims of last year’s Los Angeles wildfires.

“Donald Trump’s desire to punish Los Angeles and the state of California for not voting for him, means once again that thousands of Angelinos are left watching this administration fight for anything but them, their businesses, and their communities,” Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

“These fires did not discriminate based on party or political preference. Neither should this administration,” they added.

The omission is the latest strain in a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid, and it comes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met with President Trump at the Oval Office in April to request the funding.

At the meeting, Trump signaled his commitment to working with local officials to help with disaster recovery efforts. The officials asked for $16 billion that would be split between the city and county. The money would consist primarily of disbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency flagged for communities hit by the fires, part of a $33.9-billion wildfire relief funding request made by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Two months later, those talks have yet to yield results sought by local leaders.

The budget request, submitted by the Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday, mostly seeks funding for the Pentagon to address costs related to the Iran war. It also includes $11.1 billion in economic assistance for American farmers, $1.4 billion to address the Ebola virus outbreak in Central Africa, $500 million to support “ongoing efforts to complete restorations and construction projects” across the nation’s capital and $1 billion to boost the pensions of workers at General Motors that were cut as a result of the automaker’s bankruptcy.

“I urge the Congress to take action on these important and urgent requests as soon as possible,” White House budget director Russell Vought wrote in a letter addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Vought said the administration was open to discussing “additional relief for other urgent matters.” The White House did not immediately respond when asked why the budget request did not mention the Eaton and Palisades disaster relief funds.

State leaders, including Newsom, have repeatedly accused the Trump administration of stonewalling billions in wildfire aid. The governor visited Washington in December to meet with lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to push for the funding.

The governor also attempted to meet with FEMA about the matter, but said his request was denied. Newsom, a political foe of Trump’s, would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to talk about the recovery efforts.

WASHINGTON — The relationship between President Trump and Senate Republicans neared a breaking point this week as he upended their efforts to speedily confirm one of his own nominees and said he would not sign the renewal of a key surveillance law unless they agree to new terms.

Trump’s overnight social media post Wednesday that he was delaying Jay Clayton’s nomination to become national intelligence director, just hours before the U.S. attorney’s confirmation hearing, further strained relations between the Senate and White House that have been worsening for weeks. Later that day, some Republican senators who have been hesitant to challenge the president directly on the Iran war were blunt in their criticism of his deal to end it.

“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on X.

The open tensions are an almost complete reversal from a year ago when Senate Republicans worked closely with Trump on a complicated effort to push through his massive package of spending and tax cuts.

At the time, criticism of the president was almost nonexistent among Republicans on Capitol Hill, and they planned to highlight passage of that bill in the midterms. But as the November election draws closer and Republicans are trying to defend their majorities, Trump is instead needling Congress with his demands and reversals, driving several Republican senators to disparage his actions publicly for the first time.

“I think somebody’s not dialing the president into the complexities of what he’s done here,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Wednesday after Clayton’s confirmation was postponed. “I mean, my God.”

The slow unraveling of what once seemed like an airtight alliance between the executive and legislative branches in a Republican-led Washington extends to their policy priorities.

Trump appears to have lost interest in most of the GOP agenda and has become almost singularly focused on his voting legislation to require proof of citizenship, which has almost no chance of passing. At the same time, he has asked members of Congress to fund parts of his White House ballroom project, allow a temporary intelligence director that none of them likes and cede their powers on the Iran war.

The growing rift has brought much of the Senate’s business to a halt and put Republicans who are up for reelection this year on the defensive. It has also put pressure on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has been upfront with Trump about what he can and cannot do in the Senate.

Trump pressures Thune on voting bill

Trump has pressured Thune (R-S.D.) relentlessly to scrap the filibuster and pass the strict proof-of-citizenship legislation, called the SAVE America Act. Thune has told Trump publicly and privately that the votes are not there for either step. Still, Trump has kept up the push.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump said he would be “the last Republican president” if the voting bill does not pass.

“Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and the Republican Senate, must not let this ‘carnage’ happen,” Trump said. “They will go down on the wrong side of History, as will all Republicans who just stood by and watched.”

Nonetheless, Trump has yet to go after the well-liked Republican leader on a personal basis, as he often did with Thune’s predecessor, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Trump once called McConnell a “ dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack.”

Trump and Thune talk frequently, even as Thune is sometimes giving the president news he does not want to hear. As Trump pushed for the voting bill, Thune scheduled weeks of floor time to consider it, an effort to make clear that the Senate was supportive, even if the votes are lacking.

Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, one of the president’s closest allies in the Senate, said he has never heard Trump say anything negative about Thune.

“It’s a difficult position,” Schmitt said of Thune’s role in the Senate. “I think they have a good working relationship.”

One of Thune’s closest allies, Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, said the even-keeled leader is the “right person at the right time.”

“In the Capitol today, he is the stable force,” Rounds said. “In Washington, D.C., today, he is the stable force.”

No signs of revolt among Senate GOP

There were no signs of a revolt within the GOP conference, for now, despite Trump’s pressure.

Thune “has managed it better than anyone else could manage it,” said Cassidy, who has become a more frequent Trump critic since a primary loss to a Trump-backed challenger.

Criticism of Trump has at times surfaced even among his closest Senate allies, especially with his proposed $1.776-billion settlement fund for his political allies and his pick for acting intelligence director, Bill Pulte, who has no known intelligence experience.

But the rift with Trump has also stoked some new internal tensions.

Several Republican senators criticized Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who has waged an online campaign to eliminate the filibuster and pass the SAVE America Act, in a private conference lunch this week for stoking dissension within the party in an election year.

Unbowed, Lee has kept up his social media campaign, including a post Friday on X in which he said that giving up because Republicans lack the votes is a “recipe for failure.”

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, one of those who spoke out at the meeting, replied that it is Lee’s job to find the votes, “if you can.”

“Can’t just complain about others,” Cornyn posted. “Prove us wrong.”

Trump’s dwindling number of allies

Some Senate Republicans have made clear they have no plans to separate themselves from Trump.

As several of his colleagues criticized Trump’s agreement with Iran this week, first-term Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) aggressively defended it on social media.

“Let’s get the Nobel Peace Prize ready!” Moreno posted on X.

But Trump has far fewer of those Senate allies than he did when they narrowly passed the tax and spending cuts legislation a year ago. That is in part because he has picked off some of the most loyal Republican votes himself.

Cassidy and Cornyn lost in primaries last month after Trump endorsed their opponents. Tillis announced he was not running for reelection last year after Trump repeatedly criticized him on social media.

Now all three have become frequent critics.

Shortly after his election loss, Cornyn posted on social media a fable about a frog and a scorpion. The scorpion asks the frog to carry it across a river, according to the fable, and then stings the frog in the middle of the river, “dooming them both.”

“The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence,” Cornyn’s post read. “To which the scorpion replies: ‘I am sorry, but I couldn’t help myself. It’s my character.’ ”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

Suggestions that criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic in Australia risk hardwiring a dangerous confusion. Questioning the behaviour of a foreign state is not the same as denigrating or attacking a people who may have links with that state. The State of Israel is represented by its embassy in Canberra, not by the Jewish community in our cities and suburbs.

But the knee-jerk reaction to the attack on a Jewish celebration in Sydney is solidifying that confusion. On December 14, 2025, as Jewish families gathered near Sydney’s Bondi Beach to celebrate Hanukkah, two gunmen opened fire, killing 15 people and injuring many others in one of the worst attacks in Australia’s history. In response, the federal government set up a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, led by former High Court justice Virginia Bell. On April 30, 2026, the commission delivered its interim report, raising serious concerns about how we define anti-Semitism.

The commission has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. The IHRA offers examples that include criticism of Israel as evidence of anti-Semitism. But such a broad definition collapses critical commentary on Israel’s policy in Gaza, its treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Israeli officials’ dehumanising comments about Palestinians into a racist attack on Australia’s Jews. How does that make sense to anyone?

This is not an abstract question. The blurring of these categories acts as a brake on public debate. It narrows the range of permissible language used to describe Israel’s conduct in Gaza, where Australians have watched entire neighbourhoods destroyed and tens of thousands of civilians killed.

The official line from governments in relation to Israel is that Israel has a “right to exist” and an obligation to defend its citizens, which appears to give Israel carte blanche to decimate the entire Gaza Strip and kill tens of thousands of Palestinians. But no other state enjoys this exceptional treatment. No other state can do what it wishes simply because it has a “right to exist”. Australia has that right, but that right has never shielded governments in Canberra from fierce criticism, whether over First Nations dispossession, offshore detention or climate inaction. When Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations in 2008 for the wrongs past governments had done to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australia’s legitimacy as a state was not under threat. Rudd was reflecting the public mood by distancing his government from the policies of the past. It was not seen as challenging Australia’s right to exist.

