May 24 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Sunday urged his negotiators “not to rush into a deal” with Iran because “time is on our side.”
He made the comments in a post on Truth Social that also took aim at the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the so-called Iran nuclear deal created in 2015 and which Trump withdrew from in 2018. In his post, Trump called it “one of the worst deals ever made by our country” and blamed former President Barack Obama and his administration.
“It was a direct path to Iran developing a Nuclear Weapon,” Trump wrote. “Not so with the transaction currently being negotiated with Iran by the Trump Administration – THE EXACT OPPOSITE, in fact!”
Trump said Saturday the deal with Iran had been “largely negotiated” and that final aspects were being worked out. On Sunday, he added that talks were “proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner.
“I have informed by representatives not to rush into a deal in that time is on our side,” he wrote.
“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said Sunday that “significant progress” had been made and hinted that Trump may make an announcement on the issue “a little bit later today,” The New York Times reported.
“Suffice it to say some progress has been made, significant progress, although not final progress,” he said during a news conference in New Delhi.
Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem reveals details of Iran’s position on the potential peace agreement with the US. US President Donald Trump earlier revealed the two countries were close to an Memorandum of Understanding.
Published On 24 May 202624 May 2026
Share
Tehran also signals progress on talks but says the key issue of nuclear weapons is not part of an initial framework it is working on.
Source link
WASHINGTON — President Trump said Saturday that the United States and Iran have agreed on the basic terms of an agreement to end the two countries’ nearly three-month-long war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
“An Agreement has been largely negotiated,” Trump wrote in a social media post. “Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly. In addition to many other elements of the Agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened.”
Iran’s state television network quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei as saying the draft pact will be a “framework agreement” that defers talks toward limiting Iran’s nuclear program until later. Trump did not mention the nuclear issue in his statement.
If that is the form the deal takes, it would represent at least a short-term concession from the president, who initially demanded a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear program as the price of peace.
Trump has also relaxed an earlier U.S. demand that Iran give up its right to enrich uranium and says he would be satisfied with a deal to “suspend” enrichment for 20 years.
Those signs of U.S. flexibility have raised alarm from Iran hawks, reportedly including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They say they fear Trump is so intent on restoring the flow of oil from the gulf that he might agree to a deal that falls far short of U.S. goals.
Mark Dubowitz, a leading critic of past agreements with Iran, said he worries that Trump might settle for “a foolish agreement” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
“I’m concerned that the administration is looking to cut some ‘Phase One’ deal” in which Iran is given “significant sanctions relief in exchange for agreement to reopen the strait,” he said in an interview Friday. “I think that would be a foolish agreement. Iran would get real money, but they could continue to close the strait any time they wanted simply by making threats.”
Robert Kagan, a conservative foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, wrote that a deal to reopen the strait while deferring the nuclear issue would amount to a U.S. “surrender.”
“On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war,” Kagan wrote in the Atlantic.
When the war began in February, Trump said he wanted not only to end Iran’s nuclear activities and destroy its ballistic missile program, but bring about regime change as well.
Instead, the nuclear talks have focused on narrower, more achievable goals: a “suspension” of nuclear enrichment for 20 years or less and removal or destruction of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, the essential ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
“A basic agreement shouldn’t be impossible to achieve,” said John W. Limbert, who worked on Iran policy at the State Department for three decades, and was one of the American hostages seized by Iranian militants in 1979. “The deal would be some kind of verifiable limits on the nuclear program in return for economic relief.”
“The fact that we’re talking about a suspension of all enrichment, and the question is whether it will be five years, 20 years or halfway in between — that’s important,” said Nate Swanson, an Iran expert who worked at the National Security Council under President Biden and Trump. “That sounds like you really have the basis for an agreement. … But don’t fool yourself to think that completely addresses the situation.”
Swanson said other issues, including Iran’s nuclear research and its advanced ballistic missiles, haven’t been addressed.
Despite signs of progress toward an agreement, the gaps between the two countries remain large.
Part of the problem is that both sides appear to believe they have won the war, said Danny Citrinowicz, a former Iran analyst at Israel’s defense intelligence agency.
Trump and other U.S. officials frequently assert that the United States has gained the upper hand by destroying Iran’s navy, air force and many of its missiles.
But the Iranians use a different scoring system, Citrinowicz said.
“Iran does not measure success the same way Washington often does,” he wrote in an email. “From Tehran’s perspective, simply holding firm in the face of American pressure can be framed as a win.”
“Tehran believes time is working against Trump politically and strategically,” he added. “Iran is prepared for prolonged confrontation; the United States, far less so.”
And even if a negotiated agreement is reached, the deals under discussion now won’t resolve all the conflicts between the two countries.
“An interim deal to buy time [is] probably where we end up,” Swanson said. “Buying time is not a bad thing. Ending a war is not a bad thing. But it’s not a comprehensive solution.”
EVERYONE loves a family day out, but let’s face it, everything is better when it’s free.
The much-loved Cotswold Farm Park run by Countryfile’s Adam Henson, has scooped up a Tripadvisor Traveller’s Choice Award for the last 15 years.
Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.
To celebrate, the attraction is offering free tickets to children, toddlers and babies.
The T&Cs are that it’s one complimentary ticket to each paying adult and or senior guest, and the offer is only running until the end of May.
Families can take advantage of the offer through May half-term and on the bank holiday (but make sure to book in advance).
The farm park is open seven days a week with plenty of activities to enjoy from feeding time with lambs and baby goats to jumping on its bouncy castle and trying out the zip wire.
When it comes to animals, visitors can get up close and personal with lots of breeds.
There’s Gillie the Jersey Cow, Marge the Middle White Pig, and Attenborough the Highland bull calf.
Feeding sessions with some of the youngest animals happen twice daily at 11.30AM and 3.30PM with lambs and baby goats.
There’s also a chance to watch chicks hatch as well as meet guinea pigs, rabbits and ducklings.
When it comes to playtime, children can head into the Adventure Barn – which is perfect for rainy days with didi cars and soft play.
Outside children can jump up and down on bouncy pillows, go on swings, zip wire, pedal tractors, explore the sandpit and climbing frame.
There’s a wooded area for bird-spotting and bee hive to take a look at too.
Between May 23 and May 31 the farm is celebrating Bee Wild Week with new activities like daily talks from the farm’s beekeeper-in-training.
When it’s time to eat, head to The Ox Shed Restaurant for all-day dining from breakfast to dinner, and pizza evenings every Saturday night.
Families from further afield can book to stay on-site at the campsites.
It has tent pitches to glamping tents, luxury lodges and new cabins.
A one-night stay on a grass tent pitch with electric starts from £67.
Head of Sun Travel (Digital) Caroline McGuire visited the farm park last year, she said: “Spring is easily the best time to visit any farm in the UK, as new lambs, chicks, calves and piglets all arrive noisily on the scene.
“Inside the Discovery Barn, which teaches children all about farm animals, my five-year-old son petted chicks and baby rabbits, and was lucky enough to see a lamb being born.
“We refuelled at the on-site Ox Shed restaurant, dining on burgers and loaded salads, washed down with apple juice and a glass of Adam Henson’s own pale ale for me.”
