Government

Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff and close aide, is now at the centre of the country’s biggest corruption investigation since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Anticorruption authorities named him an official suspect on Monday in an alleged multimillion-dollar money laundering scheme linked to a luxury housing project outside the capital, Kyiv.

Yermak appeared at a Kyiv court on Tuesday for a hearing related to the charges, which are part of a widening probe drawing in other senior figures associated with the president, including his national security chief.

While Zelenskyy is not accused of any wrongdoing, the scandal could potentially threaten Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership as it seeks to convince the bloc that its anticorruption drive is on track.

So, what are the charges against Yermak? Are other allies of Zelenskyy also under a cloud of suspicion? And what does this mean for Ukraine’s standing with its Western allies?

What are the charges against Yermak?

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) say Yermak is suspected of involvement in an organised criminal group that allegedly laundered about 460 million hryvnias ($10.5m) through a luxury real estate project near Kyiv.

Prosecutors are seeking to impose bail of about $5.4m on the 54-year-old while they continue their investigation.

Yermak, who resigned in November, has firmly rejected the claims. In a post on Telegram after a court hearing on Tuesday, he described the accusations as “unfounded”.

“As a lawyer with more than 30 years’ experience, I have always been guided by the law. And now, in the same way, I will defend my rights, my name and my reputation,” he said.

At one point during the hearing, Yermak told reporters that he “owns only one apartment and one car”.

His lawyer, Ihor Fomin, labelled the allegations against his client “groundless” and denied any role by Yermak in laundering funds through the high-end development. Fomin told Ukraine’s public broadcaster Suspilne that “this entire situation has been provoked by public pressure.”

NABU director Semen Kryvonos defended the proceedings, stating that authorities move to issue formal notices only when they believe they possess enough evidence to sustain charges in court. He clarified that Zelenskyy was not subject to any investigation.

But the case has dragged the shadow of corruption closer to the Ukrainian president than ever before. That’s because it isn’t just Yermak who has been caught up in the accusations of fraud.

Have other Zelenskyy allies been implicated, too?

Timur Mindich, a wealthy businessman who was Zelenskyy’s former partner from the entertainment world – the Ukrainian president is a former comedian – has emerged as another leading figure in the scandal. He left for Israel after corruption allegations surfaced last year.

The probe has also brought Rustem Umerov, the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, into the crosshairs of the authorities. Umerov, who until last year was Ukraine’s defence minister, is Zelenskyy’s main representative in United States-backed diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Prosecutors say Umerov has been interviewed as a witness in the luxury real estate development case.

The case is part of a broader anticorruption operation, dubbed “Midas” and led by NABU and SAPO. The operation was first made public in November, when prosecutors accused Mindich of engineering a $100m kickback scheme at Energoatom, charges the businessman has refuted.

Zelenskyy has yet to publicly respond to the allegations involving Yermak. On Monday, a communications aide said it was premature to comment on the case.

Ukraine’s government in July passed a law in an effort to strip the independence of NABU and SAPO, which were established in 2014 after a pro-democracy uprising against the then-government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Within days, protests broke out against the move, forcing Zelenskyy to reverse course and sign a new law to restore the anticorruption institutions’ independence.

Why does this matter?

The scandal has emerged at a particularly sensitive moment for Ukraine, as Kyiv continues to make the case for military and financial support from its allies in Western Europe and North America.

Last July, US senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lindsey Graham released a strongly worded statement denouncing the attempt by the government to, at the time, curb the anticorruption work of NABU and SAPO.

“One of the most widely used talking points for ending support for Ukraine is that it was awash with corruption,” they said. “We acknowledge that Ukraine continues to make progress on this front and we urge the government to refrain from any actions that undermine that progress.”

Moreover, Ukraine’s bid to join the EU has increased pressure on Zelenskyy’s administration to demonstrate institutional independence and accountability.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz last month cautioned against a quick accession of Ukraine to the EU, saying Ukraine cannot join the bloc due to several key concerns, including ending the war and fighting corruption.

Ukrainian opposition politician Oleksiy Goncharenko said the allegations had now reached a point that Zelenskyy “personally cannot ignore”.

However, Olena Halushka, a board member at the Anti-Corruption Action Centre in Kyiv, said the case against Yermak and others was a “clear example that the checks and balances system really works”.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Halushka said it proved that in Ukraine there are “law enforcement institutions functioning independently and professionally, exercising their powers in defence of democracy”.

“These institutions were protected by the Ukrainian society and European partners from the political attack last summer, and now we see the tangible results of their activities,” she added.

In a survey conducted on May 6 by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 54 percent of Ukrainians said corruption was a bigger threat to the country than the war with Russia.

BEIJING — The Trump administration has repeatedly framed the war in Iran as a quick, winnable fight, vowing to defeat the Islamic Republic “totally and decisively” — incomparable to the “dumb” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But from China’s perspective, the parallels are clear.

“You can blow everything up — destroy it all,” one Chinese official told The Times, describing the Americans, “but you don’t have a strategy.”

President Trump arrives in Beijing this week for talks with a Chinese government that is confident as ever in its ascendance on the world stage, taking stock of its leverage and still baffled the U.S. administration chose yet another costly war in the Middle East.

China has watched as the United States, over seven weeks of fighting an outmatched enemy, has depleted nearly half of its stockpiles of high-end munitions — including its THAAD and Patriot batteries — and fired its Army chief of staff, among other Pentagon leaders, who had warned of critical shortages.

Marco Rubio, Trump’s national security advisor and secretary of State, has said the military operation that started the war known as Operation Epic Fury “is over.”

But the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital commercial waterways, remains effectively shuttered. Iranian attacks in the region continue. And talks between Washington and Tehran have failed to reach a diplomatic agreement to bring a definitive end to the conflict.

“The Chinese have high regard for the operational proficiency of U.S. forces, but they recognize that, thus far at least, the Trump administration has not achieved its core objectives in going to war with Iran,” said David Ochmanek, a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense now with the Rand Corp.

The war has given Beijing an opportunity, Ochmanek said, “to double down on the claim they have made for the past year and a half that the [People’s Republic of China], not the U.S., is a force for global stability.”

The war has allowed China to demonstrate some diplomatic prowess. An initial ceasefire reached between the United States and Iran last month was only clinched after Beijing pressured Tehran to agree. And China’s advocacy for an open strait — rejecting Iranian attempts to impose a toll system — while opposing the U.S. war itself has allowed Beijing to maintain leverage with both sides.

It has also inflicted costs. Allies of Beijing noticed when the government did not leap to the defense of Tehran at the start of the war. And China has its own vested interest in a free and open waterway, where nearly 50% of the country’s crude oil imports pass through each day.

Building up to the start of the war and throughout its initial weeks, Washington diverted significant military assets from Asia — where Trump’s own national security strategy says they are needed most — to the Middle East.

The USS Abraham Lincoln was redirected from the South China Sea, along with scores of advanced missile interceptors from South Korea and Japan and nearly the entire U.S. inventory of long-range air-to-surface missiles in the Pacific.

Policy experts at the Pentagon were brought in to discuss a potential invasion of Kharg Island, the jewel of Iran’s oil industry, to draw lessons from planning a defense of Taiwan, according to a Defense official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. A Marine expeditionary unit was sent from Okinawa to the region for the potential operation.

Chinese officials and analysts have been candid in their assessments of U.S. hard power, impressed by a military they acknowledge remains the best in the world.

But Beijing sees a persistent flaw in U.S. strategy: the belief that military strength alone can reshape political realities, a view further weakened by the pressures on a democratic government whose public grows impatient with wars that drag on beyond days or weeks.

China’s autocracy is free from accountability to the public — and anyway has confidence that Chinese public opinion would be on its side if it were to launch a major military operation against its main target, Taiwan.

But there are lessons of caution to be learned from the Americans, as well.

