Defense

Just weeks after Justin Bieber’s well-received Coachella headline gig, the singer played a small private event for tech, entertainment and defense industry moguls. Executives at controversial firms, such as surveillance tech giant Palantir, were also on the bill.

Bieber was a headliner at WNDR, entertainment executive Jeffrey Katzenberg’s invitation-only confab at the Rosewood Miramar in Montecito last week. The programming for the event was first reported by Puck.

The ultra A-list talks and guests included director James Cameron and former Disney CEO Bob Iger, YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, FIFA President Gianni Infantino, Oprah Winfrey and Julia Roberts, comedians Chris Rock and Trevor Noah and artist Jeff Koons on a panel discussion with LACMA chief Michael Govan.

Bieber, meanwhile, performed a Wednesday poolside set for attendees at the Rosewood. The “Swag” singer reportedly became the highest-paid headliner in Coachella history last month, and its most lucrative merch seller.

Representatives for Bieber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While there was lighter programming (like a karaoke party with pop producers StarGate and a talk about snacks with chef Nancy Silverton), the bill included talks and cameos from major weapons and surveillance technology firms noted for their support for — or deep engagement with — the Trump administration.

One panel featured Anduril Industries’ Palmer Luckey, who recently welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to its Southern California headquarters. “We are rebuilding the Arsenal of Freedom,” Hegseth said after the Anduril visit.

Palantir Chief Executive Alex Karp led another talk. Palantir’s AI-driven defense and surveillance software has faced scrutiny around how tech like its Maven Smart System may have been used to target civilians in the Iran war.

Karp also published a recent book, “The Technological Republic,” where he wrote that “We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?”

Katzenberg’s WNDR conference is one of several recent multi-discipline, ultra-elite gatherings hosted by CEOs, including Jeff Bezos and Eric Schmidt. Katzenberg founded his investment firm WndrCo in 2017.

May 7 (UPI) — U.S. Central Command said Thursday that American forces struck Iranian military sites responsible for “unprovoked” missile, drone and boat attacks on U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz.

“U.S. forces intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes as U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers transited the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman,” CENTCOM said in a statement.

CENTCOM said Iran had targeted the USS Truxtun, the USS Rafael Peralta and the USS Mason.

“No assets were struck,” it said.

The U.S. strikes targeted the Bandar Abbas and Qeshm ports near the strait, CBS News and CNN reported, each citing unnamed U.S. officials.

The attacked Iranian facilities included “missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes,” according to CENTCOM.

After the U.S. vessels had transited the strait, President Donald Trump promptly took to social media to post a warning to Iran.

“Missiles were shot at our Destroyers, and were easily knocked down,” he wrote. “Likewise, drones came, and were incinerated while in the air. They dropped ever so beautifully down to the Ocean, very much like a butterfly dropping to its grave! A normal Country would have allowed these Destroyers to pass, but Iran is not a Normal country. They are led by LUNATICS.”

Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy said in a statement carried by Iranian state-owned outlet Press TV that it attacked the U.S. warships in response to an alleged U.S. cease-fire violation as well as a U.S. attack on an Iranian tanker near the Iranian city of Jask.

Iranian forces caused “significant damage” to the U.S. warships, it said.

A spokesperson for the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters also said the Iranian strikes were in response to the “aggressive, terrorist and outlaw” U.S. military, Press TV reported.

The attacks come after Trump earlier this week called off Project Freedom, a U.S. military operation to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, as Washington and Tehran try to reach an agreement to end the war.

Despite the attacks, Trump told reporters that the fragile cease-fire that halted the war that began in late February was still intact.

“They trifled with us today. We blew them away,” Trump told reporters Thursday evening.

“If there’s no cease-fire, you’re not going to have to know. You’re just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran.”

The ceasefire between the US and Iran has been in place for nearly four weeks. The Strait of Hormuz has not been at peace for a single day.

This week pushed that contradiction to its most dangerous point yet. The United States launched Project Freedom, a naval escort operation designed to guide roughly 2,000 ships stranded on either side of the Strait through to open water. Iran said any ship attempting passage without IRGC permission would be fired on. Within hours, both sides were claiming to have hit the other, the UAE was scrambling missile alerts for the first time since the ceasefire began, an oil refinery in Fujairah was on fire, and commercial aircraft bound for Dubai were turning around mid-air.

As of Tuesday evening, Trump announced Project Freedom would be paused “for a short period of time” to see if an agreement with Iran could be reached. Secretary of State Rubio told reporters the US was now in a “defensive” posture. Twenty-four hours earlier, both sides had been shooting and denying it simultaneously.

Here is what we know, what is contested, and what it means.

What Is Project Freedom and Why Did the US Launch It?

Trump announced the operation on Sunday, framing it in humanitarian terms, an effort to free the seafarers and cargo companies that had done nothing wrong and were caught between two governments fighting a war neither had formally ended. About 2,000 ships have been stranded on either side of the Strait since late February, unable to move without IRGC permission, which Iran began requiring and charging for after the ceasefire took effect.

The US had already begun a naval blockade of Iranian ports on April 13. Project Freedom was the next escalation — a direct challenge to Iran’s assertion that the Strait was now under its operational control. Trump described it as a “humanitarian gesture.” Iran described it as a violation of the ceasefire and an act of military aggression in a sensitive oil region that affects the economies of countries around the world.

Two American-flagged merchant ships successfully transited the Strait on Monday with US Navy escort. A Danish shipping company confirmed one of its vessels crossed with US military protection. But the transit did not go smoothly.

Did Iran Attack a US Warship? What the Claims Say

By Monday afternoon, the competing narratives had become almost impossible to untangle, which is itself part of the story.

Iran’s Fars News Agency reported a US warship had been hit by two Iranian drones after refusing to turn back from the Strait. CENTCOM denied any warship had been hit. US Admiral Brad Cooper said CENTCOM forces had sunk six IRGC vessels that tried to interfere with Project Freedom. Trump later said seven. Iran’s state broadcaster then reported that Tehran had launched an investigation and its preliminary conclusion was that the vessels the US claimed to have sunk were not IRGC boats at all, they were two small civilian craft carrying passengers from Oman to the Iranian coast, and five civilian passengers had been killed. The US has not commented on that claim and it has not been independently verified.

Why Iran Attacked the UAE in 2026: The Fujairah Strike Explained

The UAE’s Ministry of Defense said its air defenses engaged 15 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles, and four drones launched from Iran on Monday, the first Iranian attacks on the UAE since the ceasefire took effect on April 8. One drone struck an oil refinery in Fujairah, wounding three Indian nationals and setting the facility ablaze. Four missile alerts were issued across the country, sending residents to shelter. Commercial aircraft bound for Dubai and Abu Dhabi turned around in mid-flight.

Iran’s position was that the Fujairah attack was not a premeditated strike on the UAE but a consequence of what it called US military adventurism in the Strait. An Iranian military official said the Islamic Republic had no preplanned programme to attack UAE facilities, and that what happened resulted from the US attempt to create an illegal passage through restricted waters. The UAE’s Foreign Ministry rejected that framing entirely, condemning what it called renewed terrorist and unprovoked Iranian attacks on civilian sites, and warning it reserves the full right to respond.

Why the Attack Claims Cannot Be Independently Verified

One detail worth noting is the shifting count of Iranian vessels supposedly sunk. Admiral Cooper said six. Trump said seven. No independent observer has confirmed either figure, and Iran has denied any IRGC boats were hit at all. This pattern: each side claiming damage inflicted while denying damage received, with no neutral verification , has run throughout the conflict and is not unique to this week’s exchange. What is different now is that the Strait is supposed to be under a ceasefire, and the exchanges are happening in a waterway where 2,000 civilian ships are anchored and waiting to see who wins the argument.

How the Hormuz Escalation Is Threatening Iran Ceasefire Talks in 2026

Trump’s decision to pause Project Freedom on Tuesday is significant precisely because of how quickly it followed the launch. The operation began Sunday. By Tuesday, with the UAE under attack, Iranian drones targeting ships in the Strait, and competing claims circulating with no resolution, the White House stepped back. Rubio reframed the entire mission as defensive rather than offensive, and a new UN Security Council resolution on freedom of navigation was announced, co-authored by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. A previous similar resolution was vetoed by China and Russia, and the outlook for this one is no clearer.