Yet in debates about Israel, the invocation of the “right to exist” and anti-Semitism operates as a conversation stopper. It closes the door to a frank discussion about the State of Israel and its behaviour. We cannot talk about occupation, apartheid and war crimes because that is anti-Semitic. This is a troubling precedent that insulates Israel from moral and political accountability.

The commission was established in response to a real and deeply upsetting surge in anti-Semitic violence. But its framework could cast suspicion on genuine inquiry into the behaviour of Israel. It entrenches a form of exceptionalism that actually weakens Australia’s democratic norms.

A liberal society must be able to draw a clear line: hatred, discrimination or violence against Jews is anti-Semitic and unacceptable; criticism of a foreign government is not.

There is also a cost to Jewish Australians when that line is blurred. Public debate routinely treats “the Jewish community” as a single, pro-Israel bloc, represented by a handful of bodies. This is simply not true. Many Australian Jews are alarmed to see the destruction of Gaza in their name. Some have mobilised against Israel’s actions.

To assume unanimous Jewish support for Israeli actions is to deny Jewish Australians their agency. Worse, it risks casting Jewish dissenters as inauthentic. If the policy settings shaped by this commission casts such voices as anti-Semitic, they will be erased twice over: excluded from the definition of the community and penalised for speakingup. This is silencing dissent, masquerading as protection.

If public institutions reinforce the idea that criticism of Israel is criticism of Jews, they risk feeding anti-Semitism.

Images of Gaza’s destruction on the news have galvanised global public opinion. Many young Australians have marched for an end to Israeli policies and freedom for Palestine. The message that such protests against Israel are anti-Semitic could not be any more counter-productive and harmful for Australian democracy. That will only breed resentment against the Australian political system for ignoring what everyone sees on their TV screens, and, dangerously, feed the very anti-Semitic narratives the commission should be challenging. Those who already hold anti-Semitic views will feel confirmed in their belief that Jews act collectively through Israel. The commission cannot afford to fall into this trap.

To the credit of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), they have avoided the conflation of Israel and Jewish people and have not adopted the IHRA definition. The interim commission report has not embraced the most heavy-handed proposals in circulation; there is no rush to ban protest slogans or criminalise political expression. There is room for optimism that the commission can still address the issue in its final report.

Here are the standards it needs to uphold to protect social cohesion in Australia:

First, an unambiguous distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. Second, a recognition of the diversity of Jewish opinion, including among those who oppose Israel’s actions, and the inclusion of those voices in efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Third, a defence of political space for Palestinians and their allies to describe their experiences of occupation, dispossession and siege in their own terms, while  rejecting any dehumanising or racist language about Jewish people.

Anti-Semitism in Australia is a threat to the Jewish community (regardless of political views) and the very foundation of our social cohesion. But seeking to address the scourge of anti-Semitism by conflating critical views of the State of Israel with hatred of Jews will only make matters worse. Such approach will suppress debate, limit freedom of speech and inquiry that has already led to self-censorship at our universities and entrench the very confusion that sustains anti-Semitism.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Some are calling the controversy over Olivia Rodrigo’s recent outfit choices babydoll-dress-gate, Olivia Rodrigo calls it “weird.”

The dress debacle kicked up in early May when Rodrigo released the music video for “Drop Dead,” in which she runs through the Palace of Versailles wearing a pink-and-blue ruffled babydoll set while singing about the intensity of a crush. Then on May 8, she wore a cottage-core pink-and-white floral babydoll dress with knee-high Dr. Martens during a live performance in Barcelona.

Rodrigo was drawing from subversive feminist and punk fashion of yore, but internet critics were quick to slam the “deja vu” singer, saying the ensemble was sexualizing child-like imagery. In an hour-and-a-half interview with the New York Times Popcast that dropped on Thursday, Rodrigo staunchly defended the dress and called the criticism disturbing.

“I have worn outfits that are maybe revealing on stage, like I’ve been on stage in a sparkly bra and little shorts — which is my right — that’s fun,” she said. “I felt cool and comfortable in that, and that wasn’t inappropriate, but me fully covered up in a dress that people deemed to be, like, childlike was inappropriate, and I think it shows how we really normalize pedophilia in our culture.”