Over the last year, the Taiwanese Navy has been practicing the rapid deployment of cheap and domestically produced smart mines for the sea — a potential bulwark against enemy blockades of ports and hostile invasion forces.

It is the type of asymmetric warfare that has so far frustrated the U.S. military in the Strait of Hormuz, protracting a war that Trump vowed would last a month or less.

Taiwan, too, would confront Beijing with political realities that military force cannot erase. Nearly 90% of the Taiwanese people oppose a Chinese takeover, and about 60% say they would resist it at all costs.

“Chinese analysts see two things at once,” said Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “They are impressed by U.S. military reach, precision and operational capability, but they also see a familiar pattern of American power struggling to translate battlefield success into a durable political outcome.”

That matters for Taiwan, Singleton said, “because China’s own military modernization has borrowed heavily from the American model, relying heavily on joint operations, high-tech precision strikes, decapitation concepts and information dominance.

“If the world’s most experienced military can still struggle to convert military pressure into political success,” he added, “Beijing has to ask whether the [People’s Liberation Army] could do better in a far more complex Taiwan scenario.”

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

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

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

Trump added he is not reconsidering Pakistan as a mediator.

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

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

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

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

The Republican senator quickly interrupted the defence secretary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s a riddle for you: A conservative Republican senator, a top economic advisor to the Trump White House and a venture capitalist walk into a conference room at a financial conference and claim a new government program will be a boon for all American families.

Question: Do you think these people are looking out for your interests?

If you trust Sen. Ted Cruz, economic advisor Kevin Hassett and millionaire Brad Gerstner to do so, feel free to stop reading here.

If you’re skeptical, read on.

But keep in mind that Cruz (R-Tex.) was last seen in these pages promoting yet another big tax break for the 1%, Hassett appeared the other day on Fox Business arguing that while Americans are spending a lot more on gasoline, “they’re spending more on everything else too” on their credit cards, as if forcing households to max out their credit is a good thing; and Gerstner is, well, a millionaire tech investor.

At their panel discussion on May 4 at the annual Milken conference, Cruz, Hassett, Gerstner and their interlocutor, Michael Milken, talked as though the Trump accounts would be so fabulous for average American families that they would obviate the need for Social Security.

“Here’s the dirty little secret,” Cruz said. “Trump accounts are Social Security personal accounts.”

Milken echoed that thought: “Do you have the right to decide where your money goes, or should you be giving it to the government and [letting] them decide where it goes?”

That gave the game away — this is yet another effort by Republicans and conservatives to end a program they’ve been trying to kill, and to give Wall Street firms a bigger bite of your retirement resources.

Let’s start with a primer about the Trump accounts, which were part of last year’s GOP budget bill and will be open to investment starting on July 4.

The headline pitch for these accounts is that they’ll be seeded with a one-time $1,000 government contribution for children born from 2025 through 2028, unless Congress extends the government donation. Accounts can be opened for children born before or after those dates, but they won’t get the government donation.

Families can add up to another $5,000 in contributions every year until the child reaches 18, but those donations won’t be tax-deductible.

The money must be invested in low-cost stock index funds or exchange-traded stock index funds, and can’t be withdrawn for any reason without penalty until age 18. After that, the funds can be withdrawn without penalty for certain purposes such as educational expenses or the purchase of a first home. The accounts eventually become converted to conventional individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, and distributions will be taxed as ordinary income, though family contributions will be returned tax-free.

That $1,000 donation is the best feature of the accounts. But that may be their only good feature. For almost all the financial goals confronting average American families, such as saving for college or retirement, they’re inferior to tax-advantaged savings plans already on the books.

Like those programs, they’re much more advantageous for wealthier than to low-income families: Wealthier families typically have the wherewithal to make their annual contributions, and get a larger break from the tax deferrals of investment growth within the accounts because their tax rates are higher.

Though their promoters claim that the accounts will level the economic playing field for all families — “helping the bottom 10%,” Hassett said on the panel — that’s not the case. “Clearly, the program is structured to subsidize savings for those who already have the capacity to save, rather than meaningfully closing the wealth gap,” observes Sheryl Rowling of Morningstar.

Another drawback cited by economists and financial planners is that the accounts are locked into corporate equity investments. Before the beneficiary reaches age 18, the investment mix can’t be adjusted. That’s dangerous because portfolio concentrations in corporate shares are inherently risky.

“A high school senior who plans to enroll in college next year cannot change the investment to a lower-risk portfolio,” say, to a mix of equities and bonds, notes Greg Leiserson of the Tax Law Center at NYU. “If the market crashes the summer before she plans to enroll, the Trump Account is of greatly reduced use.”

Trump account promoters have massively overstated the potential wealth gains for ordinary Americans. At the Milken conference, Cruz said that a child with a Trump account will have about $170,000 in it when he or she reaches 18 and $700,000 at age 35. “And very quickly after that, you get into the millions,” he said.

Cruz did acknowledge that those figures apply to households that “contribute regularly.” In fact, they apply largely to households that contribute the maximum $5,000 every year.

The White House estimates of potential returns are based on questionable assumptions about stock market gains over the 18-year periods in which the accounts will grow on a tax-deferred basis.

According to the government’s own estimates, the account of a family taking the $1,000 seed money but making no contributions beyond that would have as little as $2,577 in their account after 18 years if stock market returns come to 5.4% over that period.

The government estimates, however, that the account would hold $730,395 if the family contributes the maximum every year and the stock market returns more than 18%. Another 10 years of growth at that level, and the account would grow to $1.9 million when the child reaches age 28.

The problem with long-term market estimates, such as the ones offered by the White House, is that they’re highly variable. No 18-year periods are the same. One thousand dollars deposited in a hypothetical account invested in a Standard & Poor’s 500 index fund would grow to about $6,600 if its 18-year lifetime culminated in 2025; if the 18 years ended in 2008, however, that deposit would have grown only to $3,960. In the 18-year period that ended in 1960, the account would have grown only to $2,940. What will the next 18 years bring? Who knows?

Variability like this, along with the sheer uncertainty of stock market projections for the future, helped sink George W. Bush’s 2005 attempt to convert Social Security into private accounts, which was also pitched as a key to minting millionaires by the millions through the magic of the market.

I asked the White House to respond to these criticisms. Spokesman Kush Desai called my questions “both a stupid and out-of-touch take,” asserting that the accounts are “already shaping up to make a generational difference for working-class children.”

The truth is that if Trump were really intent on taking steps to “strengthen the financial security of American workers” and creating a “path to prosperity for a generation of American kids,” as he claims to be, he and his GOP followers in Congress wouldn’t have scissored away the American safety net, which is what they’ve done.

They wouldn’t have imposed new work requirements and narrowed eligibility standards for food stamps, resulting in the exclusion of more than 3 million people from the program, a decline of 8%. They wouldn’t have cut nearly $1 trillion in funding for Medicaid over 10 years, jeopardizing coverage for 3.6 million young adults. They wouldn’t have allowed Affordable Care Act premium subsidies to expire, resulting in a drop in Obamacare enrollments of about 1.2 million Americans this year compared with last year.

If they really cared about educational opportunities for “a generation of American kids,” they wouldn’t have narrowed eligibility for higher education Pell grants, and wouldn’t slash research grants for universities coast to coast.

So how can families better prepare for college and retirement expenses? For education, 529 plans are probably preferable to Trump accounts. The investment choices are more flexible, withdrawals are tax-free at the federal level and sometimes at state levels if used for most education expenses, and there are no federal limits on contributions (contributions aren’t tax-deductible).

For retirement, advisers have been favoring Roth IRAs. Contributions are not tax-deductible, and this year can be made by couples filing jointly with taxable income up to $242,000 ($153,000 for singles) and are limited to $7,500 a year ($8,600 for those 50 and older). But withdrawals aren’t taxed if you’ve held the account for at least five years and you take the money out after you turn 59 1⁄2.

The bottom line, then, is this. Take the $1,000 if your child is eligible. As Rowling wisely advises, “Any time the government offers free money, you should take it.”