The pause does not resolve the underlying problem. The Strait remains contested. Iran still insists ships must seek IRGC permission and pay for transit. The US still insists the Strait is international water under international law. Two thousand ships are still stranded. And the ceasefire that is supposed to govern all of this is being tested in ways its text was never designed to handle.

The attacks this week did not happen in isolation from the negotiations still technically underway. Pakistan has been trying to bring the US and Iran back to a second round of talks after the Islamabad discussions collapsed on the nuclear question in April. Every exchange of fire, every competing claim, every missile alert in Abu Dhabi makes that second round harder to convene and harder to trust once convened.

As Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East and Central Asian politics at Deakin University, told Al Jazeera: “We see escalation after escalation against the backdrop of shuttle diplomacy. Such attacks, even if they are aimed to be contained, risk exploding into another major combat.” Neither the Americans nor the Iranians want a return to full-scale war, Akbarzadeh said, but neither is prepared to show weakness. “This dynamic has locked them in a perpetual conflict and in desperate need of a circuit breaker.”

The circuit breaker Pakistan offered in April produced a ceasefire. That ceasefire is now generating its own escalation cycle, in twenty-one miles of water, over a question neither side has answered: who controls the Strait of Hormuz, and on what terms does the world’s most important waterway reopen.

Two thousand ships are waiting for the answer.

Chinese military and intelligence analyses for 2025 and 2026 indicate that China views the expansion of the Egyptian Armed Forces in establishing numerous naval and air bases, such as the Bernice and Gargoub bases, with strategic interest. Beijing considers this trend, spearheaded by the Egyptian political leadership under President El-Sisi and the Egyptian Ministry of Defense, a vital component of a comprehensive strategic partnership between Egypt and China, aimed at securing shared interests in strategically vital regions. Chinese intelligence and military agencies view the Egyptian expansion in establishing military bases, such as the Mohamed Naguib base, the July 3 base, and bases east and west of the Suez Canal, as part of a comprehensive Chinese strategy to develop the Egyptian Armed Forces and enhance their deterrent capabilities against Beijing’s adversaries in the region. This perspective aligns with Beijing’s view of Egypt as a key strategic partner in Africa and the Middle East. The Chinese military establishment’s vision for this Egyptian military development of air and naval bases up to 2026 can be detailed, as follows: Supporting the Egyptian political leadership’s vision, from a Chinese perspective, of Egyptian military development under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is seen as a serious attempt to modernize the army and transform it into a smart deterrent force capable of protecting national security and the country’s economic interests. This aligns with China’s +1 strategy (localization), as China seeks to leverage the development of Egyptian bases to become centers for localizing Chinese military technology in Egypt, particularly in the areas of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the Wing Loong and advanced air defense systems, such as the HQ-9B.

In this context, China views Egypt’s expansion in establishing military bases, such as the Mohamed Naguib Base, the July 3 Base, and the bases east and west of the Suez Canal, with strategic interest as a crucial element in strengthening the comprehensive strategic partnership between Cairo and Beijing. China considers these Egyptian military bases, especially those located on the Mediterranean Sea and near the Suez Canal. Bases like the July 3rd Air Base serve as vital support points for protecting China’s commercial interests and the routes of its Belt and Road Initiative, which passes through the Egyptian Suez Canal. Egypt represents a cornerstone in China’s 21st-century strategy. Therefore, China aims to bolster Egypt’s deterrent capabilities (a defense partnership). Chinese military officials believe that modernizing the Egyptian armed forces through these naval and air bases and localizing Chinese defense industries in Cairo, in accordance with President Sisi’s vision, enhances the independence of Egyptian military decision-making, paves the way for multipolarity, supports developing countries in the Global South, and contributes to regional stability. Relations between Egypt and China have moved beyond mere arms deals to the localization of Chinese technology within Egypt, enabling Egypt to confront regional challenges more effectively and creating a kind of regional balance of power. Here, Beijing, by supporting Egyptian military expansion through these bases, aims to create a strategic balance in the region amidst a growing Egyptian-Chinese rapprochement seen as an alternative to or complement to traditional partnerships with the West. This can be inferred from the military exercises. The air capabilities and joint military exercises between Egypt and China are reflected here. Joint air exercises, such as Eagles of Civilization 2025, and cooperation at Wadi Abu Rish Air Base are Egyptian-Chinese joint training exercises aimed at exchanging expertise in air combat and protecting maritime routes. This coincides with Egypt’s interest in military and arms deals with China, such as the J-10C. Other Egyptian military negotiations with China regarding the purchase of advanced submarines, known as the Yuan class, are also underway. This reduces Egypt’s military dependence on Washington and the West and strengthens the Chinese presence in the Egyptian military arsenal. This reflects a convergence of military visions between the two countries, with China supporting Egypt’s efforts to modernize its military infrastructure. The new bases are considered a cornerstone for securing shared interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Beijing also aims to strengthen the comprehensive strategic partnership. Here, the Chinese vision extends beyond mere arms deals; it views this as a core partnership aimed at establishing a broad military alliance with Egypt to develop the Chinese military Silk Road. This includes joint operational planning and training exercises, as demonstrated in the Civilization Eagles 2025 maneuvers. China seeks to effect a comprehensive shift in the regional balance of power. Chinese intelligence believes that establishing bases and developing naval and air forces will grant Egypt strategic independence and reduce its dependence on the West. This, in turn, opens the door for China to enhance its influence in the region through defense cooperation, thereby securing shared Chinese and Egyptian military interests. Beijing considers securing Egyptian bases for maritime routes (the Suez Canal) and the Red Sea to be in line with Chinese economic and security interests within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. In general, the Chinese military establishment views Cairo as working to build a strong regional pivot point, and Beijing sees this expansion as an opportunity to deepen defense and technological ties with Cairo, paving the way for the formal declaration of a Chinese-Egyptian military Silk Road partnership.

China views the new Egyptian military bases as a means of protecting its strategic interests within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. These bases, particularly those located on the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Suez Canal, occupy vital maritime chokepoints, and China considers them a guarantee for the security of its international trade routes. The relationship between Egypt and China has evolved from mere arms purchases to the localization of defense industries, such as the production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and electronic warfare systems, increasing Egypt’s military reliance on Chinese technology. These Egyptian military bases, which enhance Egypt’s rapid deployment capabilities, align with China’s interests in establishing a multipolar regional order that reduces American influence in the Middle East. Chinese intelligence, military, defense, and security reports indicate a qualitative shift in Egyptian military doctrine. Chinese military institutions affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army analyze that Egyptian military bases, such as the July 3rd base, provide strategic depth and protection for economic assets (gas fields and the Dabaa nuclear power plant), thus contributing to the economic stability in which China participates. For this reason, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is seeking to train and qualify the Egyptian military elite through the Military Academy for Advanced Studies as an alternative to Western and American training.

The Chinese intelligence and military establishments view the Egyptian army’s expansionist vision in establishing naval and air bases within Egypt as part of the development strategy adopted by the Egyptian Armed Forces and the political leadership of President El-Sisi. This strategy aims to complete the modernization of the Egyptian Armed Forces and advance the Chinese military Silk Road with Egypt’s assistance. China supports the Egyptian Armed Forces’ efforts to modernize Egyptian military infrastructure, considering the new Egyptian military bases a cornerstone for securing China’s shared interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea. China views these new Egyptian military bases, particularly on the Red Sea, as essential for securing Chinese trade routes (the military/maritime Silk Road) and mitigating risks. In addition to the significant role Egypt plays for China as a regional power center and a key player in the balance of power, relevant military circles in Beijing analyze the modernization of the Egyptian army as a center of gravity for stability in the Middle East and Africa. A strong and stable army serves China’s interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, China translates its vision into tangible support, including modernizing Egypt’s military infrastructure to align with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative in its maritime, air, and naval components and equipping it with advanced weapons systems.