Israeli attacks on Lebanon have killed at least 3,111 people since March 2, with 9,432 injured, according to Lebanese Health Ministry.
Published On 23 May 202623 May 2026
Share
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa signed on Friday a revamped trade deal with Mexico as part of the EU’s efforts to expand its influence in Latin America, shortly after the Mercosur pact entered into force.
The deal was signed at an EU–Mexico summit in Mexico, with von der Leyen and Costa joined by the country’s President Claudia Sheinbaum, amid rising geopolitical tensions and shifting global alliances following the return of US president to the White House.
The economic partnership between the two medium-sized powers reflects efforts on both sides to reduce their dependence on the US — the EU’s and Mexico’s largest trading partner—and on China, for which Mexico has become a hub for electric vehicle production.
“The EU and Mexico are committed to a close strategic partnership,” von der Leyen said, adding: “Today’s modernised Agreements set out our shared vision of the future and will deliver many benefits for both sides.”
The EU–Mexico trade deal strengthens the EU’s diversification strategy by updating a 20-year-old agreement that had already eliminated tariff barriers on bilateral trade.
Under the new deal, the EU will access new markets for products, such as agri-food (pork, dairy, cereals, fruit and pasta), pharmaceuticals and machinery.
Mexico is the EU’s second-largest trading partner in Latin America and the EU is Mexico’s second-largest export market. Trade between both sides reached €86.8 billion in goods in 2025, alongside €29.7 billion in services in 2024.
The figures remain far smaller than Mexico’s trade with its neighbour, the US, which exceeded $900 billion in goods and services in 2024. But the deal comes as Mexico faces mounting pressure from a more protectionist White House.
For its part, the EU has been grappling with repeated tariff threats from Trump despite a trade deal clinched in 2025.
“At a time of growing global uncertainty, the EU and Mexico are choosing openness, partnership and ambition,” EU trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who was also in Mexico City, said. He pointed out that more than 43,000 European companies export to Mexico, while over 11,000 EU companies operate in the country.
On agriculture, the pact will open up new markets for Mexican products such as coffee, fruit, chocolate and agave syrup.
A total of 568 European and 26 Mexican geographical indications will also be protected, alongside the opening of public procurement markets, according to the Commission.
With this new deal, the EU also wants to signal its strengthened presence in Latin America, where China has expanded its influence.
“97% of the GDP of Latin America and the Caribbean will be covered by sophisticated preferential agreements with the European Union,” a senior EU official said, adding: “There is no other region in the world that has such a dense and connected network of agreements.”
The EU has already built new trade ties with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay through the Mercosur trade agreement, which provisionally entered into force on 1 May and liberalises trade flows between the EU and those countries.
However, its signing has faced strong opposition from EU farmers, who fear unfair competition from Latin American imports, and ratification was suspended after MEPs challenged the agreement before the EU Court of Justice.
Brussels argues the Mexico agreement should avoid the backlash faced by Mercosur because sensitive agricultural imports remain capped through tariff quotas.
OLIVIA Attwood has signed a huge seven figure beauty deal after it’s revealed she’s cracking US with her podcast.
Olivia, 35, was announced as a new brand ambassador for beauty giant Lookfantastic last month.
Today, the former Love Island star stepped out in London for a new pop up event in the capital as part of her new role.
Now, The Sun Online can reveal Olivia’s deal with Lookfantastic is worth seven figures.
A source said: “Olivia’s lookfantastic deal is worth a high seven figures and she also signed an exclusive deal with La Roche Posay as part of it.
“Olivia loves the brand and they love working with her so it’s a perfect fit. She’s got so many deals on the table right now”.
Olivia, who rose to fame on series three of Love Island in 2017, has also featured in a Maybelline campaign for its Sky High mascara in recent weeks.
That’s alongside her fashion collaboration with River Island, her TV and radio work and her popular podcast, Olivia’s House.
Olivia launched the podcast in the US last year, telling Deadline at the time: “I wanted to do something that felt like a real extension of who I am.
“When I’m doing television and radio, people ask, ‘Why a podcast?’. The podcast is a connection with my audience that’s so direct.
“I also wanted it to aesthetically represent the vibe that I feel like it reflects me and my style more.”
She also added to Mail Online in March after her ITV series Getting Filthy Rich and The Price Of Perfection were picked up by Disney+: “Love Island is huge in America, the UK one so I feel really lucky there was already quite a large US audience on my Instagram, they are definitely happy to have the shows available, also in Australia as well.
“I’m very happy with my career as it is right now. I mean I’ve had offers, I’m not looking to jump ship right now, but yes, at some point I’m sure we’ll do something over there.”
A new opinion poll in the US suggests that 60 percent of Americans now oppose President Donald Trump’s war on Iran.
Published On 22 May 202622 May 2026
Share
A year ago, David Ellison was viewed as a white knight poised to save Paramount.
Hollywood embraced billionaire Larry Ellison’s son, figuring he had the means and the mettle to revive the faded studio after decades of neglect.
But now, as the 43-year-old tech scion works to close his $111-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — which would mark his second major studio acquisition in less than a year — a large swath of Hollywood has soured on the budding mogul and his audacious bid to build a new media colossus.
More than 5,000 artists and industry workers — including J.J. Abrams, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Kevin Bacon and Tiffany Haddish — have signed an open letter opposing the union of two century-old studios.
“Our industry is already under severe strain,” the group wrote.
Many anticipate the U.S. Justice Department will rubber-stamp the deal because President Trump is friendly with Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle. Trump and his team want David Ellison to make sweeping changes at CNN, one of Warner Bros. Discovery’s premier properties.
David Ellison has spent the last year courting the president and his allies, including hosting a black-tie gala to honor Trump and attending state dinners and the president’s State of the Union address.
Ellison’s perceived coziness with the administration, along with controversial changes at CBS, has sullied his reputation in a town where image is everything.
Should the merger clear its regulatory hurdles, the Ellison family would control CNN and CBS News in addition to holding a significant stake in TikTok, the hugely influential social media app.
“When power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the stories that get told and the livelihoods of the people who tell them become hostage to whoever that power serves,” Jane Fonda, the Oscar-winning actor who is helping lead the opposition, told The Times. “We are not going quietly.”
Paramount declined to comment. Ellison previously has pushed back on fears that Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. would be bad for Hollywood. Instead, Ellison envisions building a stronger company to boost the industry, including movie theaters.
If the Warner Bros. Discovery deal is finalized, Ellison would control two legendary news organizations and two iconic studios. His determined White House outreach to speed approval of the Warner Bros. deal has aroused deep suspicion among many in Hollywood, which has long been considered a liberal bastion.
“They got too close to Trump,” said Norm Eisen, executive chairman of Democracy Defenders Fund, one of the groups coordinating the opposition campaign. “People in Hollywood are concerned that the Ellisons are going to do to CNN what they did to CBS.”
One of Ellison’s first moves after taking over Paramount was to hire journalist Bari Weiss, who had no TV news experience, as CBS News editor-in-chief. Weiss, who built her reputation being a contrarian voice, along with her recently installed evening news anchor Tony Dokoupil got off to a rocky start.