As for the rest, treat any claims offered by Trump account promoters as inherently suspect.

One member calls for a Presidential Medal of Freedom for a baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Another calls for court interventions by the Department of Justice on behalf of Amish parents fighting New York vaccine requirements and Catholic nuns challenging that state’s requirement that they accommodate hospice patients’ gender identities.

And the chair of the Religious Liberty Commission is calling for a federal hotline with this automated recording: “There is no separation of church and state.”

These are just some of the recommendations that members of the advisory panel formed by President Trump last year want to see included in the commission’s final report.

That report is still in the works, but commissioners had an opportunity to describe their wish lists during their most recent meeting in April. There was little dissent as the commissioners, most drawn from Trump’s base of conservative Christian supporters, covered the items they want in the report.

Their ideas reflect the prevailing perspectives on the definition of religious liberty among many conservative Catholic and evangelical activists: increasing avenues for religious expression in public schools, expanding opportunities for faith-based organizations to receive public money, and allowing for religious-based exemptions in areas ranging from labor law to classroom lessons to healthcare mandates.

Such views have also been reflected in Supreme Court decisions issued in recent years by its conservative majority.

Commission’s views criticized

Critics of the commission say it embodies a one-sided perspective of Trump’s supporters and is threatening a well-established constitutional separation of church and state.

A lawsuit by a progressive interreligious coalition argues that the commission fails to comply with federal law requiring advisory panels to feature diverse members and viewpoints.

The lawsuit echoes criticism that most commissioners are conservative Christian clerics and commentators; one is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. The coalition says members have asserted that America is specifically a Judeo-Christian or Christian nation and notes that most commission meetings took place at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, an institution with Christian leadership.

The Republican administration is asking a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. The government is citing legal technicalities and contending that the law does not define how a commission should be fairly balanced or whose viewpoints should be represented.

Another entity created by Trump — the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias — issued a report saying Christians faced discrimination under the administration of President Biden in areas such as education, tax law and prosecution of antiabortion protesters. Progressive groups said that report failed to document systemic discrimination, focused on causes favored by conservative Christians and amounted to advocacy rather than an investigation.

In a further interlocking of Trump-related initiatives, several members of the Religious Liberty Commission are scheduled to take part in a May 17 prayer event marking the country’s upcoming 250th birthday. Several also participated in a recent Bible-reading marathon staged largely at the Museum of the Bible.

Harmony and tension

The commission has mostly featured agreement among members, with one dramatic exception. One commissioner, Carrie Prejean Boller, was ousted in February after a contentious hearing on antisemitism.

Commission Chair Dan Patrick said Prejean Boller sought to “hijack” the hearing, in which she had sharp exchanges with witnesses about the definition of antisemitism and defended commentator Candace Owens, denying her record of antisemitic statements. Prejean Boller, a Catholic, contended that she was wrongly ousted for expressing her beliefs.

In other hearings, witnesses described how they defied workplace regulations that they said conflicted with their conservative religious values on gender, abortion, COVID-19 vaccines and more. Some said they were prevented, at least temporarily, from displaying a religious symbol at work or trying to sing a Christian song at a school talent show.

At the hearing devoted to antisemitism, Jewish witnesses spoke of being harassed and threatened at campus pro-Palestinian protests against Israel. The commission has also heard from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other witnesses.

Even so, critics said the commission mostly focused on conservative Christian and right-leaning political grievances.

The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, one of the groups suing over the commission’s composition, said the panel’s omissions are as significant as what it focuses on.

He said the commission has failed adequately to address such issues as anti-Muslim efforts in Texas and elsewhere, and also the rise of antisemitism on the right, not just the left.

Separation of church and state

Raushenbush said he is especially worried about the commission chair’s challenging the very notion of church-state separation.

Patrick, a Republican who is the Texas lieutenant governor, repeatedly denounced a concept that is embedded in Supreme Court precedent.

“We need to say there is no separation of church and state,” Patrick said at the April meeting. “That’s a lie.” He suggested printing “a million bumper stickers” to that effect.

No one at the commission meeting disagreed.

Trump made similar comments at a prayer event at the White House in 2025. “They say separation between church and state,” he said. “I said, all right, let’s forget about that for one time.”

While the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, 20th century decisions by the Supreme Court cited Thomas Jefferson’s description of the 1st Amendment as creating “a wall of separation between church and state.” The court applied the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of any church “establishment” to the states in addition to the federal government, citing the 14th Amendment’s ban on states denying citizens’ rights.

Courts have since wrestled with how to balance freedom of religion and freedom from government-sponsored religion.

Schools, vaccines and workplaces

Patrick has advocated for prayer and Ten Commandments postings in public schools.

“I don’t have any malice towards anyone that doesn’t believe in any type of faith,” Patrick told fellow commissioners. “That’s fine. That’s what America is about. But these organizations that are pushed by some ideology and pushed by someone’s bank account who wants to remove God from our country? We need to push back.”

On other issues, various commissioners called for requiring schools and workplaces to post notices of the rights of religious expression and exemptions.

Some called for restoring full pay and pension benefits for military service members who were discharged for refusing COVID-19 vaccines.

Bishop Robert Barron of the Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minn., called for allowing religious groups such as Catholic Charities to receive federal money without compromising on traditional church teachings about the family.

He also said Catholic immigrants in detention should have humane treatment and access to sacraments and that immigration agents should not disrupt worship services in enforcement actions. The administration last year eliminated a policy against immigration enforcement in sanctuaries, which other religious leaders said should not occur at any time.

Kelly Shackelford, president and chief executive officer of the legal organization First Liberty Institute, called for new requirements that governments pay all legal bills if they lose a religious liberty case. He said many individuals lack the money to challenge the government in court.

“That would be a huge shifting of power in favor of citizens,” he said.

Smith writes for the Associated Press.

The White House’s newly released strategy for tackling the nation’s drug and addiction crisis calls for a number of ambitious public health approaches that some experts say are laudable but will be hampered by the administration’s own actions.

The sweeping 195-page National Drug Control Strategy, published May 4, advocates for making access to treatment easier than getting drugs, preventing young people from developing addictions in the first place, increasing support for people in recovery, and reducing overdose deaths.

Those broad goals are widely supported by public health researchers, addiction treatment clinicians, and recovery advocates.

But accomplishing such goals will be difficult in the face of the administration’s mass layoffs of federal employees, cancellation of research and community grants, attacks on organizations and practices that serve people who use drugs, and cuts to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people that is the largest payer for addiction and mental healthcare nationwide.

Many components of the National Drug Control Strategy are “things that we would agree with and that we fully support,” said Libby Jones, who leads overdose prevention efforts at the Global Health Advocacy Incubator, a public health advocacy group.

But there are “disconnects in what the strategy says is important and then what they’re actually going to fund,” she said of the Trump administration. “Those inconsistencies feel particularly loud in this strategy.”

The White House’s National Drug Control Strategy, released every two years, is a touchstone document meant to lay out the federal government’s coordinated approach to what in recent decades has been one of the country’s defining problems.

Since 2000, more than 1.1 million people have died of drug overdoses. Although deaths have decreased recently, the numbers remain elevated compared with earlier decades, and research suggests overdose death rates among Black Americans and Native Americans are disproportionately high.

The strategy document published this week is the first of President Trump’s current term. In keeping with the administration’s approach to addiction issues, it places heavy emphasis on law enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. The document repeatedly refers to the ongoing “war” against “foreign terrorist organizations” — the Trump administration’s term for drug cartels — and touts increased enforcement at U.S. borders.

It also outlines plans to implement artificial intelligence technologies to screen for illicit drugs brought into the country and wastewater testing to detect illegal drug use nationwide.

The second half of the strategy focuses on reducing the demand for drugs through public health prevention efforts, addiction treatment, and support for people in recovery. It promotes the role of religion in recovery and calls for the widespread use of overdose reversal medications, such as naloxone.