Based on the preceding understanding and analysis, we conclude that the new Egyptian military bases (naval and air) are considered, according to the Chinese military and strategic vision, strategic strengths. Their benefits extend beyond Egypt, securing China’s commercial and military interests in the Mediterranean and Red Seas. They also provide a Chinese technological alternative in a region previously dominated by Western and American platforms, paving the way for China’s gradual expansion of its military Silk Road initiative.

May 4 (UPI) — A man accused of leaking classified military information to a Washington Post reporter will be released on home detention ahead of his trial next year, a judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Judge Michael Maddox ordered the Justice Department to release Aurelio Perez Lugones to be held on home detention until his trial in February.

Lugones, whose location would be monitored and blocked from using internet-connected devices, is charged with leaking classified information to Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, Politico and The New York Times reported.

Natanson’s home was raided in January by the FBI, with the agency seizing two laptop computers, a cell phone and a Garmin Watch as it investigated Lugones, who was a systems administrator at the Pentagon with a top-secret security clearance.

He allegedly had been taking classified reports home and keeping them before passing some to Natanson, which motivated prosecutors to suggest he could send more information to her if she was not held in jail until the trial.

“The government has no way of knowing what he has retained and what he is able to provide to others,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia McLane said during the hearing.

“The person he was communicating with is still employed and has a willingness to accept classified and national defense information … The receptacle of additional national defense information is still available to the defendant,” she said.

The controversial search of a journalist’s home was triggered by stories Natanson wrote about various national security issues, including one that noted the more than 1,000 sources she had cultivated during the course of her reporting.

Magistrate Judge William Porter approved the search warrant, though he was not told about a federal law that restricts the government from raiding reporters and news organizations, and has said he would go through Natanson’s records for things related to the national security case.

Lugones attorney pushed back on the prosecutors’ assertion that he has “a historical Rolodex of classified information in his head,” and that he’d lost his job, top-secret clearance and access to classified information.

The prosecutors said, however, that the information Lugones retained and passed to Natanson “was not old information.”

“This was current information regarding military movement in the Caribbean, in the Gulf and specifically with Venezuela,” McLane said during Monday’s hearing.

“We have a man who has thrown everything away in an attempt to get back at the administration,” she said.

Calling the prosecution’s argument for holding Lugones in jail speculative, Maddox ordered his release and set a trial date of Feb. 22.

Welcome back to the Times of Troy newsletter, where the spring sports calendar is quickly coming to a close at USC. Saturday saw a trio of Trojan teams upended in the NCAA tournament. The women’s beach volleyball team fell in a brutal quarterfinal shutout by No. 5 Florida State. Men’s volleyball faltered in the second round to No. 3 Hawaii, and the men’s tennis team was shut out 4-0 by No. 9 Oklahoma.

But at USC, there’s a lot of excitement about what’s coming next. The year ahead is a critical one, and not just for Lincoln Riley and the football program. Eric Musselman enters Year 3 with no tournament invites to date, but the most talent he’s had yet as USC’s men’s basketball coach, while the women’s basketball program could be more talented next season than it has ever been.

That abundance of star power has made for a much different offseason for Lindsay Gottlieb this spring. At this time last year, the women’s basketball coach was scrambling to put pieces together in the transfer portal after JuJu Watkins’ knee injury derailed the Trojans’ plans of a title run. The vibes …. were not great. Two promising young guards, Avery Howell and Kayleigh Heckel, left. Some potential transfers who hoped to play with Watkins went elsewhere. All setting up for an up-and-down season.

But with Watkins set to return to full-go this summer and a trio of five-star prospects set to join her, Gottlieb entered this offseason facing polar opposite circumstances. Watkins is set to retake her throne as the most dominant player in women’s college basketball. Jazzy Davidson, already the national freshman of the year, should only get better as a sophomore. And Saniyah Hall, the nation’s top recruit in 2026, would be the best player on most college basketball teams. She may only be the Trojans’ No. 3 next season.

So when Gottlieb set out to survey the transfer portal this spring, she wanted to take a much more selective, intentional approach to building out an already-stacked roster.

“We wanted players that fit,” Gottlieb said. “It takes the person to have the courage to understand that they can really contribute with these really talented players that we have. And also a humility to know that we’re trying to win a national championship, so you’ve got to [be] confident and believe in your abilities. But it can’t necessarily be where they want something crafted around them only, you know? Because we’re trying to win a national championship.”

Pania Davis with Florida State last season.

(Gary McCullough / Associated Press)

She wanted more size, to split time with five-star freshman Sara Okeke at center and found 6-foot-6 center Pania Davis, a towering rim protector who played last season at Florida State.

“We were studying the best bigs that fit us, and 6-6 just jumps out at you,” Gottlieb said. “The way she moves we were really excited about.”

Gottlieb also set out to add an experienced guard in the portal after nearly all of USC’s backcourt depth departed in the offseason and landed on one that she’d known since her first year as the Trojans’ coach.

Gottlieb met Ryann Bennett at a camp during that first season, and when she became available last month after two seasons at UC Davis, her skills just happened to fit USC’s needs perfectly.

“She’s just a really good all-around player,” Gottlieb said. “She can create and pass. She plays some point guard. I don’t think she’s going to be afraid of taking or making a big shot.”

USC could add another player or two in the portal from here, Gottlieb said, but she also doesn’t want to upset the balance that she has right now, on a roster that should already be among the best in the nation.

The question now isn’t so much who USC adds, but how Gottlieb will manage the needs of a roster full of star players. Though, she scoffs at any concern that there’s only one ball to be shared among USC’s star-studded group.

“There’s one ball for South Carolina. There’s one ball for LSU. There’s one for UCLA,” Gottlieb said. “We’ve gotta play in a way that values winning. I don’t think it should take away anyone’s individual skills. But the priority has to be playing the best possible basketball.”

A joyous title run

USC women’s water polo players celebrate after defeating California for the NCAA title last month.

(Derrick Tuskan / NCAA)

The first season that Casey Moon took over USC’s water polo program, he freely admits that “I fell on my face.”

The Trojans lost in the NCAA tournament quarterfinals of the 2024 season, their worst finish in decades. And in the weeks that followed, Moon tried to step back and reevaluate what he wanted to be as a head coach. He had no choice but to be away from the pool, which was under construction all summer.

“The thing that kept coming up,” Moon says, “is this aspect of joy.”

Two years later, Moon has USC water polo back on top again, winners of their seventh national title. He and his players say “joy” is the reason why.

“We’re really unserious, and I think it helped us a lot this year,” said goalkeeper Anna King, who had a career-high 14 saves in the national title win. “We’re trying jokes the whole time. 
We’re just, like, making fun of each other. We keep it light.”

Maggie Johnson, a senior attacker, points to a moment between the third and fourth quarters of USC’s narrow title win over California.

“We are up by one, and they zoom in on our huddle, and we’re all just dancing,” Johnson said. “And I think that just encapsulates, like, what our team is.”

—The NCAA is primed to change its eligibility rules in a big way. The new rules would eliminate the notion of “redshirts” or eligibility waivers — and hopefully stop the cascade of legal challenges — by giving athletes five years to play, with only few exceptions. Eligibility issues have been a disaster as of late for the NCAA, and president Charlie Baker said last week that he’s “pretty optimistic” that the changes will pass when a vote happens later this month. Lincoln Riley has said in the past that he favors the five-year rule, though it’s been a while since we asked.

—The Big Ten distributed a record $1.7 billion in 2024-25, USC’s first year in the league. That was a 55% increase from the previous year, before USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon joined and the most money ever distributed by a college football conference. And from that pile of conference cash, USC should bring in somewhere between $76 million and $80 million. That’s nearly three times as much as the school got in its last year of the Pac-12. In case you needed reminding why USC left.

—USC lost a key member of its football front office. Zaire Turner came with general manager Chad Bowden in 2025 to be the Trojans’ new director of recruiting operations and played a key part in putting together the nation’s No. 1 class in 2026. Now, after a year, Turner, a Dallas native, is off to Southern Methodist where she’ll be senior director of recruiting.