Rodrigo further decried the criticism as rhetoric that girls are fed from a young age, “which is ‘don’t wear that, because then a man is going to sexualize your body, and it’s your fault’ — it’s so weird.”

Rodrigo said she didn’t think she looked “sexy” in the babydoll dress; she was going for a cool look à la Kathleen Hannah or like Courtney Love, musicians whom the pop star said are her heroes. Love appeared to defend Rodrigo on social media by resharing posts defending the singer-songwriter in since-expired Instagram stories.

“I just think if we start dressing in a way that’s like, ‘Oh, I don’t want some f— freak to think that I am sexy like a baby’ or some crazy thing like that, I think it’s losing the plot a little bit,” she said. “I’m very protective of younger women and girls, and I don’t ever want them to be fed that rhetoric. You shouldn’t be responsible for some guy sexualizing you in a way that was never your intention.”

Rodrigo’s third studio album, “You Seem Pretty Sad for a Girl So in Love,” which features hit singles “Drop Dead” and “The Cure,” will be released June 12.

US president lauds Islamabad, but his Republican ally says he does not trust Pakistan to facilitate Iran diplomacy.

Donald Trump has reasserted his support for Pakistan to serve as a mediator between Iran and the United States after Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of the US president, disparaged Islamabad’s diplomacy.

In remarks on Tuesday, the US president lauded Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and its army chief Asim Munir, who helped negotiate a fragile ceasefire in Iran that came into effect last month.

Trump added he is not reconsidering Pakistan as a mediator.

“They’re great. I think the Pakistanis have been great. The field marshal and the prime minister of Pakistan have been absolutely great,” Trump told reporters.

Hours earlier, Graham had pressed Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth and top US general Dan Caine about a CBS News report claiming that Pakistan is allowing Iran to park military assets on its airfields, in order to shield them from potential US and Israeli attacks.

Both officials declined to comment on the veracity of the report, citing the sensitive nature of the talks between the US and Iran.

Asked by Graham whether it would be “consistent” for Pakistan to act as a fair mediator if the CBS report is confirmed, Hegseth said, “I wouldn’t want to get into the middle of these negotiations.”

The Republican senator quickly interrupted the defence secretary.

“I do. I want to get in the middle of those negotiations,” Graham said.

“I don’t trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them. If they actually have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me maybe we should be looking for somebody else to mediate. No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere.”

The senator — an outspoken foreign policy hawk who has been calling for regime change in Iran — is seen as one of the most influential figures in Trump’s circle.

Graham has also been one of the most vocal supporters of the war with Iran, repeatedly cautioning Trump against agreeing to a deal that would include concessions to Tehran.

Weeks before the war broke out on February 28, Graham met the US president in Florida, where he handed Trump a hat that says, “Make Iran Great Again.”

Pakistan has been pushing to revive the stalled diplomacy between Iran and the US, following the April 8 ceasefire agreement.

On Sunday, Trump said Tehran’s latest proposal to end the war was “unacceptable”.

In late April, the US president announced he was sending his envoys to Pakistan to meet Iranian officials, but he called off the trip after Iran pushed the US to lift the naval blockade against its ports as a condition for resuming the talks.

May 7 (UPI) — Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected criticism from the U.S. President Donald Trump over her government’s anti-drug efforts after Trump suggested the United States could take unilateral action against drug cartels operating in Mexican territory.

“President Trump has said this several times before, but we are acting,” Sheinbaum said Thursday during her daily morning press conference.

During a White House event Wednesday, Trump said his administration already had reduced maritime drug trafficking by 97% and would now begin a “land phase” against drug smuggling operations.

“If they are not going to do the job, we will,” Trump said.

Sheinbaum defended her administration’s security strategy and said Mexico has achieved a nearly 50% reduction in homicides, dismantled 2,500 clandestine laboratories used to manufacture synthetic drugs and reduced fentanyl trafficking from Mexico into the United States.

The Mexican president also urged Washington to recognize the severity of the U.S. drug consumption crisis and strengthen efforts to stop the illegal flow of firearms into Mexico.

She said the trafficking of weapons strengthens the operational capacity of criminal organizations and fuels violence across several regions of the country.

During the press conference, Sheinbaum said the 2026 U.S. National Drug Control Strategy, presented Tuesday, marked the first time the Trump administration formally acknowledged the seriousness of domestic drug consumption in the United States.

According to Sheinbaum, the report recognizes that the United States faces “a serious drug consumption problem” by proposing prevention measures, public awareness campaigns and public health programs to combat addiction.