In a news release, the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy called the document a “roadmap” that will “continue dismantling the drug supply and defeating the scourge of illicit drugs in our country.”

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment about how the strategy aligns with its other actions.

In December, Trump signed a reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act, which continues several grants related to treatment and recovery and the requirement for Medicaid to cover all FDA-approved medications for opioid use disorder. In January, he announced the Great American Recovery Initiative, including a $100-million investment to address homelessness, opioid addiction, and public safety.

However, few details have been provided about the initiative, and in January, about a month after the SUPPORT Act passed, billions of dollars in addiction-related grants were abruptly terminated and reinstated within a frantic 24-hour period.

That “whiplash” left “a sense of instability and uncertainty in the field,” said Yngvild Olsen, a national adviser with the Manatt Health consultancy. She led substance use treatment policy at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or SAMHSA, under the Biden administration and left about six months into Trump’s second term.

That insecurity was exacerbated by the president’s 2027 budget request, which proposes cuts to several addiction and mental health programs and the consolidation of key federal agencies working on those matters. Jones’ group and nearly 100 others in the field have signed a letter asking Congress to reject the proposals, as it did with similar requests last year.

The national drug strategy adds new, potentially contradictory information to this confusing landscape.

Increasing Access to Treatment

One of the most significant public health goals in the strategy, mentioned at least half a dozen times, is to make it easier to get treatment than it is to buy illegal drugs.

National data underscores the necessity: More than 80% of Americans who need substance use treatment don’t receive it.

The administration’s actions on health insurance may make it difficult to improve that statistic.

Medicaid is the main source of healthcare coverage for adults with opioid use disorder. When implemented, the Medicaid work requirements in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act are projected to strip that coverage from about 1.6 million people with substance use disorders.

The last time Medicaid rolls were purged — after COVID-era protections expired — many people who had been receiving medication treatment for opioid addiction stopped it and fewer people started treatment, according to a study published last year.

Olsen, who is also an addiction medicine doctor, said she loves the strategy’s emphasis on making treatment readily available to anyone who wants it. But she said that’s “hard to really imagine when now people may have to pay for it themselves because they may be losing their Medicaid insurance coverage.”

One analysis estimated the upcoming Medicaid changes could lead 156,000 people to lose access to medications for opioid use disorder and result in more than 1,000 additional fatal overdoses per year.

People with private insurance may be affected too.

The Trump administration has refused to enforce Biden-era regulations aimed at bolstering mental health parity, the idea that insurers must cover mental illness and addiction treatment comparably to physical treatments. And recently, the administration said it would redo those regulations altogether, raising fears that addiction treatment could become increasingly unaffordable.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about how it reconciles its actions on Medicaid and parity with the goal of increasing treatment.

Prioritizing Prevention

The strategy highlights preventing addictions before they begin as one of the keys to reducing demand for drugs. It calls for “promoting a drug-free America as the social norm” and implementing school and community-based programs that are backed by science.

“Investing in primary prevention, before drug use starts, saves lives and resources,” it says, citing several studies about the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

Yet, the president’s budget proposes cuts to these types of programs, and federal layoffs have decimated the agencies that would implement such work.

The White House’s most recent budget request proposes cutting roughly $220 million from SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and nearly $40 million from the Drug-Free Communities program.

Since the new administration started, SAMHSA has lost about half of its staff, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is down about a quarter.

“It’s not clear to me that they’re really going to be able to have the funds or the people to be able to carry that out,” Olsen said of the strategy’s prevention goals.

Another wrinkle appears in the strategy’s discussion of marijuana. The document points to marijuana use as one of the drivers of increasing drug use disorders and reports that “convergent evidence from multiple sources” suggests cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis. It calls for developing new tools to treat marijuana withdrawal and addiction.

However, just two weeks ago, the White House moved to reclassify medical marijuana to a lower tier of scheduled substances and is moving to hold a hearing to do the same for marijuana broadly.

“The administration, on the one hand, is moving in a direction of liberalizing access to cannabis,” Jones said, “but at the same time, in the strategy, it talks about the dangers of doing so.”

“There’s a disconnect there that just makes you question: Which one do you believe?” she added.

The administration did not respond to specific questions about its marijuana policies.

Stopping Overdose Deaths

One of the more surprising elements of the National Drug Control Strategy comes in the last paragraph of the final chapter. It focuses on public drug-checking programs, which often involve using test strips to help people who use drugs determine whether there are more-dangerous substances, such as fentanyl or xylazine, in the batch they bought. That helps them determine whether or how to safely use those drugs.

“Rapid test strips and similar technologies that detect fentanyl and other drugs are an important tool that should be legal,” the strategy document says.

However, SAMHSA announced in a recent letter that it would no longer pay for test strips, as part of the Trump administration’s “clear shift away from harm reduction and practices that facilitate illicit drug use.”

The administration has similarly attacked harm reduction programs in an executive order and its budget requests. It did not respond to specific questions about how this position interacts with the drug control strategy.

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, wrote about the contradiction in a blog post: “It is the height of rhetoric over reality to champion a tool while simultaneously cutting off the funding used to acquire it.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Leo Mozoloa (@LeoMozoloa) May 8, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Labour Party suffered significant losses in local elections, despite his huge majority in parliament.

He’s rejecting calls to resign – but faces new challenges from both the left and right.

So, why is the local vote so important?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Peter Geoghegan – Editor of the investigative news site, Democracy for Sale

Lesley Riddoch – Podcaster, journalist and author of: ‘Blossom: What Scotland Needs to Flourish’

Tim Bale – Professor of politics, Queen Mary University of London

May 7 (UPI) — Millions of Britons were headed to the polls on Thursday to vote in local, mayoral and parliamentary elections in England, Scotland and Wales in what is being seen as a ‘mid-term’ referendum on the leadership of Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Voters in Scotland and Wales are electing lawmakers to their parliaments while in England more than 5,000 seats across 136 local councils are up for grabs, including in all 32 of London’s boroughs. Elections for half or a third of the seats are being held in another 73 local voting districts.

Six English municipalities, all but one of them in London, are electing new mayors.

Labour is expected to lose as many as 2,000 seats, mainly to new parties Reform UK and the Green Party, in an historic shift to a multi-party political system from a system dominated for the past century by Labour and the Conservative Party.

Support for both parties is down sharply with Labour polling on about 20%, compared with 35% at the last set of local elections in 2022, and the Conservatives on 18%, down from about 40%.

Labour’s numbers are also sharply down from the time of the 2024 general election that brought the party to power in a landslide; the Conservatives much less so.

The worst case scenario for Labour sees it losing control of many of the 60 councils it is defending in the big cities, the party’s political heartland.

The Conservatives, who are heavily represented in rural areas, are expected to fare a little better but could lose control of a handful of the 32 councils it runs and as many 1,000 seats overall.

That type of result with a general election only two years away would dramatically ramp up pressure on Starmer, potentially triggering an internal challenge to his leadership of the party and premiership.

Starmer is already under fire for his failure to deliver on his main pledges of his “Change” election manifesto to grow the economy, end the churn and chaos of previous Conservative administrations and tackle illegal immigration, along with his botched appointment of Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the United States.

Speculation was mounting that he could face a challenge from an Angela Rayner-Andy Burnham ‘ticket’ under which former deputy prime minister Rayner, would step in to deliver the party’s manifesto before standing aside to let Manchester Mayor Burnham fight the next election, which is due to be held by July 2029 at the latest.

An aide to Rayner, who quit as deputy prime minister in September amid a scandal over underpayment of property taxes on a new home purchase, dismissed the rumors as absurd.

Labour veteran Burnham was blocked by the party from running in a by-election for a Manchester parliamentary seat in February to replace a Labour MP who was standing down. Burnham’s request to contest the election was denied by an internal party committee headed by Starmer on grounds he needed to serve out his term as mayor.