During his inaugural week, Dokoupil awkwardly saluted Secretary of State Marco Rubio (a fellow Floridian). “CBS Evening News” viewership fell 9% this season. The program, which attracts 4.1 million viewers, musters less than half the audience for ABC’s “World News Tonight with David Muir.”
Ellison is aiming to get his deal done by September.
“The projected merger timeline would have Ellison in control of CNN before November,” Fonda said, noting the high stakes this fall because the midterm elections will decide control of Congress.
“If this merger goes ahead, the administration will have yet another lever to cast doubt on results it does not like,” Fonda said. “This is about corruption, not optics.”
Her group has urged California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to file a lawsuit to try to block the merger. Bonta has said his team is reviewing potential antitrust concerns with the deal, which he said has “red flags everywhere.”
Some in Hollywood favor Ellison’s takeover, saying it would lift two middling players to create more robust competition to Netflix, Disney and Amazon.
“This deal will set up an environment where we will have four competitive streaming services, and that’s a good thing for the creative community,” said Ari Emanuel, executive chairman of WME Group and Ellison’s agent.
Ellison is pressing ahead, working to secure government approvals in Britain, Europe and the U.S. Prominent Democrats in Congress have decried the deal and Ellison’s proposed ownership structure, which would include the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as significant, but passive, investors.
Paramount leaders have tried to keep their heads down by focusing on their businesses. This year, the company has signed deals with Kim Kardashian, Neil Patrick Harris, Tituss Burgess and Kinetic Content, the reality TV firm behind Netflix’s “Love Is Blind.”
But the “block the merger” campaign has picked up prominent Paramount and Warner Bros. talent, including Oscar-winning filmmaker Adam McKay (“The Big Short”); “South Park” co-creator Trey Parker; and Emmy Award-winning actors Noah Wyle (“The Pitt”) and Mark Ruffalo, a stalwart of critically acclaimed HBO productions, including “Task.”
Some filmmakers have privately discussed whether to steer clear of Paramount, according to people knowledgeable of the discussions who were not authorized to comment. Taylor Sheridan, the prolific producer behind “Yellowstone” and “Landman,” last fall opted to switch teams. He eventually will make new shows for NBCUniversal instead of Paramount.
CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert’s sign-off Thursday night has added to the hand-wringing.
Colbert learned he was getting the boot in July, two days after he called Paramount’s $16-million settlement with Trump “a big fat bribe” during a show monologue. Paramount had agreed to pay the money to end Trump’s lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview, a payout blasted by 1st Amendment advocates who viewed the Trump suit as frivolous.
Paramount settled because it needed Federal Communications Commission approval as part of its sale to the Ellison-owned Skydance Media. Paramount’s CBS has blamed declining revenues for its decision to oust Colbert, which came just before Ellison officially took the keys to Paramount.
This week, for the first time in 18 years, CBS will fall short of claiming the largest live audience in broadcast TV. NBC snagged the ratings crown, thanks to its sports-heavy lineup, prompting NBC late-night comedian Seth Meyers to crow about his network’s victory.
“We have taken down CBS,” Meyers told advertising buyers last week in New York. “Well, the Ellisons did, but I like to think we helped.”
Ellison’s supporters view the anti-merger campaign as politically motivated.
“So much of the criticism and negative sentiment originates from [Ellison’s] apparent relationship with Trump,” said one observer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the topic.
But interviews with numerous industry insiders reveal that concerns over Paramount’s proposed purchase of Warner go well beyond anti-Trump sentiment — or worries about CNN’s future.
The merger comes during an existential crisis for the industry, and for Los Angeles, as the shift to streaming has upended established business models.
“Whether it’s Ellison, Amazon, Apple or Netflix, these are essentially tech companies that are gaining increasing control over what has been a cultural and entertainment sector,” said Dominic Asmall Willsdon, executive director of the International Documentary Assn.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Apple’s outgoing Chief Executive Tim Cook also have openly embraced Trump, which some see as a pragmatic move to curry favor in Washington to advance their sprawling businesses, which include film and TV operations in Culver City.
Much of the angst over the Ellison deal is driven by economic uncertainty. L.A.’s film industry has been decimated by a flight of production to other locations.
“L.A. has already had a taste of things to come,” Eisen said. “There’s less competition so the artists get hurt, and so do the working people who have long been an integral part of Hollywood.”
A combined Warner-Paramount would instantly become the largest employer for union writers, said Michele Mulroney, president of the Writers Guild of America West. It would control HBO, CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Animal Planet and two of the largest film and television studios.
“This media behemoth would have enormous leverage to reduce content, raise prices, increase control of production, suppress our members’ compensation and silence the voices of our members,” Mulroney said.
Jessica J. González, the L.A.-based co-chief executive of the 1st Amendment group Free Press, said: “This isn’t just about David Ellison. It’s about what David Ellison did with his last merger and how he uses his power.”
Ellison’s wealth and privilege have also fueled resentment among the rank and file who are struggling amid America’s growing economic disparity. Said one veteran executive: “We’re living in a new gilded age.”
For many, the prospect of more job losses is most unsettling.
Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger. Those cuts are expected to include sizable layoffs on top of nearly 2,000 in job cuts at Paramount since last fall.
Hollywood has a troubled track record with mergers, including two failed takeovers of Warner Bros.
AT&T misfired with its 2018 acquisition of Time Warner, and within four years, the phone company had unloaded the firm to David Zaslav’s smaller Discovery. That transaction saddled Warner with more than $50 billion in debt, and Zaslav and his team laid off thousands of workers and cut dozens of projects to dramatically reduce the company’s debt and keep the company solvent.
Walt Disney Co.’s $72-billion acquisition of much of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox in 2019 led to thousands of layoffs as one of the industry’s original studios all but disappeared.
“We have seen from that merger the earnings and employment numbers for screenwriters significantly reduced,” Mulroney said.
Emanuel, the power agent, pointed to Ellison’s commitment to keep the Warner and Paramount studios largely intact, with each entity releasing about 15 films into theaters each year.
“He’s going to be making a minimum of 30 movies a year for theatrical release plus content for both their own and other platforms because that’s the only way to generate revenue,” Emanuel said.
Still, critics question whether Ellison will be able to keep his commitment due to the $79-billion debt load he will take on.
“I’m sure [Ellison’s] intentions are genuine,” Mulroney said. “But a promise like that’s not enforceable, and there are no consequences if you don’t meet the quota that you’ve set for yourself.”
On Wednesday, S&P Global Ratings agency said Paramount Skydance will remain on a negative credit watch due to balance sheet concerns.
S&P also cited worries about Ellison’s prospects “given the immensely complicated endeavor of combining two of the largest global media companies and the limited track record of PSKY’s management team in integrating and transforming such companies.”
Emanuel and others say Ellison’s image won’t suffer long-term damage.
The two sides, he predicts, will eventually work together.
“Here’s a guy who’s willing to put a lot of money on the line and take huge risks to make our environment more competitive,” Emanuel said. “The one thing about David is that he’s not a vindictive person. He always does what’s best for the project.”