—USC baseball notched its second straight Big Ten sweep. That brings the Trojans to 37-12 on the season, which still leaves them within striking distance of second place in the Big Ten with one conference series — and two overall — remaining in the regular season. With five more wins out of their seven remaining games, the Trojans would lock up their best regular season in a quarter century.

—A shout-out to USC women’s golf, who I unfortunately overlooked in last week’s newsletter, even after they’d won the school’s first Big Ten title and 10th conference title overall. And not just that, sophomore Jasmine Koo won the individual Big Ten title. She was already the winningest player in USC women’s golf history, but added her most distinguished honor yet by becoming the school’s eighth individual conference champion.

What I’m watching this week

Oscar Isaac as Josh Martin, Carey Mulligan as Lindsay Crane-Martin in “Beef.”

(COURTESY OF NETFLIX)

When its first season debuted on Netflix in 2023, there weren’t many shows out there that could build anxiety-inducing tension quite like “Beef.” And I’m happy to report that it’s still got it.

Season 1, which starred Ali Wong and Steven Yeun, centered on a road-rage dispute that escalated out of control. Season 2 has a totally new story, even better actors — Oscar Isaac and Carey Mulligan are the couple at the center of the beef — and even higher stakes. This time, a younger couple played by Charles Melton and Cailee Spaeny witness Isaac and Mulligan, who run the country club they work at, get into a raging fight, the optics of which don’t look so great.

This problem maybe could’ve been solved with a little communication. But judging by the name of the show, you can probably guess which direction it went.

In case you missed it

More March Madness: NCAA basketball tournaments reportedly set to expand to 76 teams

Until next time …

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at ryan.kartje@latimes.com, and follow me on X at @Ryan_Kartje. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

May 4 (UPI) — An oil tanker was struck late Sunday near the Strait of Hormuz, the second attack on a vessel in the Persian Gulf in about eight hours.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said in a statement that it received a report of a tanker being hit by unknown projectiles as the vessel was about 78 nautical miles north of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, near the northern tip of Oman’s Musandam Peninsula by the Strait of Hormuz.

The attack occurred at about 11:40 p.m. local time, it said, adding that all crew were safe and there was no environmental impact from the strike.

The tanker was not identified.

The oil tanker was struck a little more than eight hours after a bulk carrier was attacked by “multiple small craft” in the same region.

The UKMTO said the unidentified bulk carrier was attacked Sunday afternoon about 11 nautical miles west of Sirik, Iran. All crew were reported safe.

The agency is advising vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz with caution.

The maritime security threat level in the strait remains critical as the United States is enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports in response to Iran restricting which vessels can transit the strait.

The attacks come as U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday vowed to “free” cargo ships trapped in the Persian Gulf since the U.S.-Israel war against Iran began on Feb. 28.

In his Truth Social post, Trump said Project Freedom would begin Monday with the goal of helping ships sailing under neutral flags navigate the strait. Few specifics on how the operation will work were given.

More than two dozen vessels have reportedly been attacked in the strait since the war began.

May 3 (UPI) — Iran said on Sunday that it is reviewing the United States’ response to its most recent peace proposal, a 14-point plan that was reviewed by President Donald Trump on Saturday night.

The response was delivered to Iranian negotiators on Sunday, Iranian state media outlets PressTV and Tasnim reported, with officials clarifying some reports on the plan they said have been incorrect.

The 14-point plan is entirely focused on bringing an end to the two-month-old conflict, with no provisions about nuclear materials or other weapons, Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry, said in an interview.

When asked about Iran’s new plan on Saturday, Trump expressed doubt that it would meet U.S. requirements but said that he would be reviewing its exact language last night.

“The plan we have presented is centered on ending the war,” Baghaei said. “There are absolutely no details regarding the country’s nuclear issues in this proposal.”

The basics of Iran’s proposal are focused on ending hostilities and then opening a 30-day period for intense negotiation of other issues, including the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from areas around the country, lifting the U.S. naval blockade and ending the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, Tasnim reported.

But Baghaei said that reports of a suspension of nuclear activities or U.S.-Iran cooperation on clearing mines from the Strait of Hormuz are not true.

“These are among the things that I believe are fabricated by the imagination of some media outlets,” Baghaei said. “We are not currently engaged in any negotiations over the nuclear issue and decisions about the future will be made in due course.”

Iranian officials said that the U.S. proposal had included a two-month cease-fire, which Iran countered with a 30-day period to resolve issues and to actually end the war.

May 3 (UPI) — Two members of the U.S. Army were reported missing during a training event in Morocco on Sunday morning by the United States Africa Command.

The soldiers were participating in the U.S. military’s largest Africa-based exercise, African Lion, when the soldiers went missing on Saturday night during near the Cap Draa Training Area, which is near the city of Tan Tan, Morocco, AFRICOM said in a press release.

Military officials said their disappearance is unrelated to the exercise, but rather than they had gone on a hike near the training range and may have slipped off a cliff into the ocean, The New York Times reported.

“U.S., Moroccan and other assets from African Lion immediately initiated coordinated search and rescue operations, including ground, air and maritime assets,” AFRICOM said in the release.

“The incident remains under investigation and the search is on-going,” the command said.

The soldiers were discovered missing during a base-wide head-count around 9 p.m. local time, with helicopters searching throughout the night and various aircraft — including larger planes and drones — picking up the search on Sunday morning near the coast, CBS News reported.

African Lion is an annual joint military exercise that includes the U.S. military, NATO allies and African partner nations, and is hosted by Morocco, Ghana, Senegal and Tunisia, according to U.S. Army Europe and Africa.

This year’s event, scheduled to run from April 27 to May 8, includes 5,000 people from 40 countries.

May 2 (UPI) — An Iranian general said more fighting with the United States is “possible” after President Donald Trump rejected the most recent peace plan offered by Iran.

The United States and Iran are now in a fragile cease-fire.

“Evidence has shown that the United States is not committed to any promises or agreements,” said Iranian Brig. Gen. Mohammad Jafar Asadi, spokesman for Iran’s military headquarters, Iranian news agencies reported.

“Surprise measures are planned for the enemy, beyond their imagination,” Asadi said.

President Donald Trump, speaking at an event in West Palm Beach, Fla., said Friday that the United States is “better off” without making a peace agreement.

“Frankly, maybe we’re better off not making a deal at all. Do you want to know the truth? Because we can’t let this thing go on,” CNN reported he said. “Been going on too long.”

Trump had told CNN before leaving for Florida that he wasn’t satisfied with Iran’s latest peace offer.

Trump said he doesn’t think Iran can make a deal, saying, “They’ve made strides, but I’m not sure if they ever get there,” saying there is “tremendous discord” among Iranian leaders.

The president also said Friday that his options, as it relates to Iran, are making a deal or to “blast the hell out of them and finish them forever,” CNN reported.

Iran is holding to its plan to continue to control the Strait of Hormuz.

“With its dominance and control over nearly [1,300 miles] of Iran’s coastline in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the IRGC [Revolutionary Guards] Navy will make this water area a source of livelihood and power for the dear Iranian people and a source of security and prosperity for the region,” the Iranian Tasnim news agency reported Saturday.

Trump has repeatedly demanded the strait be fully open.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran believes in interest-based diplomacy, Al Jazeera reported.

“Iran has presented its plan to Pakistan as a mediator with the aim of permanently ending the imposed war, and now the ball is in America’s court to choose the path of diplomacy or to continue the confrontational approach,” Al Jazeera reported that Gharibabadi said. “Iran is ready for both paths in order to ensure its national interests and security, and in any case, it will always maintain its pessimism and distrust of America and its honesty in the path of diplomacy,” he added.

May 2 (UPI) — The United States has started warning allies that delivery of weapons systems are likely to be delayed because stockpiles have been drained during the war in Iran.

The Department of Defense has warned several allies in Europe — including the United Kingdom, Poland, Norway and Estonia — that there will be delivery delays for several missile systems, Breaking Defense and The Financial Times reported.