Labour went on to lose with the Green Party, beating them into third place with a 4,000-seat majority, and 12 points clear of Reform UK.

In May 2025, a win by Reform UK in an election for the Runcorn and Helsby constituency in northwestern England, another “safe” Labour seat, prompted Reform leader Nigel Farage to declare that Britain’s two-party system was “dead.”

Secessionists in the western Canadian province of Alberta recently announced that they have gathered enough signatures to launch a referendum on independence from the rest of the country.

Leading secessionists said that they formally submitted about 300,000 signatures to election authorities earlier this week, far more than the 178,000 required for the province to consider a referendum.

“This day is historic in Alberta history,” secessionist leader Mitch Sylvestre said.

“It’s the first step to the next step — we’ve gotten by Round 3, and now we’re in the Stanley Cup final,” he added, referring to a hockey championship tournament.

Even if a vote were in favour of independence, an uncertain and protracted process would follow, including possible legal challenges and negotiations with the federal government.

But the possibility of a referendum has brought renewed attention to Alberta’s longstanding frustrations with federal power in Canada and calls for greater autonomy.

What is driving Alberta’s secessionist movement? What are the prospects of success for the referendum, and what could it mean for Canadian politics? Here’s what you need to know.

How many signatures were collected?

Alberta secessionists said on Monday that they had submitted nearly 302,000 signatures, more than the 178,000 required to qualify for referendum consideration.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said she would move forward with the vote if the petition gathered enough signatures, although she does not support independence from Canada herself.

What would the referendum ask voters?

If the proposed measure makes it to the ballot, it would ask voters: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?”

Does this guarantee a referendum, and could Alberta actually separate from Canada?

Meeting the signature requirement does not in itself guarantee that a referendum will take place.

Elections Alberta, the province’s electoral authority, still needs to verify the petitioners’ names, a process that has been stalled by a court ruling.

Indigenous groups have also filed a legal challenge, stating that separation would be a violation of their treaty rights.

There are also questions about whether the referendum will gather sufficient support among voters to pass. Polls have shown that about 30 percent of residents would support such a measure.

What’s behind Alberta’s bid for separatism?

While secession has never been so close to a vote in Alberta, pro-independence sentiment has been part of the province’s political culture — home to about 5 million people — for decades.

That sentiment is driven largely by the feeling of many in Alberta that the province is distinct — culturally, economically, and politically — from the rest of Canada.

The oil-rich western province has long expressed frustration with political decision-making in Ottawa, the Canadian capital, despite what it sees as its outsized economic contribution to the national economy through its massive fossil fuel industry.

Environmental regulations and efforts to address climate change have become another flashpoint, with secessionist leaders depicting Alberta’s primary industry as hamstrung by regulatory decisions made by bureaucrats with little understanding of the province.

“We’re not like the rest of Canada,” secessionist leader Sylvestre told the news service AFP. “We’re 100 percent conservative. We’re being ruled by Liberals who don’t think like us.”

“They’re trying to shut down our industry,” he added.

Have any other provinces considered separating from Canada?

Alberta is not the only region with a complicated relationship with the rest of Canada.

The French-speaking province of Quebec is home to a decades-old nationalist movement that has pushed to separate from Canada, rooted in a desire to recognise Quebec’s distinct linguistic and cultural identity.

The popularity of that movement has ebbed, with a March poll finding Quebecois secessionism at its lowest level of support since voters narrowly rejected a referendum in 1995. Still, the secessionist Parti Quebecois political party is polling high in advance of a provincial election set for later this year.

Has the push for independence attracted criticism?

As with all independence movements, the province’s bid for separation from the rest of Canada has become a source of passionate disagreement.

“It stands for something that most of us Albertans and Canadians don’t stand for,” Thomas Lukaszuk, the province’s former deputy premier and a strong supporter of federalist identity, told AFP. “It’s a form of treason.”

Expressions of support from the administration of United States President Donald Trump, who has angered Canadians by suggesting that the country should become a US state, have also sparked criticism that the secessionist movement is undermining Canadian unity.

Asked about the possibility of independence in January, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Alberta would be a “natural partner” for the US.

“Alberta has a wealth of natural resources, but they won’t let them build a pipeline to the Pacific,” Bessent told a US right-wing commentator. “I think we should let them come down into the US, and Alberta is a natural partner for the US. They have great resources. The Albertans are very independent people.”

“The separatists are not elected members. They’re just citizens of Canada residing in Alberta, and they actually formed delegations and are received by the highest levels of US administration,” Lukaszuk said. “That must be very empowering to them.”

Regardless of whether the proposed ballot measure succeeds, the development is likely to serve as a shot in the arm for the province’s secessionist forces.

“I think this is going to be a permanent change in our political culture,” independent historian and supporter of independence Michael Wagner told AFP, adding that the movement “is not going to just disappear”.

What happens next?

A provincewide ballot could take place as soon as October, as part of a larger referendum on several questions relating to constitutional issues and other matters, such as immigration, scheduled for October 19.

Justice Shaina Leonard issued a monthlong stay on the certification of the independence petition on April 10, following a legal challenge from several First Nations groups who say separation would violate treaty rights.

That ruling did not bar the gathering of signatures, and a decision on legal challenges from Alberta First Nations is expected later this week. A decision in favour of the First Nations challengers could render the process academic.

The pro-European Union coalition of Romanian Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan has collapsed after a 281-4 vote of no confidence. The Social Democrats, Bolojan’s allies, sided with far-right parties to oust the prime minister. The leu, Romania’s currency, fell to a record low against the euro before Tuesday’s vote.

The UK government says it is in “discussions about supporting potential bids” for the Olympics and Paralympics in the 2040s.

It added that “initial work examining whether the UK could host the Games for the first time since London 2012 will assess key factors such as potential cost, socio-economic benefit and [the] chance of success”.

Ministers say they are also considering whether to support bids to stage golf’s Ryder Cup and Solheim Cup in the 2030s.

The last time the two team competitions were staged in the UK was in 2014 and 2019 respectively, both at Gleneagles in Scotland.

In recent months there has been growing momentum behind a possible attempt to bring the Olympics back to the UK for a fourth time.

Last year London mayor Sadiq Khan said he wanted the city to bid for the 2040 Games.

With Los Angeles in the US and Brisbane, Australia hosting the 2028 and 2032 Games respectively, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is yet to choose cities to stage the events in 2036 and beyond.

In December, the chair of funding agency UK Sport told BBC Sport a bid “has to be an aspiration”, suggesting Liverpool and Manchester could be co-hosts.

In February, a group of political leaders urged the government to ensure any future bid would be based in the north of England, saying there was a “compelling” case for it to host the event.

The Ryder Cup takes place every two years with 24 of the best players from Europe and the USA going head-to-head over three days in matchplay competition. The two continents take it in turns to host the event.

In March, it was revealed that Bolton is bidding to host the Ryder Cup in 2035. If successful it would be the first time in more than 30 years that the event is staged in England.

Last year England Golf urged the government to underwrite its bid to stage the Solheim Cup – a contest between the leading female golfers of Europe and the US – in the country for the first time.

As part of a new ‘sporting events framework’, the government says it will look to make it a criminal offence to resell tickets for specific major sporting events without authorisation such as Euro 2028, claiming it “will make it easier to bid for, secure and deliver major sporting events”.

England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland are hosting Euro 2028, while the UK is the sole bidder to host the 2035 Women’s World Cup.

In November, the government announced legislation to outlaw the sale of tickets to sports events at inflated prices – but it did not apply to football.

WASHINGTON — Debris from the demolition of the White House East Wing that was dumped at a nearby public golf course has tested positive for lead, chromium and other toxic metals, the National Park Service said.

An interim report by a Virginia engineering firm says the toxic metals, along with PCBs, pesticides, petroleum byproducts and other chemicals were detected at levels above laboratory reporting limits in soil at the East Potomac Golf Links, a historic golf course that President Trump plans to renovate.