Asked about comments made Wednesday by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to U.S. network NewsNation regarding possible new investigations into Mexican officials allegedly linked to drug trafficking, Sheinbaum again demanded evidence from U.S. authorities.

“Evidence, send evidence, because extradition treaties and mutual trust agreements require proof,” she said.

The Mexican president reiterated that drug trafficking and drug consumption must be addressed as a shared responsibility between both nations.

She said her government remains willing to cooperate with the Trump administration on security, migration and anti-drug policies, but stressed that any collaboration must respect Mexico’s sovereignty.

The 2026 U.S. National Drug Control Strategy identifies Mexico as the center of Washington’s anti-drug campaign, reaffirming the designation of Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations and classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.

The document conditions future security cooperation on measurable results in extraditions and the dismantling of drug laboratories, warning that the United States will use “all available capabilities” against criminal networks.

During a recent Zoom interview from his studio in Switzerland, Peter Zumthor offered a candid look at the making of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s new David Geffen Galleries.

The Pritzker Prize-winning architect addressed long-standing criticisms of the building and answered questions about his craft. He noted that the structure is a rejection of the overly “slick” architecture he believes defines the present moment, and shed light on the building’s early development, describing a contained process in which the concept was shaped before being presented to the public.

Finally, he discussed the broader ambition of the endeavor: dissolving traditional circulation and prioritizing emotional experience over institutional order.

The following interview excerpts have been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

You are well–known as both an architect and a craftsman. I think the biggest place for that focus was the concrete. I’m curious about how you formed it. It’s not the typical museum concrete.

I work like an artist in building. This means I custom-make buildings. I can use a few standard details or products, like in the basement. But where the building has an identity, becomes visible, it’s almost all handmade. I have an image of what I want to do, what the building should do, how it should look. So I need people who can help me make custom-made products.

The people who did the formwork — the concrete pouring — [worked in] groups of 100 or more. They were fantastic. They loved their work. At the beginning, formwork leaked on a door, and it looked terrible. They said, “Peter, we’re sorry. We made a mistake. We can fix this. You will not see this afterwards.” But if you make a mistake, you cannot mend it, because what you’re doing here is a concrete sculpture. Sculptures are never mended.

It’s not a perfectly smooth concrete. I’m assuming that’s on purpose?

I love this kind of rawness. This was what I gladly learned. Michael [Govan] in a very friendly, careful way let me know that he would like more “American details” and fewer “European details.” OK, my European details, they stand. That’s what I did 20, 30 years ago. My background as a furniture maker shows, and I can do this. But the challenge in this museum is to get the right “American” roughness. And I think I pretty much succeeded.

What I learned in California [came] back to Europe, and many times we now say in the office, “Let’s do this more L.A.-style.” Because we have too many slick magazines in the world. We have this corporate architecture which doesn’t want to see any touch of a hand. No mistakes. What we need is not refinement. We need wholehearted directness. This is what I take back from America. There’s a certain freshness. It’s not overly refined. I’m proud of that. The roughness has to do with our times. Because our time is slick and glossy, right? The time to make refined, slick architecture is over.

Horizontal light enters from floor-to-ceiling windows around the perimeter of LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries, which use concrete as a kind of living building material.

(Iwan Baan)

In a 2023 interview with [architecture critic] Christopher Hawthorne, you said there were no “Zumthor details” left in the building. Do you think there are any Zumthor details now?

Of course there are Zumthor details. And I love them. They are not Swiss details. I think Christopher got this wrong. I was actually proudly speaking of how I learned a new way of looking at details. It doesn’t have to be refined all the time.

[Editor’s note: Zumthor told Hawthorne verbatim, “There are no Zumthor details any more,” in the 2023 interview with the New York Times.]

There’s always a tension with every building when it comes to value engineering. Were there any other places where you would want [David Geffen Galleries] to be different?

Basically, I say no. I’m very proud of this building. This is what I wanted to do, and this is what Michael helped me to do. This is exactly it. It’s one of my children and I love it.

Do you see this approach as an evolution in your work? Or is it more specifically for L.A.?

L.A. has changed me. And it’s in a good way. I would [not] have changed and reacted to our slick times the same way without L.A.

There were complaints that the project, and the process, were not as public as some people thought they should be. What is your reaction to that criticism?