The delays, which may also spread to deliveries to Asian allies, have been linked to growing concerns about the numbers of U.S. weapons used since the war in Iran started.

Concerns have also come up as to whether lower stockpiles could affect the United States’ ability to defend itself and its allies.

The Department of Defense already has been relocating weapons from bases in other parts of the world both to the U.S. stockpile and for use in the Iran war, which President Donald Trump noted on Friday.

“All over the world, we have inventory,” he said. “And we can take that if we need it.”

Among the weapons systems that could be affected are the HIMARS and NASAMS missile systems, shortages of which were reported in Estonia and Norway in April.

The president of Finland also said in recent days that some U.S. weapons stockpiles normally stored in the country have been rerouted, which lines up with Trump’s comments yesterday.

In Asia, Japan and South Korea are reportedly bracing for delays beyond the ones it already has not received, including Patriot missile interceptors and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Delays that have already happened, and the potential for more, could affect foreign nations’ reliance on weapons manufactured by the United States, experts have said.

“Japan already was deeply frustrated with delivery delays for systems they have paid for,” former Pentagon official Christopher Johnstone told the Financial Times.

“This reality will drive Japan, South Korea and other allies to focus more heavily on indigenous and non-American options, even in areas where U.S. equipment is clearly superior,” he said.

The reports of delays come after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday told members of the Senate Arms Services Committee that he is aware of concerns about the stockpile after two months of an intense campaign in Iran.

In response to questions about the Pentagon’s request for a nearly 50% increase in its budget, Hegseth noted that some of the increase is because of weapons used during the war, and that it could take “months and years” to fully replenish the stockpile.

Trump has asked defense companies to “quadruple” their manufacturing pace, but there are limits to how much production can be sped up, according to industry experts.

May 2 (UPI) — The Pentagon announced Friday that the United States would draw down 5,000 troops from Germany, and Germany responded Saturday that the move was anticipated.

The decision came after Chancellor Friederick Merz made comments criticizing the war with Iran, saying the United States has been “humiliated” by the war.

“The Secretary of War has ordered the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 troops from Germany,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement. “This decision follows a thorough review of the Department’s force posture in Europe and is in recognition of theater requirements and conditions on the ground. We expect the withdrawal to be completed over the next six to 12 months.”

President Donald Trump lashed out at Germany on Truth Social Thursday after Merz made the comments.

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine (Where he has been totally ineffective!), and fixing his broken Country, especially Immigration and Energy, and less time on interfering with those that are getting rid of the Iran Nuclear threat, thereby making the World, including Germany, a safer place!” the president said.

At a visit to a school in Germany on Monday, Merz said U.S. officials had entered a war without a clear strategy, saying the “whole affair is ill-considered to say the least.”

“The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skillful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result,” CNN reported Merz said. “An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards. And so I hope that this ends as quickly as possible.”

On Tuesday, Trump said that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

In response to the announcement of the drawdown, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius downplayed the news and called it “foreseeable.”

He said it illustrated the need for Germany to take more responsibility for its own security and said the country is “on the right track.”

As of December 2025, there were 36,436 active-duty U.S. military personnel permanently stationed in Germany, according to the U.S. Defense Manpower Data Center.

After the removal of 5,000 troops, Germany will still host more than 30,000 U.S. personnel.

Trump also threatened to remove troops in 2020 when Angela Merkel was the chancellor.

On Friday, Trump told reporters in the White House that Italy had “not been of any help to us,” and accused Spain of being “absolutely horrible.” He said he may remove troops from those countries, too. Italy and Spain have denied any U.S. military planes that are used in the war against Iran from using their bases.

Germany has allowed limited use of its military infrastructure, though it hasn’t allowed its use as staging grounds for strikes.

Merz has said Germany will help if the war moves to a post-war stage, such as a stabilization mission, CNN reported. Berlin recently announced it was sending a naval minesweeper to the Strait of Hormuz once a lasting cease-fire deal is in place.

Lawmakers of both parties have opposed the decision to remove personnel from Europe.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Rep. Mike D. Rogers, R-Ala., chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, issued a joint statement Saturday against the decision and telling the Department of Defense to work with the oversight committees. They said they were “very concerned” about the move.

“Rather than withdrawing forces from the continent altogether, it is in America’s interest to maintain a strong deterrent in Europe by moving these 5,000 U.S. forces to the east,” the statement said. “Allies there have made substantial investments to host U.S. troops, reducing costs for the U.S. taxpayer while strengthening NATO’s front line to help deter a far more costly conflict from ever beginning.

“Any significant change to the U.S. force posture in Europe warrants a deliberate review process and close coordination with Congress and our allies. We expect the Department to engage with its oversight committees in the days and weeks ahead on this decision.”

House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said that pulling the troops isn’t “grounded in any coherent U.S. national security policy, strategy, or even analysis.”

“It is counter to what is needed and will embolden Russia,” Smith said in a statement Friday. “It doesn’t matter that our presence in Germany is essential to our national security. … It doesn’t matter that withdrawing a brigade combat team from Europe runs counter to the intent of the law that Congress passed overwhelmingly last year. All that matters are the hurt feelings of a president who is seeking political vengeance.”

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked Trump to reverse the decision.

“Weakening our military footprint in Europe at a time when Russian forces continue to mercilessly attack Ukraine and harass our NATO allies is a priceless gift to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and suggests American commitments to our allies are dependent on the president’s mood,” Reed said in a statement Friday.

We can analyze China’s current stance on the escalating Iranian conflict by understanding its true position. China does not desire a full-scale war that would destroy its oil interests, but it is not averse to the continuation of the neither-peace-nor-war situation that drains its adversaries, such as Washington. This positions China as a player that pushes for calm during critical times, while simultaneously providing Iran with the economic lifeline it needs. Here, China plays a dual and complex role in the Iranian conflict (the Iranian-American/Israeli conflict), balancing its strategic support for Tehran to safeguard its energy interests and undermine American influence with its pursuit of a ceasefire to avoid widespread economic chaos.

Based on current developments up to early May 2026 and statements by Iranian officials that war is a possibility, the regional and international landscape reveals a divide between actual military escalation and cautious diplomacy. The Chinese position and the likelihood of war can be analyzed based on several factors. China views the current conflict with Iran as a proxy war, prioritizing stability over stability. China considers Iran a strategic partner, and its stance is characterized by a delicate balance. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly called for de-escalation and a complete ceasefire to prevent further escalation in the Middle East, while simultaneously condemning American escalation. China has stated that American and Israeli military operations against Iran violate its sovereignty and has expressed grave concern about the potential imposition of a blockade on Iranian ports and the Strait of Hormuz. While Beijing seeks to protect its investments and economic interests, China is deeply concerned about any disruption to oil and energy supplies, especially since a direct war would lead to imported inflation, negatively impacting its economy. Therefore, China’s current stance is characterized by a cautious, mediating role. China is attempting to play the part of a peace broker but is also wary of the potential damage a war could inflict on its relations with the United States, especially given the ongoing diplomatic exchanges between the two countries.

Regarding the likelihood of war (and the expected scenarios), despite the tense rhetoric, a full-scale, direct war between the United States and Iran remains a risky prospect for all parties. Current indicators suggest that a war is already underway (indirectly), particularly since the start of direct military operations (US/Israeli strikes) against Iran and its allies in February 2026. This indicates that a direct war remains a strong possibility. The option of blockade and proxies also remains a possibility. Chinese intelligence and military assessments suggest that Iran might prefer to carry out its threats through proxies in the region or by disrupting oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz, rather than engaging in a direct war, to avoid a conventional military defeat. Despite Chinese diplomatic efforts to contain the situation, and despite the escalation, attempts are still underway, such as Pakistani mediation, to reach a ceasefire. This indicates a desire among the parties to keep the door open for political solutions.

As for my perspective on the proxy war between China and Iran against the United States and Israel, the current conflict is likely to continue as a proxy war of attrition, with limited and precise strikes, rather than a full-scale ground invasion. China will likely exert further pressure, continuing to push for diplomatic solutions because any large-scale war would threaten the stability of global energy supplies, on which it depends. It’s worth noting that the region is going through a critical moment and a dangerous phase of mutual deterrence. Iranian officials’ statements are as much messages of deterrence as they are an acknowledgment of the potential for escalation.