The park service began dumping debris from the East Wing onto the golf course in October, and more than 810,000 cubic feet of excavated soil had been transported to the site as of last month, the report by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. said. The report was requested by the park service.

The nonprofit DC Preservation League has sued the Trump administration, arguing that the dumping was unlawful and possibly hazardous. The group also is challenging the Republican administration’s takeover of the golf course, about two miles southeast of the White House, and others in the city.

The suit is one of several legal battles challenging Trump’s extraordinary efforts to put his mark on public spaces in the nation’s capital, including renaming and shuttering the Kennedy Center and building a 250-foot-tall triumphal arch near the Lincoln Memorial.

At the end of last year, a separate group of preservationists filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the administration from demolishing the East Wing so it could build a ballroom, a project slated to cost $400 million.

A spokesperson for the Interior Department, which oversees the park service, said in an email Tuesday that the soil removed from the White House “was tested multiple times by multiple parties, and this project passed all standards set by law.”

Although the agency does not comment on litigation, “this thorough process was followed to ensure the transfer was safe for the public,’’ the email said.

The Preservation League’s executive director, Rebecca Miller, said Tuesday that experts were still analyzing the engineering report. The group also is concerned about whether the Trump administration is complying with federal laws including the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, she said.

Debris from the East Wing demolition is so prevalent that it causes golfers to detour around piles of it, Miller said. “If you Google you’ll see lots of photos of golfers walking past it,” she said in an interview.

The Trump administration’s plans to renovate the 105-year-old course to make it a professional-level course would permanently alter its historic character and layout, Miller said.

A federal judge told the government on Monday not to cut down more than 10 trees without first providing notice amid the legal dispute.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said during a remote hearing that she wasn’t going to issue a temporary restraining order just yet, but she indicated she would take a harsh view of any major alterations made without prior notice.

Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that is co-representing the Preservation League, said in a press release that “further scrutiny will be required related to potential toxins that were dumped at East Potomac Park by the administration as part of the destruction of the East Wing of the White House.”

Test results released by the government “suggest the Defendants dumped a cocktail of contaminants — and despite indications of the refuse’s contents, they continued dumping it,” the group said.

Kevin Griess, the superintendent of the National Mall and Memorial Parks for the park service, said during Monday’s court hearing there was no immediate plan to begin tree removal but added that a safety assessment was underway.

Trump, an avid golfer, also plans on renovating a military golf course just outside Washington that has been used by past presidents going back decades.

In its statement, the Interior Department said it is “committed to continuing the relationships we have built with the local golf communities to ensure these courses are safe, beautiful, open, affordable, enjoyable, accessible, and world-class for people living in and visiting the greatest capital city in the world.”

Daly and Fields write for the Associated Press.

In an Al Jazeera exclusive interview, US Central Command spokesman Tim Hawkins says the main priorities in the Strait of Hormuz are securing safe routes for merchant vessels and blockading Iran.

Sudan has recalled its ambassador to Addis Ababa, accusing Ethiopia of being behind attacks on Khartoum’s airport. International Crisis Group’s Alan Boswell says the escalation risks making the countries’ internal challenges worse.

May 5 (UPI) — The Center for AI Standards and Innovation, part of a U.S.government agency, announced Tuesday that it will test artificial intelligence models from some top firms before release to vet them for security risks.

CAISI has deals with Microsoft, xAI and Google DeepMind for this testing and targeted research “to better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security,” it said in a release. The center is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

This follows similar deals in 2024, under the Biden administration, with prominent AI leaders OpenAI and Anthropic, which have been “renegotiated” to fit Trump administration directives, Politico reported.

The government has increasingly shown interest in matters of AI technology and security. CNBC also reported Tuesday that the Trump administration is considering an executive order to create a process for AI oversight by the White House.

Some of this interest has been heightened by the announcement last month of Anthropic’s new Mythos AI model. The company described the model as excelling “at identifying weaknesses and security flaws within software” and limited its initial use to certain companies. These companies, including Amazon and Microsoft, will use it as part of defensive security work and as part of Project Glasswing, a cybersecurity initiative, Anthropic said.

The announcement Tuesday from CAISI said that the center has completed more than 40 evaluations of AI models so far.

“Independent, vigorous measurement science is essential to understanding frontier AI and its national security implications,” CAISI director Chris Fell said in a statement. “These expanded industry collaborations help us scale our work in the public interest in a critical moment.”

MIAMI — A former Miami congressman and longtime friend of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was convicted Friday in connection with a secret $50-million lobbying campaign on behalf of Venezuela during the first Trump administration.

Jurors found Republican David Rivera and an associate, Esther Nuhfer, guilty on all counts, including failing to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department and conspiracy to commit money laundering as part of their work for former President Nicolás Maduro’s government.

The seven-week trial offered a rare glimpse into Miami’s role as a crossroads for foreign influence campaigns aimed at shaping U.S. policy toward Latin America, one highlighting the city’s reputation as a magnet for corruption and anti-Communist crusaders among its sizable exile population.

It included testimony from Rubio, Texas Congressman Pete Sessions and a top Washington lobbyist — all of whom testified that they were shocked to learn belatedly of Rivera’s consulting contract with a U.S.-based affiliate of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA.

In an 11-count indictment unsealed in 2022, prosecutors alleged that Rivera was tapped by then Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez — now Venezuela’s acting president — to work Republican connections from Rivera’s time in Congress to get the first Trump administration to abandon its hard-line stance and ease crippling sanctions on Venezuela.

As part of the charm offensive, prosecutors alleged, Rivera and Nuhfer, a political consultant, manipulated influential friends, including Rubio and Sessions, like “pawns on a chess board.” The goal: to try to normalize relations with the new Trump administration at a time when the Maduro government was buffeted by serious accusations of human rights violations.

“As long as the money kept coming in, they didn’t care from where,” prosecutor Roger Cruz said of the defendants during closing arguments.

‘Massive secret’ threatened to damage Rivera’s political career

But the two held onto the “massive secret” and didn’t disclose their lobbying work as required, for fear it would have ended Rivera’s political career as an anti-Communist stalwart, Cruz said.

To hide his work, prosecutors allege, Rivera also set up an encrypted chat group called MIA — for Miami — with his main conduit to the Maduro government: Venezuelan media tycoon Raúl Gorrín, who was subsequently charged in the U.S. with bribing top Venezuelan officials.

Members of the group used playful code words to discuss their activities: Maduro was the “bus driver,” Sessions “Sombrero,” Rodríguez “The Lady in Red,” and millions of dollars “melons,” according to copies of text messages presented to the jury.

“It was all about la Luz,” Cruz said, referring to the Spanish word for light, which Rivera and others repeatedly used to discuss payments from Caracas.

Attorneys for Rivera and Nuhfer said the two acted in good faith and believed they were under no requirement to disclose their work. The three-month, $50-million contract with Rivera’s one-man consulting firm, they say, was focused exclusively on luring oil giant ExxonMobil back to Venezuela — commercial work that is generally exempt from the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Wholly distinct from that consulting work, they say, were Rivera’s meetings with Rubio and Sessions, which occurred after the consulting contract had expired and was focused on ushering in leadership in Venezuela that would be less hostile to the U.S.

“He was working every possible angle to get Nicolás Maduro out,” defense attorney Ed Shohat said during closing arguments. “There was not a word in the chats about normalizing relations.”

Nuhfer’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, likened the government’s case to the 17th century Salem witch trials, presuming ill intent that was belied by the flimsiest of evidence.

“My client does not have a dark heart,” he said.

Exxon meetings for Rodríguez

Prosecutors said Rivera used the contract with New York-based PDV USA as cover for illegal lobbying.

Once exposed, the partners tried to hide the work — backdating documents and coming up with sham agreements like one to justify a wire transfer of $3.75 million to a South Florida company that maintained Gorrín’s luxury yacht.