President Trump, it’s well known, is into gold. Every day brings new evidence that he’s thoroughly enjoying the “golden age” he pronounced in his inaugural address — as few other Americans are — with stock trades, crypto profiteering and much more, even a new taxpayer-financed slush fund to reward his allies.
As for me, I’ve gone into silver. That is, I constantly look for the silver linings in Trump’s heinous acts.
One silver lining, of course, is his cratering job-approval numbers in the polls, especially among the young and Latino voters who made his reelection possible. But here’s another: By his humiliating failure to bring Iran to heel, nearly three months after starting a war that he said would last weeks at most, Trump has brought new, more positive attention to what he again this week derided as “Barack Hussein Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.” (The emphasis on “Hussein” is Trump’s, always.)
The president, along with his Republican cheerleaders, counts his first-term abrogation of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as a signature achievement. This week, yet again, he falsely claimed that had he not done so, Iran would have a nuclear weapon. In fact, his action in 2018 taking the United States out of the multinational deal subsequently led to Iran’s rebuilding of its nuclear program, the emboldening of the Iranian hard-liners now in power and the Middle East morass in which the United States is now mired.
That quagmire has left Trump seeming desperate for a deal — almost certainly a worse deal than the one Obama struck. Call it JCPOA Lite.
If he were able to get Iran’s sign-off on the sort of detailed, restrictive agreement that Obama and other world leaders won 11 years ago, he’d be trumpeting himself as the world’s greatest dealmaker. (He does that anyway, but his record proves otherwise.) Instead, by his own failure to date, Trump has invited reconsideration of the very agreement he decried as the “worst deal ever” on his march to election and reelection.
No sooner was the 2015 deal signed than Trump and Republicans succeeded in defining it as a giveaway to Iran that assured, not hindered, its development of a nuclear weapon to threaten Israel and the world. Opponents condemned the agreement for not addressing Iran’s other threats, notably its support for militant proxies throughout the Mideast. Some Democrats, notably Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, were among the foes. Other Democrats, cowed by opposition to the agreement by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government and pro-Israel lobbyists, were all but mute in the pact’s defense.
Now some Democrats are belatedly finding their voice (and, post-Gaza, some willingness to defy Israel). Along with nonpartisan experts, those Democrats are drawing comparisons between the 2015 agreement, flawed yet successful, and Trump’s promised yet ever-elusive alternative. What’s ironic for Israel and Netanyahu, still implacably against negotiating with Tehran, is that they could end up, under Trump, with a nuclear deal that gives Iran more leeway than the hated JCPOA did.
As Americans are being reminded, the 2015 deal wasn’t just between Iran and Obama, as Trump has long suggested; other signatories were China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the 27-nation European Union. Reconstituting that group would be all but impossible today.
The pact’s 159 highly technical pages and five appendices — a far cry from the short-lived one-pager that Trump officials teased earlier this month — required Iran for 15 years to limit its nuclear program to civilian purposes, forfeit more than 97% of its enriched uranium and submit to intrusive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure compliance. In return, Iran gradually got relief from some, but not all, international economic sanctions and access to Iranian funds that were frozen after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Presumably, after 15 years, the agreement would have been extended somehow.
By all accounts, including those of Trump’s first-term intelligence and national security officials, Iran was complying when he abandoned the deal. Its “breakout time” for building a nuclear weapon was about a year — time enough for the world to intervene — instead of two to three months. Now, though the president boasts he barred Iran from having that weapon by breaking the Iran nuclear deal, he incessantly tells Americans that he went to war against Iran on Feb. 28 because it was on the brink of a bomb — never mind that he also said he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program last summer, a program that was in a well-monitored box until he first took office.
If you’re confused, you’re paying attention.
A month ago, Trump posted online that he was close to a deal “FAR BETTER” than the 2015 accord. “I am under no pressure whatsoever, although, it will all happen, relatively quickly!” To several reporters, he suggested he in fact had a deal and that Iran had agreed both to suspend its nuclear activities and to forfeit all of its enriched, near-weapons-grade uranium.
Preposterous claims, given Iran’s current government, and Tehran promptly denied them. It was a sign of Trump’s squandered credibility that few, if anyone, believed him in the first place. Nor have folks believed his more recent talk of imminent success; oil markets, too, have learned not to trust the president, as prices at the pumps attest.
On Tuesday at the White House, amid a noisy tour of the billion-dollar-ballroom construction site, Trump told reporters he’d been “an hour away” from striking Iran again that very day but Mideast leaders asked for more time for negotiations.
Don’t hold your breath.
But for the tragic consequences, Obama might be enjoying some justifiable schadenfreude about Trump’s travails.
“We pulled it off without firing a missile. We got 97% of the enriched uranium out,” he told Stephen Colbert in an interview last week. Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence agreed that Iran was abiding by the nuclear limits, Obama added, “and we didn’t have to kill a whole bunch of people or shut down the Strait of Hormuz.”
That sure doesn’t sound like the “worst deal ever.” It wasn’t.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
May 21 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has said he will speak with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te about a stalled $14 billion arms deal, a call that would be precedent-setting for a sitting U.S. president and likely anger China.
“I’ll speak to him,” Trump said Thursday from the tarmac of Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.
The president was responding to a reporter’s question on whether he planned to call Lai before making a final decision on the Congress-cleared weapons deal, the future of which remains uncertain following Trump’s visit last week to Beijing for meetings with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
Taiwan has requested the weapons package as it faces an aggressive China, which claims sovereignty over the self-governing island it views as a breakaway province and has said it will take it back by force if necessary.
The weapons deal was pre-approved by Congress in January 2025, and Taiwan’s legislative body earlier this month approved a special defense budget of $25 billion to buy weapons from the United States. The package now requires Trump to sign off on it.
But Trump on Friday told reporters aboard Air Force One while en route back to the United States following his visit with Xi in Beijing that they had “talked a lot about Taiwan” and that he would “make a determination over the next fairly short period” on whether to give the arms deal final approval.
Taiwan was a significant topic during the trip, with Xi warning Trump that the island was “the most important issue” in bilateral ties and that, if mishandled, could trigger “clashes and even conflicts.”
Amid the uncertainty, Lai issued a Facebook post Sunday night stating Taiwan-U.S. security cooperation and arms sales “are key elements in maintaining regional peace and stability” and that the island’s security is the region’s security.
Trump did not say Wednesday when he would speak with Lai or discuss specifics concerning the arms deal.
“We have that situation very well in hand,” he said, adding that he had an “amazing” meeting with Xi.
“We’ll work on that,” he said.
Trump spoke with Taiwan’s then-President Tsai Ing-wen in 2016, when he was the president-elect, but no sitting U.S. president is known to have spoken with the leader of Taiwan since Jan. 1, 1979, when the Carter administration formally severed diplomatic ties with the Republic of China, the official name of Taiwan’s government, and established relations with the People’s Republic of China in Beijing.
Spokeswoman Zhu Fenglian of Beijing’s State Council Taiwan Affairs Office gave reporters a standard answer during a press conference Wednesday, stating: “We firmly oppose the United States conducting any form of official exchanges with China’s Taiwan region, and we firmly oppose the United States selling weapons to China’s Taiwan region.”