Regarding China’s role in the continuation of the war or its support for Iran (strategic and economic support), China considers the Iranian Strait of Hormuz and its purchases of Iranian oil as a vital economic lifeline. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil (approximately 80-90% of exports), providing Tehran with crucial funding to sustain its activities. China also seeks to help Iran circumvent US sanctions, assisting Iran in bypassing these sanctions through an unofficial oil fleet, thus keeping the Iranian economy afloat. Furthermore, there is a strategic Chinese-Iranian partnership opposed to the West and US sanctions against Tehran. China views Iran as a partner in undermining the US-led global order through organizations such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Moreover, China is exploiting the current situation to its advantage. Chinese intelligence, military, defense, and security analyses suggest that the continuation of the Iranian war drains US resources and provides China with an opportunity to enhance its influence, absorbing the shock of the war and potentially emerging with strategic gains.

At the same time that China is playing a role in halting the Iranian war through mediation diplomacy to de-escalate tensions, with China acting as a hidden mediator to urge Tehran to cooperate and reach a ceasefire with the United States to protect its economic interests, despite China’s support for Iran, the war harms China by closing the Strait of Hormuz and threatening its energy security. This prompts Beijing to urge an end to the war and the reopening of waterways. Therefore, China is pursuing a policy of diplomatic pressure, consistently calling for restraint and believing that the best solution is an immediate ceasefire, according to statements by its permanent representative to the United Nations.

Accordingly, we conclude that a full-scale war is theoretically possible but practically unlikely as a final option due to the exorbitant cost to all parties. However, the continuation of retaliatory strikes and economic sanctions remains the most probable scenario at present.

Interim head coach D.J. Smith will be among the candidates for the Kings’ full-time job when general manager Ken Holland conducts his coaching search this month.

Smith took over March 1 when Holland fired Jim Hiller with the Kings at 24-21-14 and out of the playoff picture. The former Ottawa head coach rallied the Kings to an 11-6-6 finish to claim the last wild-card spot in the Western Conference, but the Kings were swept by the powerhouse Colorado Avalanche in their fifth consecutive first-round postseason exit.

“D.J. did a great job,” Holland said Friday. “The team responded to him, so he’s a candidate. … I don’t want to talk to 20 people. I’d like to talk to probably five to eight people, and then make a decision. Some with experience, some maybe assistants, and some who haven’t been a head coach.”

Holland will begin his coaching search next week, looking for a candidate who can get this team out of its first-round playoff exit rut. He reiterated his disinterest in a full-scale rebuild, but also hinted that the Kings might want to make adjustments to their longstanding defense-first philosophy.

The Kings have failed to advance beyond the first round in seven consecutive postseasons since winning the Stanley Cup in 2014, including six first-round exits since team president Luc Robitaille took ultimate charge of hockey operations in 2017. The current Kings had 15 fewer points than last season’s team.

“As I sit here today, I’m not happy,” Holland said. “Luc Robitaille isn’t happy. Our players aren’t happy. It was a disappointing season. Under .500 at home, 29th in the league in goals scored, squeaked into the playoffs, got swept up by a Presidents’ Trophy-winning team. So I’m not happy. We’ve got to make the team better.”

Holland, who replaced Rob Blake a year ago, identified the obvious reason the Kings weren’t a real Stanley Cup contender this season: Their long-standing offensive struggles. The Kings scored only 225 goals, fourth-worst in the NHL and 25 fewer than last season.

Holland attempted to address the problem by trading for Artemi Panarin before the Olympic break, but the high-scoring forward couldn’t make up for the Olympic injury loss of fellow high scorer Kevin Fiala. Holland revealed Fiala might have been ready to return from his broken leg if the Kings had advanced to the second round.

The Kings have prioritized defense for most of the past two decades, often playing a sticky, trapping style that doesn’t promote offensive creativity or attack. That’s tough to overcome against opponents that are more talented while equally committed to defense — such as the Avalanche, who allowed only five goals in their four-game sweep.

Defense won two Stanley Cups for the Kings, but Holland openly wondered whether the Kings need to think bigger.

“Are we too defensive-minded? I’ve got to sort that out,” Holland said. “You’ve got to be good defensively. … You can’t win four games 6-5 in the playoffs. But we’re 29th in the league in goals scored. We’ve got to find ways. Power play has got to be better. We’ve got to generate a little more attack from the back end.”

The Kings also had inept special teams, ranking 28th in the NHL on the power play and 30th in penalty-killing. The Kings were the league’s third-best team at five-on-five defense, but only seventh in total goals allowed thanks to its feckless special teams.

Holland’s coaching hire will have to fix those units without the help of two-time Selke Trophy-winning forward Anze Kopitar, who retired after a 20-year career with Los Angeles. The Kings will need a new captain to replace Kopitar in the dressing room and a high-usage center to take Kopitar’s minutes.

The Kings will be relying even more heavily on Quinton Byfield, the former No. 2 overall draft pick who has grown into a dependable two-way player with the potential to improve in a more open system.

“Obviously it’s going to be QB’s team up front,” Holland said. “Kopi [leaves] a massive hole. He’s the highest-scoring forward in the history of the franchise. He plays 200 feet. He’s big and he’s strong. He wins draws. In my opinion, he’s a first-ballot Hall of Famer. I don’t think we’re just going to be able to go out and find a way to replace him with one person, and I don’t expect it.”

The Kings still have ample veteran talent next to Byfield, Fiala and Panarin, including top scorer Adrian Kempe, emerging forward Alex Laferriere and promising defenseman Brandt Clarke. Holland claims he is eager to add talent across the lineup after he settles on a coach.

“We have lots of good players,” Holland said. “I’ve got to build a better team.”

Beacham writes for the Associated Press.

April 30 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans that could see cuts to the tens of thousands of U.S. forces stationed across 20 bases in Germany.

Writing on his Truth Social platform Wednesday night, Trump said the process of scaling back the United States’ eight-decade-long military presence was already underway.

“The United States is studying and reviewing the possible reduction of troops in Germany, with a determination to be made over the next short period of time,” Trump wrote.

The announcement came two days after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Iran was running circles around the United States in ongoing peace negotiations to end the military conflict, saying “the Americans clearly have no strategy.”

Lack of support for the war from European NATO allies has seen Trump and other senior U.S. officials repeatedly threaten to pull out of the 32-country defensive alliance, complaining that Europe was “freeriding” and never there for the United States when it needed it.

On Friday, a Pentagon leak suggested that Spain could face being suspended from NATO in retaliation for not supporting the United States in its war with Iran.

U.S. troop strength in Germany stood at 36,436, mainly army and air force personnel, stationed at 20 bases across the country in December, the latest month for which U.S. Department of Defense data is available.

That compares with around 28,000 across the rest of Europe, with the bulk of those deployed in Italy, Britain and Spain.

Active-duty personnel numbers in Germany were cut from more than 50,000 from 2013 to 2017 during President Barack Obama‘s second term, in line with a strategic shift in the United States’ defense priorities involving pivoting to the Asia-Pacific and reducing the focus on Europe.

Before that, numbers had fallen to 94,000 in the first half of the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and then down to 71,000.

The United States currently has more than 54,000 troops in Japan, another 23,500 in South Korea and 7,000 in Guam.

There has been a continuous significant U.S. military presence in Germany since the end of World War II, initially as an army of occupation and then as the front-line of NATO deterrence during the Cold War and more recently as a bulwark against a resurgent threat to Europe from Russia.

April 30 (UPI) — Britain has expelled a Russian diplomat in retaliation for Moscow doing the same last month to a British official it accused of spying.

The tit-for-tat expulsions come as tensions rise between the two countries, with Britain accusing Russian submarines and undersea naval units in recent weeks of operating in and around British waters.

Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced the unidentified Russian diplomat’s expulsion Wednesday in a statement, saying it had summoned Russian Ambassador to Britain Andrei Kelin to inform him of the “reciprocal action.”

“Russia’s repeated unprovoked and unjustified actions are designed to disrupt our diplomatic work and form part of a wider campaign of aggressive behavior toward the U.K.,” the office said.

“Any further action by Russia will be treated as an escalation and met with a firm and proportionate response.”

UPI has contacted the Russian Embassy in London for comment.

The expulsion is in response to Russia expelling a British diplomat late last month who the Federal Security Service accused of being a British intelligence agent involved in “intelligence and subversive activities on Russian territory.”

The FSB identified the diplomat as Albertus Gerardus Janse van Rensburg, second secretary of the British Embassy in Moscow, stating he attempted to “obtain sensitive information during informal meetings with Russian economic experts.”

Britain’s foreign office on Wednesday condemned Russia’s “unjustified decision” to expel Janse van Rensburg and “the malicious public smear campaign that followed.”

“This behavior is wholly unacceptable, and we will not tolerate harassment or intimidation of our diplomatic staff,” it said.

The expulsion comes two weeks after Britain announced on April 9 that it had detected a Russian attack submarine entering international waters in the High North to distract from undersea naval units conducting “nefarious activity over critical undersea infrastructure elsewhere.”

The operation occurred several weeks before the announcement. Britain said the activity targeted subsea fiber-optic cables, which carry more than 99% of international data traffic, including voice calls and Internet data.

British and allied military assets were deployed, forcing the Russian GUGI units and Akula-class submarine to retreat, the Ministry of Defense said.

The U.S. Marine Corps is exploring the possibility of fielding a theater ballistic missile defense capability. A key driver in this discussion is the U.S. Army’s capacity to provide protection against ballistic threats in future conflicts, or lack thereof, something TWZ has highlighted repeatedly in the past. The latest conflict with Iran has underscored the serious threats that ballistic missiles pose even to high-end integrated air and missile defense networks, which would be magnified further in a fight against a near-peer adversary like China.

“We’re exploring theater ballistic missile defense. So we’re doing some studies, we’re running some simulations, to see if that’s a requirement for the service in the future,” Marine Lt. Col. Robert Barclay said during a panel discussion yesterday at the annual Modern Day Marine exposition, at which TWZ has been in attendance.

Barclay is currently the Marine Air Command and Control Systems (MACCS) Integration Branch Head within the Aviation Combat Element Division of the service’s Combat Development and Integration office. His portfolio includes service-wide air and missile defense requirements.

“We know our old sensor used to be able to do it, but it wasn’t really a requirement,” Barclay added. “What we need to determine is, is [defending against] a theater ballistic [missile] like an SRBM [short-range ballistic missile] or MRBM [medium-range ballistic missile], a requirement for the Marine Corps to do? I would argue that it probably is.”

“At the end of the day, I don’t think the Army’s going to have enough capacity with us where we’re operating to actually adjudicate on that threat,” he continued. “So, I think we need to take a hard look at that, and that’s what our intent [is] to do over the next year.”

To take a step back quickly, the Marine Corps’ main general-purpose ground-based anti-air weapon today is the Stinger short-range heat-seeking surface-to-air missile. The service currently fields Stinger in a man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) configuration using shoulder-fired launchers, as well as integrated on the Humvee-based Avenger air defense vehicles. Stinger offers a point defense capability against fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, drones, and certain types of cruise missiles.

The Marines also hope to reach initial operational capability this year with a new Medium-Range Intercept Capability (MRIC), which is a service-specific variation of the Israeli Iron Dome system. MRIC uses a U.S.-made version of Iron Dome’s Tamir interceptor, called SkyHunter, and a trailer-based road-mobile launcher. Each launcher can accommodate up to 20 interceptors, which come preloaded in individual canisters, at a time. The system uses offboard sensors to spot and track targets and cue missiles to intercept them. The Corps’ existing AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radars (G/ATOR) have been presented as the primary sensor for MRIC.

“The primary target set for MRIC is cruise missiles and your higher-end Group 5-type of [anti-]air application, as well as rotary wing, fixed-wing type of aspects,” Marine Col. Andrew Konicki, the service’s Program Manager for Ground Based Air Defense and another panelist at Modern Day Marine yesterday, explained. MRIC “can go after Group 3, because it’s probably a mismatch in terms of ammunition versus what it’s going after. So it’s primarily focused on that growing threat, or that higher-end threat, so to speak, as part of that integrated air missile defense application and layer defense piece.”

Groups 3 and 5 here refer to different categories of uncrewed aerial systems. The U.S. military defines Group 5 as consisting of drones with maximum weights greater than 1,320 pounds, and that can fly above 18,000 feet. The MQ-9 Reaper is a commonly used example of a Group 5 uncrewed aircraft. Drones that fall under Group 3 have maximum weights anywhere between 56 and 1,320 pounds, can operate at altitudes between 3,500 and 18,000 feet, and reach top speeds of up to 250 knots. Group 3 is very broad, but notably includes Iran’s now-infamous Shahed 136 long-range kamikaze drone, and the growing number of variants and derivatives thereof.

Lt. Col. Robert Barclay’s mention of an unspecified previous Marine ballistic missile defense capability seems most likely to be a reference to the HAWK medium-range surface-to-air missile system. The service retired HAWK in the 1990s, but versions of the system remain in use elsewhere worldwide, including in Ukraine. HAWK has used an evolving mixture of radars for target acquisition and engagement since the system was first introduced in the 1950s, as you can read more about here. Improved HAWK interceptors have also been developed, including variants explicitly intended to offer a rudimentary anti-ballistic missile capability.

The video below shows HAWK systems in service in Ukraine.

Американський ЗРК HAWK (Яструб) захищає небо України!

Barclay did not elaborate on what level of ballistic missile defense capability the Marine Corps might look to pursue in the future. In the past year or so, there have been reports of Israel using Iron Dome against incoming Iranian ballistic missiles in the terminal phase. However, the system’s effectiveness against ballistic missiles of any kind, which it was never designed to intercept, and whether the Marines might be able to employ MRIC in this role, is unclear.

Today, the main tool for providing ground-based theater ballistic missile defense across all of America’s armed forces is the Army’s Patriot surface-to-air missile systems. The Army also operates the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which offers a higher-end ballistic missile defense capability over Patriot. Both Patriot and THAAD are only capable of intercepting incoming ballistic threats during their final terminal phase.

The PATRIOT Missile in Action

At the same time, as TWZ has highlighted several times in recent years, the Army’s Patriot force is heavily strained due to constant demands that it is simply not adequately resourced to meet. The THAAD force is even smaller and is in equally heavy demand.

The latest conflict with Iran has reignited discussions about the Army’s worryingly limited capacity to meet operational needs for ballistic missile defense, as well as protection against other aerial threats. Between February and April, Iranian forces launched repeated missile and drone attacks on key bases across the Middle East. They were successful in many instances in targeting high-value military assets, including aircraft parked on the ground and air and missile defense radars.

WASHINGTON, Apri; 29 (UPI) — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth alternated between championing a proposed massive increase to defense spending and fielding attacks from Democratic lawmakers during testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday.

It marked the secretary’s first appearance before lawmakers since the start of a war that has roiled the global economy and decimated Iran’s military.

Hegseth appeared before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Pentagon’s comptroller, Jules Hurst III. They entered the hearing room past protesters’ chants of “arrest Hegseth” and yells of “war criminal.” The secretary appeared unfazed.

“We’re rebuilding a military that the American people can be proud of — one that instills nothing less than unrelenting fear in our adversaries.” Hegseth said in his opening statement.

Hegseth’s testimony was intended to serve as a defense of the White House’s petition to Congress for $1.5 trillion in defense spending for 2027, a 44%t increase from the 2026 budget.

It’s an increase that, by itself, would be more than the total defense spending of any other nation, according to recently released figures. The spending level exceeds that spent on the Reagan-era military buildup and would be only overshadowed by levels seen during World War II.