The political activity included setting up meetings for Rodríguez in New York, Caracas, Washington and Dallas. As part of the effort, the two roped in Sessions, who later tried to broker a meeting for Rodríguez with the CEO of ExxonMobil that had succeeded Trump’s then-secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. After a secret meeting in Caracas with Maduro, Sessions also agreed to deliver a letter from the Venezuelan president to Trump.

The outreach quickly unraveled, however. Within six months of taking office, Trump sanctioned Maduro and labeled him a “dictator,” launching a “maximum pressure” campaign to unseat the president.

However, nearly a decade later, Rodríguez has emerged as the second Trump administration’s trusted partner after the U.S. military’s ousting of Maduro.

Before being elected to Congress in 2010, Rivera was a high-ranking Florida legislator. During that time, he shared a Tallahassee home with Rubio, who eventually became the Florida House speaker.

Rivera has previously faced controversy, including allegations that he secretly funded a Democratic spoiler candidate in a 2012 congressional race. Last year, federal prosecutors dropped the case after an appeals court threw out a sizable fine imposed by a lower court. Rivera was also investigated — but never charged — for alleged campaign finance violations and a $1-million contract with a gambling company while serving in the Florida legislature.

Goodman writes for the Associated Press.

TV star Simon Cowell’s fiancée Lauren strongly believes social media MUST be made safe for our children. 

The US socialite, 48, is a determined campaigner for tougher curbs.  

Her passion for change is driven by her sons – Adam, 20, from a previous relationship and 12-year-old Eric with music mogul Simon – plus the anguish of parents who blame online content for their child’s death.  

This week, the Government finally agreed to bring in stronger, age-based restrictions for under-16s following pressure from grieving mums and dads. 

Here, Lauren – who does not allow Eric to use social media – explains why more needs to be done . . .  

WHEN I heard what had happened to 14-year-old Jools Sweeney, it broke my heart. 

SICKO SNARED

Moment smirking ex-Spandau Ballet singer arrested for raping & abusing 6 women

home truths

Katie Price says she’s never had one-night stand but sister calls her a ‘liar’

After he had been playing ­happily with his friends one afternoon, his mother Ellen Roome came home to find his lifeless body in his bedroom. 

Jools was one of several British children who died in 2022 having seemingly copied a deadly challenge shown on TikTok. 

I thought, “God forbid, this could have been my child”. 

My youngest son Eric, 12, isn’t much younger than Jools was, and my eldest Adam, 20, is close to the age Jools would be now. 

Since then, myself and Simon have met Ellen, who is a remarkable woman taking on the big tech giants. 

Ellen is one of the parents behind a campaign called Raise The Age, which wants the restriction on access to social media to be raised from 13 to 16. 

The policy was opposed by the UK Government, but they finally saw sense this week and agreed to introduce stronger controls on what young people can and cannot do online.  

There is no issue more important to parents right now. It’s what everyone cares about.

Making social media safe is the topic that dominates all my parent group chats.  

In our family we have already made up our minds. 

Me and Simon won’t allow our son Eric to access social media. 

We recently gave him a brick phone so he can communicate with his friends by text and WhatsApp. 

A lot of his friends use Snapchat, but I said no to that platform because I believe it is one of the least safe products. 

Eric is fine with that decision because we have had so many ­discussions about the dangers. 

But a lot of parents are not aware of the risks, particularly on seemingly innocuous sites such as Discord, Pinterest and CapCut. 

It is unreasonable to expect ­parents to monitor everything their children do online. 

Instead, it should be the government which keeps them safe. 

The evidence we hear is sick.

The tech companies knew their ­platforms were addictive and yet they kept going, inventing new ways to keep our children hooked.  

Some told our politicians that their products were safe, even though their own internal research showed they did not believe it.  

In my opinion, these firms put profits ahead of children’s safety, and that is absolutely unacceptable.  

We have seen groundbreaking court cases in the US which ruled that these platforms were intentionally designed to be addictive and were endangering children.  

Our children could not wait any longer because they were dying as a result of what they saw and experienced online. 

This movement isn’t about a total ban on the internet.

It is about a restriction on unsafe and harmful social media.  

We want an end to infinite scrolling where children are sent ­material they did not ask for, and an end to strangers being able to message them.  

Those firms that make their products safe will be available — those that don’t must restrict access by law or face massive fines. 

I met with Lord Nash, who has been calling in the House of Lords for tougher controls on social media. 

It was his pressure which forced the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson to commit to implementing social media restrictions for under-16s. I hear people saying that restrictions won’t work because children will find workarounds.  

However, we haven’t given up on age restrictions for alcohol just because some children still get their hands on booze.  

When seatbelt laws were first passed, many people ignored them. 

But eventually, the message got through that they save lives.

Now, it is natural to strap in safely. 

The Government U-turn doesn’t mean the fight is over.  

Far from it. 

We need to keep the pressure on them to act quickly. 

Our children cannot wait years, because they are dying every month as a result of what they see online. 

I made a vow to Ellen, who I consider to be a close friend, to not give up until social media is safe for our children. 

I have huge respect for the families that are campaigning for this change.

They know it won’t bring their children back. 

But they want to do everything in their power to stop anyone else experiencing these horrors. 

Cole Tomas Allen, the 31-year-old Torrance man charged with trying to kill President Trump at last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, will remain in federal jail pending trial.

Allen agreed to his ongoing detention during a brief hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “He’s conceding detention at this time,” one of his federal public defenders, Tezira Abe, told Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, according to CNBC.

He did not enter a plea during the hearing, according to the Associated Press.

Abe and Allen’s other public defender, Eugene Ohm, had argued in a filing Wednesday for Allen’s pre-trial release, citing his lack of a criminal record, family support and ties to his church, as well as inconsistencies and weaknesses they allege exist in the government’s case against him.

Abe and Ohm did not respond to a request for comment following the hearing.

In addition to trying to kill Trump, a terrorism-related charge that carries a potential life sentence, Allen faces two firearms charges related to his allegedly transporting two guns across state lines as he traveled from California to Washington by Amtrak train, and allegedly discharging one of those firearms — a shotgun — during the incident.

In arguing for Allen’s release in their Wednesday filing, his attorneys not only insisted he was no danger to the community, but questioned the government’s reasoning and evidence for the charges against him.

Allen was captured on a hotel video camera sprinting past U.S. Secret Service agents and into the secured event space a floor above the dinner while armed, according to prosecutors, with the shotgun, a pistol, and various knives. He then fell to the ground and was detained, according to prosecutors.

Trump administration officials who were at the dinner, including Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C., charged him swiftly — leaning heavily on an email Allen had sent to family just as he was breaching event security, which Trump and others referred to as a “manifesto” but which was titled an “Apology and Explanation.”

In that document, Allen allegedly wrote that he was targeting top Trump administration officials, with the highest ranking among them receiving top priority. He allegedly wrote that he would “go through” others at the event to get to those officials, but that he was not targeting guests or hotel staff and had chosen buck shot rather than slugs to “minimize casualties” in the room.

The charge of attempting to kill the president hung largely on that document, according to charging documents.

Blanche and Pirro also alleged that Allen had fired a shot during the encounter with Secret Service agents, in which they said a Secret Service agent was shot in the ballistic vest. Prosecutors also alleged in court that Allen had fired his shotgun, noting their recovery of one spent casing, but made no mention of a Secret Service officer being shot in the vest.

That alleged shot served as the basis for the one count of discharging a firearm.

In their filing arguing for Allen’s release, his attorneys questioned the legitimacy of both arguments.

They wrote that the government’s “sole proffered evidence” of Allen’s intent to kill Trump — the “Apology and Explanation” letter — was “far from clear” and never actually mentioned Trump by name.

“The government’s evidence of the charged offense — the attempted assassination of the president — is thus built entirely upon speculation, even under the most generous reading of its theory,” Allen’s attorneys wrote. “While the government may be able to say that the letter expresses an intent to target administration officials, it falls well short of narrowing those officials to President Trump.”