“This position is consistent and clear,” she said.
UPI has contacted Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry for comment.
Democrats and some Republicans have urged Trump to approve the arms deal and expressed concern over its future as the president was in Beijing.
“Trump must not sell out Taiwan, period,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a social media statement.
The Republic of China, the current government of Taiwan, once governed mainland China but retreated to the island following its defeat by the Chinese Communist Party in the Chinese Civil War in 1949.
The Chinese Communist Party views Taiwan as part of China under its One China principle and seeks reunification with the island — an act Taiwan says would amount to an illegal annexation.
Lupa Systems, the media and tech holding company owned by James Murdoch, is set to acquire nearly half of Vox Media.
As part of the deal, Murdoch’s company will own Vox Media’s podcast network, Vox.com and New York Magazine, once an asset of his father, industry giant Rupert Murdoch. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but the price tag was reportedly over $300 million, the New York Times reported citing people familiar with the deal. The goal of the investment is to bring “influential journalists, top-rated podcasts, and digital brands with large social footprints” to Lupa and help grow its media portfolio, the company announced Wednesday.
“This acquisition aligns well with our existing holdings and investments and reflects both our interest in the forward edge of culture and our deep commitment to ambitious journalism and agenda-setting conversations,” Murdoch said in a statement.
The three new assets will function as a subsidiary of Lupa Systems and will keep the name Vox Media. The deal includes New York Magazine’s popular verticals like The Cut, Vulture and Intelligencer, as well as Vox’s most successful podcasts like “Today, Explained” and “Pivot with Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway.” Jim Bankoff, Vox Media’s current CEO, will continue to lead the company.
The other Vox Media properties, which Murdoch did not purchase, include websites like Eater, The Dodo and The Verge. These platforms will be run under an unnamed new company by the current president of Vox Media, Ryan Pauley.
This investment strengthens Lupa Systems’ position in the evolving media landscape. The business has other holdings including the parent company of Tribeca Film Festival, the owner of Art Basel, Robert DeNiro and Jane Rosenthal’s entertainment company Tribeca Enterprises, and Bodhi Tree Systems, an investment platform behind a popular Indian streaming service.
This is one of the largest deals Murdoch has closed since he and his family resolved a $3.3-billion dispute last year. The conflict centered on the future of the family’s media empire, which includes Fox News, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal. In the settlement, James Murdoch received roughly $1 billion and his elder brother, Lachlan, assumed power over the family’s assets.
Before the legal blowout, Murdoch previously served as the chief executive of major global media companies like 21st Century Fox and Europe’s Sky Group.
The billionaire told the New York Times that, with this new acquisition, he didn’t want a “daily news business.” He wanted “longer-form, thoughtful journalism that can really speak to the culture.”
Despite a raft of unrelated agreements resulting from talks between President Vladimir Putin (L) and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday, the pair failed to make progress on a long-planned 1,615 mile second pipeline from Siberia to supply China with natural gas. Photo by Alexander Kazakov/EPA
May 20 (UPI) — Talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday failed to make progress on a long-planned 1,615-mile pipeline to supply China with an annual 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Russia’s Yamal field in Siberia.
The Power of Siberia 2 project negotiations on the final day of Putin’s two-day state visit to Beijing stalled due to differences over the timetable, financing and cost of the gas with Beijing holding out for a price of around 12-13 cents per cubic meter, in line with the cost in the domestic Russian market.
Moscow and Beijing signed a binding contract to develop the project during Putin’s last visit to China in September but left the details to be ironed out down the line.
Russia wants a similar deal to that for Power of Siberia 1, which experts projected would mean the price of the gas would be at least double the 12-13 cents figure.
The talks yielded 20 other trade and technology agreements and while a joint leaders’ statement talked of boosting their “comprehensive partnership” and shared vision “for a multipolar world and a new type of international relations,” the summit produced no breakthroughs of any great significance.
Analysts said the power imbalance in the Sino-Russia relationship — one where Russia needed China more than China needed Russia — was on full display during Putin’s visit.
Putin said that as one of China’s largest energy suppliers, Russia was ready to “reliably” meet fast-growing Chinese demand for oil, gas and coal.
“Russia and China are actively cooperating in the energy sector. Our country is one of the largest exporters of oil, natural gas, including liquefied gas, and coal to China. We are, of course, ready to continue to reliably ensure uninterrupted supplies of all these fuels to the rapidly growing Chinese market,” Putin said in comments that made no reference to the pipeline.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the sides had “reached an understanding on the project’s main parameters” in Wednesday’s talks but that “some nuances remain to be ironed out.”
Beijing, which is looking to Russia to ameliorate the energy shock from the severe disruption to its supplies of oil and LNG caused by the Iran war and the closure of the Hormuz Strait, has already imported 35% more Russian oil in the January to March quarter than in the same period in 2025.
“Both China and Russia need each other, but Russia clearly needs China more than before at the global stage. Given today’s international environment, deep co-operation with China is extremely important for Russia in dealing with many of its current challenges,” Zheng Runyu, of the Centre for Russian Studies in Shanghai, told the BBC.
Nearly three months after the United States and Israel launched their large-scale bombing campaign against Iran and about six weeks since the April 8 ceasefire took effect, President Trump faces an inflection point. Does he return to war? Maintain the ceasefire and U.S. blockade on Iranian ports in the hope of cutting a deal on American terms? Or drop his maximalist negotiating stance?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an informal foreign policy advisor for the White House, continues to press for more aggressive U.S. military action. Trump’s political advisors would prefer that the war end as soon as possible to minimize political repercussions against the Republican Party in a midterm election year.
Trump seems conflicted. Despite weeks of U.S. bombardment and an ongoing naval blockade, Tehran is as protective of its nuclear program today as it was before the war began. “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend. A day later, Trump took to the social media platform again to announce he suspended planned U.S. attacks on Iran to give talks more time.
Unfortunately for Trump, he’s proved to be his own worst enemy on this subject. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and Tehran’s effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, the regime’s two biggest cards, are a byproduct of Trump’s own policy decisions.
The first is a clear indictment of Trump’s first-term order to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a highly technical accord that put Iran’s nuclear work in a box by restricting the number and quality of centrifuges it could use, capped the amount of enriched uranium it could produce and compelled Tehran to ship 97% of its stockpile out of the country. When the Trump administration scrapped that hard-won deal, Iran responded by enriching more nuclear material at a faster pace and accumulating the very stockpile the Trump administration is now seeking to neutralize.
The Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s second card, would not even be an issue today if the Trump administration had refrained from going to war in the first place. On Feb. 27, the day before the conflict began, more than 150 tankers and vessels traveled through the strait. The international waterway was open for business.
Not so today. On Thursday, a grand total of three crossings were registered in the waterway. This collapse of commerce is a consequence of Iran’s ability to harass civilian tankers so much that shipping companies no longer view the journey as worth the cost. As Adm. Brad Cooper, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday: “The Iranian capability to stop commerce has been dramatically depleted through the strait, but their voice is very loud. And those threats are clearly heard by the merchant industry and insurance industry.”