I think I can say this: Michael said, “We cannot make a competition or anything like it, because competitions in the U.S. always end up with a winner who doesn’t build because he found out his own way of staging this whole procedure. The first, the most important thing, is that we start on a small budget, just the two of us.” That’s what we did. So when we started to talk about this museum, it was him and me, basically, and he gave me a little bit of money. And he said, “There will come a time when we will have to show something to the public. Let’s see whether people say yes.” They could have said no, but I think what they saw at that point was already too convincing.

Architect Peter Zumthor speaks at the press preview for the David Geffen Galleries at Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

(LACMA/ Museum Associates / Gary Leonard)

Because the museum’s not organized in a traditional way, it might be harder than normal to navigate for some people. It might be a little confusing. What do you say to that concern?

This will take some time, to see the benefits of this new type of museum. I think if you start to like this building in one corner or in another, or you get lost, you start to understand what it is all about. When something new comes, you have to learn, right? But I hope you can see this building never looks down on you. This building is, in a way, deeply human. And it lets you have your opinion.

There are people who have said, very loudly, this space shouldn’t have lost square footage. What is your response to that?

Small museums are beautiful, big museums tend to be really difficult. And the bigger the museum gets, the more difficult it is to make it easily accessible. So I’m very glad that this is not bigger. But it feels bigger.

What is this with bigness? What kind of a hang-up is this? You don’t have to be big. It has the right scale. We were often asked, “Can you experience this building and this collection in one day?” And we said, “Maybe. But maybe it will be better to come back.” Start from the other end. You have your own personal path. And then you research a little bit further. I think these are the beautiful ideas of how to experience the building. And I think it’s endless.

The interior of LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries encourages guests to wander and make their own connections rather than follow a linear path.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Can you go back to the beginning and talk about the core concept for the museum?

There are three major things that I always have to answer, whatever I do. What does the building do with the place? Does it help the place? Does it interpret the place? And then, what is the content of the building? What does the building have to do? Why are we building this?

To start out, there was a museum here which was modeled a bit after Lincoln Center. Later, it got clogged up with new buildings and you didn’t recognize the initial idea anymore. These things we took away. Whenever a building is there, whether it’s beautiful or ugly, it will always have grown into the soul of somebody. There will always be people saying, “No, no, I want to keep it.” This is part of my life. I understand this kind of thing always comes up.

The place was rather difficult because I couldn’t see any big urbanistic concept in L.A. L.A. [is] not urban in the European sense with, for instance, the market square.

There was a master plan, which was made by Renzo Piano. And this presented a long axis, and I tried to follow it. It just did not feel right. So I started to react in a more organic way, inspired by the tar pits. This whole area, which to me, is the ancient part of the site, became the starting point.

There was more: like the idea that side light is the most human light. Yeah, no skylights. And another thing was the museum had to be open to its surroundings. So contemporary L.A. should be present at all times. It should come in, whenever you can look out.

Another important thing … was to create or enlarge the public space that Michael [Govan] had started to create between his buildings. Friday evenings, Saturday, you saw so many families there. There is a desire here, a wish, for public space. This is not exactly the strength of L.A. So I think it was amazing that we were allowed to lift up the building and have the whole ground free for people.

Also, let’s do the museum on one level only. Classical museums have a main level, then they have a second level and a third level, a south wing and north wing and so on. And then, as an artist, you can have your work on the main level in the most beautiful spot. But as an artist, you can also land top left, third level near to the attic. So let’s make a building type which treats everybody equal.

LACMA’s David Geffen Galleries are hoisted above the ground on discrete piers, allowing for ample public space below.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

And then we started to think about how we wanted something open for wandering, experiencing and dreaming. This is always difficult to explain — let’s have the knowledge of art, of the history of art, coming second. It’s not because I think this is a secondary thing. It’s just because our experience should come first.

As a boy, I saw the opposite. There’s a tour and there’s a guide, and the guide starts to tell you what you should think. And I never liked this. We thought we should lay out things on a big plane where you can stroll and wander and develop your interest in art. Follow your own path.

You’re overturning a lot of unspoken rules in the art world. And I guess that’s the point in a lot of ways?

This is our point. You see other rules. For instance, if you do a new museum, the conservators say art can be exposed to less daylight. I told them as a joke, “If it goes on like this, soon the art will be in the basement, locked away.”

We have a building wide and long enough that within the building, you can find strong daylight for, let’s say, china or pottery, which love daylight. Then you can go deep into the building where it gets darker, and you can put pieces you don’t want to expose too much to the light. All without having to flip a switch.