The spending boom would come at the cost of domestic programs and at a time when federal tax revenue is set to take a $4.5 trillion hit over the next 10 years, mostly from tax cuts codified in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank.

But rather than question Hegseth on the specifics of the budget proposal, many Democratic members grilled him about the war in Iran, recent firings of senior leaders in the Pentagon and lethal strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Pacific and Caribbean oceans.

In one heated exchange, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., delivered a sharp critique of the war in Iran when questioning the defense secretary, calling it a “blunder” in which the United States had expended much to gain little.

Garamendi said it would take years for the U.S. and global economies to recover. The war has hiked average unleaded gas prices in the country to more than $4.20 a gallon and inflation to its highest level in nearly two years.

“Secretary Hegseth, you have been lying to the American public about this war from Day 1,” Garamendi said. “The strategy has been an astounding example of incompetence.”

Hegseth counterattacked. With his voice raised, he accused the congressman of “handing propaganda to our enemies.”

“I hope you appreciate how reckless it is,” Hegseth said of Garamendi’s description of the two-month-long war as a quagmire. “Shame on you.”

Hurst, the comptroller, told lawmakers the Iran war has cost the Pentagon $25 billion. Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., responded that was the first time he had been given a cost figure, despite repeated inquiries to the department.

In March, the Pentagon reportedly petitioned Congress for an additional $200 billion to replace stocks from the war and prepare for future operations, should they be ordered. When asked about it at the time, Hegseth indicated the report’s veracity.

“That number could move, obviously,” Hegseth said then. “It takes money to kill bad guys.”

Hegseth’s central defense of the war during the hearing was arguing that it served to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Republican members echoed his contention.

Iran maintains uranium supplies that could eventually be used to build a nuclear weapon if it were to be further enriched. But since the U.S. bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, Iran has made “no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said in a written statement to Congress in March.

“What is it worth to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon?” Hegseth asked rhetorically in Wednesday’s hearing.

A defense budget unprecedented in modern times

The Pentagon’s budget request is composed of $1.1 trillion in base discretionary funding and an additional $350 billion in mandatory spending.

The mandatory funds, which are earmarked mostly for munitions and the expansion of the defense industry, would go through the budget reconciliation process and therefore would be shielded from a potential Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

The expansion of America’s defense industrial base — the network of private manufacturers that supply the Pentagon — is a central facet of the proposed budget.

“President Trump inherited a defense industrial base that had been hollowed out by years of ‘America Last’ policies,” Hegseth said. “Under the leadership of President Trump, our builder-in-chief, we are reversing this systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base on a war-time footing.”

Another of the administration’s top defense funding priorities, as reflected in the budget document, is the procurement of munitions.

“Critical munitions are vital to the administration’s priorities to defend the homeland and deter potential aggression after years of neglect by the previous administration,” the White House wrote in a recent budget justification. Limited munitions stockpiles and the United States’ inability to quickly produce them have long troubled U.S. war planners.

While the Trump administration has pushed to expand munitions stockpiles, it has also expended massive amounts of scarce ordnance in the Middle East in recent months.

An April analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that the U.S. military has expended more than 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the Iran war from an estimated prewar inventory of 3,100.

Key U.S. capabilities like the Patriot and THAAD air defense systems have also seen stockpiles dwindle by about half since the start of the war, according to the report.

“We’re fighting wars”

The administration’s request for the massive infusion of cash comes as Trump has said that federal spending on healthcare and social programs should take a back seat to “military protection.”

In its proposed budget, the White House moved to cut non-defense discretionary spending by 10%. The spending category comprises public health, scientific research and scores of other domestic programs, but excludes mandatory programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

In a speech at a private Easter luncheon, Trump said spending on childcare, Medicare and Medicaid should be left to the states, while the federal government should be focused solely on national defense.

“We’re fighting wars,” Trump said.

The sentiment runs contrary to Trump’s long-held foundational critique of his predecessors — that money spent on foreign wars from Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Ukraine, should have been used to benefit Americans at home.

April 29 (UPI) — The United States has sanctioned 35 entities and individuals accused of overseeing a shadow-banking network that moved tens of billions of dollars for Iran, as the Trump administration flexes Washington’s financial might amid a stalemate in peace negotiations with Tehran.

The sanctions announced Tuesday come as U.S.-Iran peace negotiations came to a halt last week after Tehran said it would not participate in talks until the United States lifted its blockade of sea-based trade to the Middle Eastern nation.

Those blacklisted by the Treasury include several private companies known as rahbars, which manage thousands of overseas companies used by Iranian banks cut off from the international financial system to execute payments for Iranian trade.

According to the Treasury, these rahbar companies coordinate with Iranian exchange houses and front companies to conduct international trade on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff, the National Iranian Oil Company and other sanctioned entities.

“By dismantling these financial channels, we advance the administration’s policy in the conflict with Iran and underscore our commitment to imposing maximum pressure on Iran,” State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott said in a statement.

The punitive action was part of what the Treasury calls Operation Economic Fury, a branded escalation of President Donald Trump‘s broader maximum-pressure campaign against Iran.

Coinciding with the sanctions on Tuesday, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control issued an alert to financial institutions over the risks they face for doing business with so-called teapot oil refineries in China, primarily in Shandong Province, that import and refine Iranian crude oil.

According to the alert, China is the largest purchaser of Iranian oil, and the Treasury has designated multiple small China-based refineries since March of last year.

“The United States will further disrupt illicit funding streams that finance Iran’s malign activities,” Pigott said.

“We will not relent in our efforts to deny Iran and its proxies the resources they use to threaten U.S. interests and regional stability.”

Trump first employed the maximum-pressure campaign strategy to coerce Iran into negotiations over its nuclear program in 2018 after unilaterally withdrawing the United States from a landmark multinational accord that sought to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Iran then breached its commitments under the deal, enriching uranium up to 60%, far exceeding the accord’s 3.67% but below weapons-grade levels.

Trump restored the maximum-pressure campaign after returning to office in 2025, and the United States bombed three major Iranian nuclear facilities that June.

The United States and Israel have since escalated their pressure campaign, attacking Iran in strikes that triggered a war now halted by a fragile cease-fire to permit peace talks.

Iran has imposed restrictions on energy trade through the Strait of Hormuz, prompting the United States to impose a blockade of Iran’s ports in response to what it describes as Tehran holding a major share of the world’s energy supplies hostage.

April 28 (UPI) — The Department of Defense may require reporters to be escorted inside the Pentagon, a federal appeals court has ruled, handing the Trump administration a rare win in litigation challenging its press restrictions.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the Trump administration’s emergency request for a stay pending appeal, but only concerning its Pentagon escort requirement.

The 2-1 ruling stays part of U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman‘s April 9 order that had found an interim Pentagon policy was in violation of his earlier order that blocked the Department of Defense’s initial policy requiring journalists to sign a form acknowledging that they could have their credentials revoked for gathering unauthorized information.

The Trump administration argued that the escort requirement of the interim policy was a new rule not affected by the initial order and was put in place to prevent the disclosure of sensitive or classified information.

The appeals court agreed that the administration was likely to win on the merits of its narrow argument.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said Monday that the Department of Defense “welcomes” the court’s decision.

“The department looks forward to presenting its full case to the D.C. Circuit on the merits,” he said in a social media statement.

The Trump administration has repeatedly taken actions critics see as attempting to influence media coverage, including a Defense Department policy announced in October that threatened the credentials of reporters who gather sensitive information.

Most credentialed journalists refused to sign, and The New York Times and one of its reporters sued.

Friedman blocked the rule. The Pentagon then attempted to enact an interim policy that was again blocked on April 9 by Friedman, who ruled that the Trump administration “cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the court to look the other way.”

D.C. Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs said in dissent that though the escort policy on its face appeared different from the policy blocked by the March order, its practical effect was the same: denying reporters meaningful access to the Pentagon.

“The point of the injunction, as the district court interpreted it, ‘was to restore The Times journalists’ access to the Pentagon, not merely to ensure that they have possession of a physical credential,” she said.

“Reporters can hardly verify sources, gather information, or speak candidly with department personnel with an escort looming over their shoulders.”