By virtue of his own actions, Trump is now left with a series of policy options that range from least bad to terrible. None of them are ideal, and all of them carry some risk.
For starters, Trump could resume the war. Any renewed U.S. bombing campaign would probably expand the U.S. military’s original set of targets to include a portion of Iran’s energy infrastructure, which Trump has threatened repeatedly to hit. A U.S. invasion of Kharg Island, where 90% of Iran’s oil processing takes place, might also be up for discussion. The aim would be to destroy Iran’s remaining military capabilities and further squeeze its oil revenue until Tehran’s strategic calculus on the war shifts to Washington’s liking.
Yet there are no guarantees that doubling down on military force will work. Trump’s entire strategy has relied on a baseline assumption: The more punitive the United States is, the more likely Tehran will be to cave. Yet that simply hasn’t occurred. If anything, Iran is more dug in now than it was in the opening days of the conflict. For the regime, capitulating to Trump is as dangerous as losing the war. Why would more bombing succeed where previous bombing failed?
The risks of additional U.S. military action are considerable as well. Before the ceasefire, Iran was launching ballistic missiles and attack drones across multiple gulf Arab states, hitting Qatar’s largest natural gas processing facility, Saudi Arabia’s east-west oil pipeline and Dubai’s luxurious high-rises. As the Iranians have stated, such attacks will not only resume if Trump orders a resumption of the war but will expand to new targets, including desalination facilities and nuclear power plants. Such strikes would raise global oil and gas prices to even more absurd levels, adding to the extra $40 billion the American people are already paying for fuel since the war began.
What about continuing the status quo? While this contingency would be less costly than another round of bombing or a U.S. ground invasion, it’s unclear whether it would help or hurt negotiations toward a settlement. There’s a possibility that extending the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports could merely reaffirm the regime’s earlier decision to preserve its own shutdown of the strait. Iran is now urging Washington to end its blockade before talks on the nuclear file can be held. And it’s a mystery whether Trump’s blockade is working anyway; the U.S. intelligence community assesses that Iran could withstand this pressure point for three to four more months, which may be too long for Trump to sustain given the oil disruptions that are bound to get worse.
Striking an agreement to end the war, return the strait to open traffic and restrict Iran’s nuclear program would be the most beneficial policy for the United States with the least amount of cost attached — not quite undoing the harm from Trump’s first-term decision to scrap the nuclear deal and his second-term decision to start a war. U.S. and Iranian negotiators are passing proposals back and forth as we speak. But as of now, Trump can’t stomach agreeing to a deal that covers some of Iran’s terms, including but not limited to a shorter suspension of enriched uranium and some kind of Iranian role in the management of the strait. Even if Trump did reassess his position, he would be forced to confront the hawks in his political coalition who would consider anything short of Iran’s total surrender a failure.
In short, Trump is in an unenviable position. He’s got nobody to blame but himself.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist.
Published on •Updated
Diplomats and MEPs reached an agreement late on Tuesday to implement the contentious EU-US agreement, which eliminates duties on most US industrial goods imported into Europe.
The negotiations concluded two weeks after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on EU cars if Europeans did not implement the agreement — clinched by Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland, last summer — by 4 July.
The so-called “Turnberry Agreement,” criticised by MEPs as unbalanced, raises US tariffs on EU goods to as much as 15%.
“The EU and the United States share the world’s largest and most integrated economic relationship. Maintaining a stable, predictable and balanced transatlantic partnership is in the interest of both sides,” Cyprus trade Minister Michael Damianos said, adding: “Today, the European Union delivers on its commitments.”
MEPs had kept the deal frozen for several weeks following Trump’s threats over Greenland earlier this year. They also suspended it after the US adopted new tariffs following a Supreme Court ruling that declared illegal the tariffs imposed by the White House since Trump’s return to power.
Demanding clarity from the Americans, EU lawmakers finally agreed to enter into negotiations with the EU Cyprus presidency — representing EU member states — after the Commission assured them that the US would honour its side of the agreement and cap its tariffs at 15%, as agreed.
However, EU-US relations remain fragile and there is concern in Brussels that the US administration could still use tariffs to put political pressure on the EU if the bloc does not comply with the White House’s demands on other issues.
Trump’s threats over EU cars two weeks ago also targeted Germany, whose Chancellor Friedrich Merz has criticised the war in Iran launched by the Americans alongside Israel.
Trump has repeatedly called on European countries to deploy ships to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, a move Europeans have been reluctant to make.
Many disagreements also continue to strain EU–US relations over Ukraine — including the recent US extension of a sanctions waiver allowing purchases of Russian oil — and over NATO, which Trump has repeatedly threatened to leave.
On Tuesday night, MEPs tried to secure the deal by attaching conditions, risking US anger with additional provisions to which Washington had not agreed.
Under the Turnberry Agreement, the EU also committed to investing $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028 and to purchasing $750 billion worth of US energy.
A $30 minimum wage for hotel and airport workers will be delayed after Los Angeles elected officials persuaded a group of business leaders to drop a ballot measure that would have devastated the city budget.
On Tuesday, the City Council approved the 18-month delay, which will postpone the wage increase until after the 2028 Olympics and fend off the business-backed initiative to eliminate the gross receipts tax, which is the city’s second-largest revenue stream.
The minimum wage will still increase to $25 in July and continue in increments until reaching $30 in January 2030.
Because the 11 to 4 vote was not unanimous, the new pay schedule will head to a second vote next week. Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Ysabel Jurado, Nithya Raman and Hugo Soto-Martínez cast the “no” votes.
In May 2025, the council approved a proposal that would have increased the minimum wage to $30 in July 2028 and also raised an hourly payment for healthcare coverage.
In response, a coalition of airline and hotel businesses gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the Nov. 3 ballot that took aim at the city’s gross receipts tax, which is imposed on a vast array of businesses, including entertainment companies, child-care providers, law firms, accountants, healthcare businesses, nightclubs and many others.
If approved by voters, the measure would have stripped $740 million from the city’s general fund over the first year, according to city officials, and over five years would have amounted to a $860 million loss annually on average.
City officials, hotel and airport businesses and labor unions had been in continuous negotiations since last Wednesday, when the council narrowly approved an initial postponement of the wage increase to allow time to reach an agreement. The business coalition agreed to withdraw the measure if the council permanently approved the delay.
In addition to delaying the $30 minimum wage, the council on Tuesday pushed back the hourly healthcare payment to start at $8.15 an hour for airport workers in July 2027 and $4.25 for hotel workers July 1 of this year.
The council also voted to set up a committee to study possible changes to the business tax structure.
“Imposing wages and benefits without bringing business to the table is not reasonable,” said Nella McOsker, president and CEO of the downtown business group Central City Assn., at the council meeting. “It is reasonable to ask us to partner together to be on the other side of the table and negotiate, but it is not OK to do so without that process.”
Kurt Petersen, president of Unite Here Local 11, which represents the hotel workers, accused city officials of giving “into blackmail.”