In an unusual move, Anthony McPartlin and Declan Donnelly have spoken out about an I’m A Celeb camp-mate after criticism of David Haye amid his Adam Thomas ‘bulling’ row

Ant and Dec have piled into David Haye saying the incident that sparked bullying complaints was “not nice” to watch. The boxer was already at the centre of controversy thanks to sexist comments he made about his girlfriend and other women before he scolded Adam Thomas after he said he wasn’t feeling well enough to take part in Termite Terror.

It was the latest comments to shock the South Africa camp, with Gemma Collins since saying she had to “protect” the actor. Now the hosts have spoken, and in a rare move criticised the behaviour of a I’m A Celebrity contestant. The Geordie duo says David doesn’t know when to stop after his remarks last week continue to spark outrage as the show’s fans turn on the sports star.

Ant was talking on ITV1 show’s podcast I’m A Celebrity . . . Unpacked and seemed unimpressed with his choice of words. He said. “It’s not a nice watch. He just kind of picks and picks at them. Adam has had a bit of a tough time and he’s not coping well. Clearly the banter has got too much. But David won’t stop.”

Agreeing with his co-star, Dec said. “It’s kind of crossed the line from banter. I don’t find it comfortable to watch.” Adam suffers with autoimmune illness psoriatic arthritis and requested to sit out the Bushtucker Trial on Friday because he felt unwell and dehydrated.

David said he was being “useless” and stated that he “doesn’t like men like that”. Gemma Collins was one of the stars to appear uneasy at David’s comments and she spilled on I’m A Celebrity: Unpacked. Gemma said: “I think David Haye might have seen a weakness in Adam, there were times where I had to protect Adam in there.

“If I was going full GC mode on David Haye, and a lot of them, then it would’ve been a disaster in there but I had to remain calm and composed and just remember that I’m not here to be performative. I am here as me. I think the fact that I stretched my arms out, I’m sort of saying to ’em all, without biting their heads off, ‘enough’”.

She went on: “I knew if it was ever gonna get too bad I would be taking David on. You know, bring on the next heavyweight champion fighting the world….. because if I feel that something’s too much, I’m not afraid to step up.”

Explaining how his health issues impacts his life, Adam said previously: “It is an autoimmune disease. Basically means my immune system is attacking my own body. It causes a s**t-load of pain.”

Today, he spoke out and alongside an image from the show, which was filmed towards the end of last year, Adam wrote on Instagram: “Not going to lie,this picture breaks my heart, as I know on the inside what I was dealing with and truth be told I thought it was all my fault. I now know that’s not the reality… My time in I’m a Celebrity South Africa was one of the toughest things I’ve ever been through, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

“Watching it back hasn’t been easy at all. There were moments I felt pushed to my absolute limit, and if I’m honest, times I didn’t even recognise myself. Living with arthritis is something I don’t really talk about, as much as I should do…but in there it really took its toll. My biggest fight was pretending to put on a brave face and trying to hide the pain! that can be exhausting within itself.

“There were days my body just didn’t want to keep going, but I did. “I won’t sit here and say I handled everything perfectly, because I didn’t. I wish I spoke up for myself sooner. I wish I stood my ground instead of trying to keep the peace, but I’ve learned that being kind doesn’t mean being weak, and sometimes it takes going through tough moments to find your voice.

* I’m A Celebrity…South Africa airs weekdays at 9pm on ITV and ITVX.

MacIntyre stopped short of apologising, but believes he has the right set-up in place to perform well as he seeks a third PGA Tour victory.

“I’ve got my family, friends and team, they are the ones I really listen to,” he said. “If I’ve done something wrong, they’ll tell me.

“That’s how I go about life. I just do what I want, how we want, not just personally, but with my family and friends and we go about our business the way we want to do it.

“Some people like it, some people don’t, but at the end of the day it’s a job and I come out here to perform the best I can.”

After six birdies and a solitary bogey at Harbour Town, MacIntyre feels his game is in a good place.

“Coming off last week, a disappointing performance, to come into this week I was comfortable with the golf course, comfortable with my game,” he said.

“I tried to put as much of last week behind me as I could. I’m driving it beautifully off the tee. I’m being aggressive off the tee which gives me lots of wedges round here.

“I didn’t take many chances in the middle part of the round, which was a bit disappointing, but five-under par is always good to start.”