Regarding the one count of discharging a firearm, Allen’s attorneys wrote that the government “has not asserted that Mr. Allen ever fired any of the recovered weapons.” They wrote that the government, “after essentially asserting that Mr. Allen shot a Secret Service Officer in the criminal complaint, has apparently retreated from the theory by not mentioning the alleged officer at all” in its filing arguing for Allen’s ongoing detention.

In the latter document, prosecutors wrote only that an officer had seen Allen fire his shotgun “in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom.” However, they provided little evidence to support that claim, other than that the shotgun held a spent cartridge in its barrel.

“In sum,” Allen’s attorneys wrote, “the government’s entire argument about the nature and circumstances of the offense is based upon inferences drawn about Mr. Allen’s intent that raise more questions than answers.”

Prosecutors, in a separate filing in the case related to evidence gathering, rejected the defense claims.

“The preliminary analysis of the crime scene is consistent with the government’s evidence that your client fired at least one shot from the 12-gauge pump action shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G., and that Officer V.G. fired his service weapon five times,” they wrote. “The government is aware of no evidence thus far collected and analyzed that is inconsistent with the above.”

They wrote that evidence suggests Allen fired his Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action shotgun “at least one time as he ran past the magnetometers on the Terrace Level of the Washington Hilton.”

They wrote that investigators recovered one spent cartridge from the chamber of the shotgun, that the “government’s preliminary ballistics and video analyses show that your client fired his shotgun in the direction of” the Secret Service officer identified only as “V.G.,” and that “at least one fragment was recovered from the crime scene that was physically consistent with a single buckshot pellet.”

HAVANA — Cubans hunched over tables this month to sign up for the socialist government’s campaign to support national sovereignty and defy the U.S. as tensions between the countries escalate.

They are endorsing “My signature for the Homeland” movement, which President Miguel Díaz-Canel launched earlier this month.

The initiative is mocked by some who question why people stood in line to sign when hunger and poverty are growing across the island, while supporters say it serves as a warning to the U.S. that civilians want peace but will not back down despite recent threats of invasion.

“Anything for the revolution,” said Rodolfo Ruiz, 64, who sells sunglasses and other items out of his home in Havana. He said he signed last week because of President Trump’s ongoing comments over Cuba, “so that he may hear and know that we are willing to defend our sovereignty.”

“Watch out, Trump. Think before you invade Cuba, think carefully. The people are prepared,” Ruiz said.

In January, Trump signed an executive order asserting that the “policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Cuba constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat,” something Cuban officials have repeatedly scoffed at.

Trump has referred to the island as a “failing nation” and suggested a “friendly takeover.”

“We may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this,” he said in mid-April, referring to the war in Iran.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio — the son of Cuban immigrants who fled before the revolution — has called for “new people in charge” of Cuba.

“It is absurd for the State Department to claim that Cuba — a relatively small, developing country subjected to a brutal economic war — could pose a threat to the world’s greatest military, technological, and economic power,” Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodríguez wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.

Díaz-Canel has said he does not want military aggression, but noted that Cuba has a duty to prepare to avoid it, and if necessary, defeat it.

Havana resident Delfina Hernández said she would stand shoulder to shoulder with Cubans to fight a U.S. energy blockade, a sharpening of longtime U.S. sanctions and what many refer to as the “imperialist threat.”

For three days last week, the community center she runs in Havana with her husband received sheets of paper and opened its doors so people over age 16 could sign them. Hernández was the first to do so.

“Cuba is something very sacred to us,” she said. “We are well-armed, and the people of Cuba will fight to the very end. We are going to hit them — and with everything we’ve got.”

Criticism was swift on social media, though, with opponents of the campaign asserting that the “homeland” has not provided them with anything. Some said the government should allow people to sign in favor of things like the ability to choose their president.

The homeland initiative began on April 19 and comes as Cuba celebrates the 65th anniversary of its April 1961 Bay of Pigs victory over some 1,500 Cuban exiles backed by the CIA who failed in their attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro’s newly formed Communist government.

Alberto Olivera, a visual artist and Hernández’s husband, questioned how Cuba poses a threat to the U.S.

“If it’s a failed revolution, then leave us alone,” he said. “What do they care?” Hernández added.

Olivera recognized that Cubans have unmet needs, adding that he has been hungry at times, but asserted that the “pressure cooker” tactic by the U.S. would not work.

“If I’m a failed state, why are you seeking me out?” he asked.

The Trump administration has demanded that Cuba release political prisoners, implement major economic reforms and change its way of governance — all things Cuba has rejected, saying it’s open to dialogue and cooperation in certain areas as it pushes for the end of a U.S. energy blockade that has deepened the island’s crises.

Both countries have confirmed recent talks, although details remain secret.

As tensions persist, Cuba’s government is gathering signatures at workplaces and neighborhoods across the island of nearly 10 million people, remaining mum on how many it has collected.

It said in a statement that the signatures are meant to condemn “the U.S. blockade and economic war against Cuba,” which it called a “genocidal act,” and to repudiate threats of military aggression while upholding “the inalienable right of Cubans to live in peace.”

Coto writes for the Associated Press.

LONDON — In the world of diplomatic faux pas, it could have been a lot worse.

At Tuesday’s state dinner honoring King Charles III and Queen Camilla, President Trump said that during a private meeting earlier in the day the British monarch had agreed with him that Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

“We’re doing a little Middle East work right now … and we’re doing very well,” Trump told the audience. “We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever — Charles agrees with me, even more than I do — we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”

While many Britons would agree with the president’s sentiment, the comment triggered mild consternation among pundits in the U.K.

By convention, people aren’t supposed to relay private conversations with the monarch. That is partly because the king has to remain above the political fray, but also because the sovereign doesn’t have the ability to wade into a public debate and correct the record if he’s misquoted.

“Generally, as a matter of protocol, I think I would expect discussions between heads of state to be sort of behind the scenes, in those closed meetings, for those to be sort of kept private,” said Craig Prescott, an expert on constitutional law and the monarchy at Royal Holloway, University of London. “And, you know, this was something that the U.K. government wanted to avoid.”

There had been a fair amount of jitters before the king’s trip to the United States, which comes amid Trump’s very public frustration with U.K. Prime Minster Keir Starmer over his failure to support U.S. actions in the Iran war.

Like all royal visits, this is a carefully choreographed diplomatic event carried out at the request of the U.K. government, which hopes that warm relations between the king and Trump can help repair the rift.

But Trump is an unconventional leader who has a penchant for breaking protocol, and there were concerns about just what he might say or do.

At least in this case, the king’s comments seemed clearly within the bounds of existing U.K. government policy.

“The King is naturally mindful of his government’s long-standing and well-known position on the prevention of nuclear proliferation,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement designed to provide context to the president’s remarks.

Prescott said that “in a sense, this was always the issue, just what Trump would do or say — would he put the king in an embarrassing position?’’ Prescott said.

“You always had that sort of issue of what he would post on social media,” he said. “And I think, you know, this could have been much, much worse.”

Before the state dinner, Charles gave a speech to a joint session of U.S. Congress. The king received repeated standing ovations during the address, which celebrated the longstanding bonds between the U.S. and Britain while nodding to differences over NATO, support for Ukraine and the need to combat climate change.

Now, from the U.K. government’s point of view, the trip is shifting to safer ground as the king and queen leave Washington behind and head to New York, where the focus will be on the city’s creative industries, rather than politics.

The most difficult part of the trip may be over, Prescott said.

“If this is the only controversy arising out of this phase of the state visit, I think overall this has been an enormous success for the king and the British government, because the king was able to make some quite pointed remarks in Congress and it hasn’t really yielded any sort of negative reaction from the president.”

“In a sense,” he said, “you get the feeling that the king rather charmed Washington with his speech to Congress and, you know, his very witty speech at the state banquet.”

Kirka writes for the Associated Press.