“They now have a playbook. The next time workers win something, they’ll threaten to blow up the city,” Petersen said of the business coalition. “It’s a bad day for workers.”
Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson described the process as painful but nearing a conclusion.
“I think we walked away from the negotiating table, like many negotiating tables, where no one was happy about the outcome, but everybody came away better than when we started off,” he said.
Shortly before the council vote, Mayor Karen Bass issued a statement that said she was called in by both business and labor leaders to close the deal.
She called the proposed repeal of the gross receipts tax “an existential threat to the city budget and the services it supports,” including street repairs, public safety and efforts to clean the city.
“This agreement ensures workers are paid fairly and that businesses that create jobs can continue serving LA and hiring Angelenos,” Bass said.
On Tuesday, the council chamber was filled with union workers in red, purple and yellow shirts.
Laura Esquivel, a janitor at Los Angeles International Airport, expressed frustration that council members were not standing by their earlier commitment.
“We’re sick and tired of being exploited. Some members of the council that are here, now we know, do not stand with workers,” Esquivel said. “We are not giving up, we will continue to fight and we’ll be back here in 2028.”
Before voting against the delay, Soto-Martínez, a former Unite Here organizer, called it sad and enraging.
“I cannot support anything that is going to take away money from workers,” he said.
Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who spoke in Spanish, was critical of the way the negotiations unfolded.
“If this thing about the gross tax receipts passes, we don’t have a city,” Padilla said. “The business community has us by our necks.”
She said workers deserve the wage increase, though she voted for the delay.
“Next time, let’s negotiate, and let’s negotiate well,” she said.
Times staff writer Suhauna Hussain contributed to this report.
New Delhi, India — When Argentina’s Gonzalo Montiel converted a penalty to seal his country’s third FIFA World Cup title in December 2022 in Qatar, Lionel Messi fan Vishwas Banerjee celebrated the Albiceleste’s triumph with abandon in Bangalore, a football-crazy city in southeastern India.
Unable to hold back his excitement, Banerjee screamed and tossed his shirt away as he watched the match on a big screen at a street crossing close to midnight.
“It was one of the best nights, watching Messi lift the World Cup,” he told Al Jazeera.
“Everyone went crazy. We danced on the streets,” Banerjee said, reminiscing about the excitement felt more than 3,000 kilometres (1,900 miles) away in an otherwise cricket-mad country.
While Messi is expected to make his World Cup swan song at the upcoming tournament in North America, football fans in India, the world’s most populous nation, are set to miss out on watching the biggest sporting event.
With just over three weeks to the tournament’s kickoff in Mexico, organisers FIFA have not found any buyers for broadcasting its most coveted product in India.
Here’s what we know about the World Cup broadcast rights crisis in the South Asian nation:
When the World Cup was played in Qatar nearly four years ago, India trailed only China in overall engagement figures, with more than 745 million fans following the action across all media platforms in the country, according to figures released by FIFA.
In television viewing numbers, India was among the top 10 countries – ahead of World Cup participants Germany, France and England – with nearly 84 million viewers.
Digital viewership numbers were also significant in India. For the final alone, an unprecedented 32 million viewers tuned in on Reliance’s JioCinema – a subscription video-on-demand over-the-top streaming service – as the tournament clocked 40 billion minutes of watch time on the platform.
Reliance’s Jio paid $60m for tournament rights in 2022, while Sony Sports secured broadcasting rights for the 2014 and 2018 FIFA World Cups, as well as the Euro 2016 championship, for around $90m in 2013.
So when FIFA began selling media rights for the 2026 tournament and the 2027 Women’s Cup, it expected plenty of takers for an estimated price of $100m.
But with 23 days until the tournament and the asking price reportedly slashed significantly, FIFA is still struggling to find buyers in one of its biggest markets.
Experts say the kickoff times for the majority of the matches are the biggest concern for Indian broadcasters.
With the tournament being staged in the United States, Canada and Mexico, many games will be played at odd hours for the Indian audience, with a 10-12 hour time difference between the host cities and the South Asian nation.
Only 14 out of the total 104 World Cup games will begin before midnight for fans in India.
The final will be held in New Jersey on July 19, beginning at 12:30am in India (19:00 GMT). By comparison, 98.4 percent of matches at the 2018 World Cup started before midnight, and 82.5 percent at the following edition in Qatar.
Karan Taurani, executive vice president at investment firm Elara Capital, sees TV as a “struggling” medium in India.
“When you have these kinds of sporting events, effectively it is mostly digital that is monetising and raising big money,” Taurani told Al Jazeera. “That is a big reason why no one’s showing interest in the FIFA World Cup.”
Taurani explained that cricket leads the sports economy market in India.
“Only a small fraction of people who watch the Indian Premier League [IPL] will watch the FIFA World Cup,” he said, adding that an even smaller fraction tune in past midnight to watch a match.
For broadcasters and advertisers, Taurani explained, these factors shrink the target audience.
He also pointed out that a recent ban by the Indian government on fantasy real-money betting apps had reduced the macro form of money in the sports entertainment industry.
The World Cup begins 10 days after cricket’s IPL 2026 final, one of the most-watched sports events in India and one where major prime-time advertisers focus the majority of their annual sports spending.
The price of football streaming in India has been going down anyway. The English Premier League rights, which were sold for $145m for three seasons between 2013 and 2016, went for $65m for 2025-28. There are no major takers for La Liga matches in India.
FIFA appears increasingly concerned that weak broadcaster interest in India could dent both revenues and its long-term ambition to grow football in one of the world’s largest media markets.
In the capital New Delhi, the high court is hearing a plea on the lack of a tournament broadcast deal and has sought responses from India’s information and broadcasting ministry and Doordarshan, India’s state-owned public television broadcaster.
“Without timely judicial intervention by this court, the petitioner and millions of Indian citizens will be irreparably deprived of their fundamental rights with no adequate alternative remedy,” the petitioner, a lawyer and football fan, has said in the plea.
He claims that missing out on the tournament violates the constitutional protections of freedom of speech.
“It is important to note that by denying access to the information in question or by not taking necessary steps to broadcast the FIFA World Cup, the respondents have directly infringed the petitioner’s fundamental right to acquire and receive information, which is an integral part of freedom of speech and expression under the constitution,” the petitioner argued in the plea.
With China’s state broadcaster signing a late World Cup deal with FIFA last week, there’s still hope and time for football fans in India. However, if no deal is signed, all eyes will turn to Doordarshan, which last beamed the tournament in 1998.
The continuing uncertainty is chipping away at the excitement of the football World Cup. “I’m heartbroken that we will not have any reliable way to watch the World Cup this year,” said Banerjee, the Messi fan from Kolkata.
“But we will tune to pirated streams anyway,” he added. “No one can stop that.”
peterschreiber.media/iStock via Getty Images
NextEra Energy (NEE) is in talks to acquire Dominion Energy (D) in a mostly stock transaction that could value Dominion at roughly $66 billion, Bloomberg News reported Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter. If completed, the merger would become the largest
Prime Minister Narendra Modi says his talks with the Dutch PM also focused on expanding cooperation in defence and security.
Published On 17 May 202617 May 2026
India’s Tata Electronics has signed a deal with Dutch technology giant ASML to build a major semiconductor plant in western India, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the Netherlands during his European tour.
The agreement, announced on Saturday, will support the development of Tata’s semiconductor facility in Dholera, Gujarat – Modi’s home state.
list of 4 itemsend of list
ASML, Europe’s largest technology company by market value, manufactures advanced lithography machines used to produce high-end microchips found in products ranging from mobile phones to cars.
The Dutch company said it would help “establish and ramp up” production at the plant by supplying its cutting-edge chipmaking tools.
Tata Electronics plans to invest $11bn in the facility, which is expected to manufacture chips for artificial intelligence, the automotive industry and other sectors.
ASML chief executive Christophe Fouquet said the company saw “many compelling opportunities” in India’s growing semiconductor industry.
“We are committed to establishing long-term partnerships in the region,” Fouquet said in a statement.
The deal comes as India and the Netherlands move to deepen economic ties, with New Delhi seeking foreign technology and investment to boost manufacturing and create jobs.
The European Union has increasingly viewed India – the world’s most populous country and one of its fastest-growing economies – as a key future market.
During his visit, Modi held talks with Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten and met King Willem-Alexander.
“My conversations with Prime Minister Rob Jetten were extensive and covered a wide range of topics,” Modi wrote on X.
“One of them was defense and security. I spoke about the possibility of drawing up an action plan for the defense industry as quickly as possible. We can also collaborate in sectors such as space travel, maritime systems, and maritime security.”
Modi also addressed members of the Indian diaspora and is expected to inspect centuries-old Chola copper plates being returned to India by Leiden University.
Indian and Dutch officials are also discussing a more flexible visa arrangement for Indian students and workers in the Netherlands.
Modi will next travel to Sweden for talks with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson focused on trade, innovation and green technology cooperation. The visit marks his second trip to the country since attending the first India-Nordic summit in 2018.
18:09, 16 May 2026Updated 18:09, 16 May 2026
Stephen Mulhern hosts the game show(Image: ITV)
A former Deal or No Deal contestant has blamed becoming a “TV star” for him developing a £600-a-week cocaine habit. Connor Cooper, 33, claims to have come across a “huge pile” of the drug while partying near to the hotel he and the rest of the contestants of the ITV game show were staying in.
Connor explained that one night, he had been out drinking with the rest of the contestants, and after drinking shots and cocktails all night, decided to give the drug a go. But after taking it, he couldn’t sleep – having got back to his hotel room at 7am, he was picked up at 8am to film the show.
READ MORE: ‘I was on Stephen Mulhern’s Deal or No Deal and one moment made me feel physically sick’
He and some of the other contestants were exhausted, with Connor admitting he was “completely wired” during filming. But it didn’t put the dad-of-one off, with Connor saying he went on to become hooked, saying he was “living in the moment” and had a taste of “the showbiz life”.
Speaking to the Sun, Connor explained: “I was dreading that show going out. I was still completely wired when we filmed and we recorded three games that day.”
Contestants on Deal or No Deal can be living with each other for up to a month, as they return in their bid to win big on the game show. Connor said that this lead to him and the others drinking together, with the “party culture” sucking him in.
He said he would order it secretly to keep himself going, but then he wouldn’t sleep again and have to return to the studios to film the day after. Then they would drink again that evening and he would “do it all over again”, with each contestant allowed two free drinks per day.
But then when he started drinking he would continue out of his own money, adding: “I just thought I was a TV star and dived in with both feet. It was really stupid.”
Connor went on to win £13,500 on Deal or No Deal, and returned to Portsmouth where he worked as a tarmac layer. A month after returning, when Connor was still buying and using cocaine, he found out his long-term partner was pregnant with twins, something he describes as a “wake-up call”
He told her everything and with her support he managed to seek professional help to kick his dangerous and expensive habit. Connor said he didn’t seek help with ITV’s mental health services. The Mirror has contacted Banijay for comment.
In response to the paper, a Deal Or No Deal spokesperson said: “We have a zero-tolerance policy on drug use on all our productions. Contestants stay at the hotel for short periods of time whilst filming and are closely monitored by a specialist welfare team throughout. Having reviewed logs of activity and welfare assessments, we can find no record of any behaviour that would cause concern.”
Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .
The former mayor of a conservative Kansas town was taken into custody by immigration authorities after acknowledging last year that he had voted in elections despite not being a U.S. citizen.
Joe Ceballos, who was born in Mexico and is a legal permanent U.S. resident, was detained Wednesday during a meeting at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Wichita, Kan., according to his attorney, Jess Hoeme. He said Ceballos now fears he could be deported.
The 55-year-old resigned as mayor of Coldwater in December while facing state charges over voting as a noncitizen. While seeking citizenship in 2025, Ceballos admitted during an interview that he had voted, not knowing that green card holders don’t qualify, Hoeme said.
Ceballos was charged with voting illegally but pleaded guilty in April to misdemeanors in a deal with the Kansas attorney general. His case has drawn attention from the Trump administration and inspired supporters in his community, some of whom held signs reading “We Support Mayor Joe” and “ICE Out” as Ceballos walked into the federal building in Wichita.
“Let Joe go!” the crowd yelled.
“Thinking what could happen — it’s just kind of crazy,” Ceballos told reporters. “Obviously nervous. I don’t know what’s going to happen. I don’t know where they’re going to take me and what I can and can’t do inside there.”
An email seeking comment from the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned.
Trump and other Republicans have been warning of the dangers of noncitizens voting in elections since the beginning of the 2024 presidential election. Research, even by Republican election officials, show the problem is rare.
This year, Trump has been pushing Republicans in Congress to pass the SAVE Act, which among other things would require documented proof of U.S. citizenship to register and vote.
The administration also has significantly upgraded a program within Homeland Security that checks citizenship. At least 25 states, most of them controlled by Republicans, have used that system to check their voter rolls.
Ceballos was brought to the U.S. from Mexico by family when he was 4 years old. Hoeme said lawyers would next try to get an immigration judge to release him on bond.
He said Ceballos, at age 18, was encouraged to register to vote on the spot during a school field trip to the Comanche County courthouse. Ceballos has previously said in interviews with reporters that he voted for Republicans.
He was twice elected mayor of Coldwater, population 700, and also served on the city council. Ceballos won a new term in November but resigned after state Atty. Gen. Kris Kobach charged him with voting without being qualified and election perjury.
Kobach’s office, however, reached a deal with Ceballos. He pleaded guilty to disorderly election conduct, which Hoeme described as a misdemeanor similar to disturbing the peace.
“He has not been convicted of any kind of voter fraud. It should not have impacted his immigration status,” Hoeme said. “The Trump administration and ICE have doubled down on nonsense that he is a criminal.”
Ceballos has been a popular figure in Coldwater, where an advertisement in the Western Star newspaper encouraged people to support him.
“He’s kind of got to live the American dream, to come from absolutely nothing and build up — I don’t know about wealth — but to build up a business and have a job and be a productive part of society,” longtime friend Ryan Swayze told Wichita station KAKE-TV.
White writes for the Associated Press.
