iran war

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth clashed with Democratic lawmakers in Congress for a second day Thursday, rejecting senators’ accusations that the Iran war was launched without evidence of an imminent threat and waged with no coherent strategy.

The three-hour hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee mostly traced the well-worn positions of Republicans and Democrats on the conflict, Hegseth’s leadership and the ways in which President Trump has used the American military.

In his opening statements, Hegseth called Democratic lawmakers “reckless naysayers” and “defeatists from the cheap seats” who have failed to recognize the many successes of the U.S. military against the Islamic Republic.

Hegseth said Trump has had the courage “unlike other presidents to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and that their nuclear blackmail never succeeds. We have the best negotiator in the world driving a great deal.”

Democrats peppered Hegseth with questions about his efforts to remake military culture, U.S. support for Ukraine and whether Trump would seek congressional approval for the war. The Defense secretary said the ceasefire postpones the deadline for securing such approval.

Hegseth seemed to emerge with solid Republican support, though a few GOP senators asked about the dismissal of a top Army general and sought assurances that the Pentagon is doing everything possible to prevent civilian deaths.

The hearing was convened to discuss the Trump administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which would boost defense spending to a historic $1.5 trillion. Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, emphasized the need for more drones, missile defense systems and warships.

Top Democrat argues that war has left U.S. in worse position

Sen. Jack Reed, the committee’s ranking Democrat, argued that the war has left the U.S. in a worse strategic position, with 13 American troops killed, more than 400 injured and equipment destroyed.

The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, sending fuel prices skyrocketing, Reed said. Iran still has enriched uranium and retains enough combat effectiveness to keep the conflict locked in an impasse, while Iran’s hard-line government is still in charge.

“I am concerned that you have been telling the president what he wants to hear instead of what he needs to hear,” Reed said. “Bold assurances of success are a disservice to both the commander in chief and the troops who risked their lives based on them.”

Reed also lambasted Hegseth for his firing of top military leaders and suggested the Defense secretary had failed to recognize the accomplishments of women and people of color in the military. Reed noted that 60% of about two dozen officers fired by Hegseth have been female or Black.

Hegseth said that any firing is based on performance and that previous Pentagon leaders “were focused on social engineering, race and gender in ways that we think were unhealthy for the department.”

Republican chairman offers warmer welcome

Hegseth received a warmer welcome from Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the committee, and other GOP lawmakers. Wicker kicked off the hearing by noting that the U.S. is in the most dangerous security environment since World War II.

Through the war against Iran, Trump “has worked to remove the regime’s conventional military capabilities and force it back to the table for a permanent solution,” Wicker said.

He also commended the budget proposal for 2027, saying it “is chock-full of important programs and initiatives that are absolutely necessary to secure American interest in the 21st century.”

Sen. Deb Fischer, a Republican from Nebraska, praised Hegseth’s statement on the need for nuclear deterrence as well as the development of Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense program.

“For years, this committee has known that we must improve our ability to defend our homeland against a wider variety of threats,” Fischer said.

Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, asked Hegseth whether he ever lied to Trump, pushing back against Reed’s claim that Hegseth tells the president what he wants to hear.

“I only tell the truth to the president,” Hegseth said.

Questions about civilian deaths

Senators also focused on civilian deaths in the Iran war and the Pentagon decision to hollow out a congressionally mandated office set up specifically to reduce civilian casualties.

The Associated Press has reported that growing evidence points to U.S. culpability for a deadly strike on an Iranian elementary school adjacent to a Revolutionary Guard base that killed more than 165 people, including children.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York asked Hegseth, “What is your response to targeting that has resulted in the destruction of schools, hospitals, civilian places? Why did you cut by 90% the division that’s supposed to help you not target civilians?”

Hegseth responded that the Pentagon has an “ironclad commitment” to do more than other countries to prevent civilian deaths.

A day earlier, he battled with Democrats during a nearly six-hour House Armed Services Committee hearing, where he faced sharp questioning over the war’s costs in dollars, lives and diminishing stockpiles of crucial weapons.

Hegseth said Wednesday that the strike on the Iranian school remains under investigation.

War powers resolutions fail to pass

Democrats have called the conflict a costly war of choice that lacks congressional approval or oversight. But they have failed to pass multiple war powers resolutions that would have required Trump to halt the conflict until Congress authorizes further action.

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days — a deadline that arrives Friday. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension, but the Republican administration has not indicated publicly whether Trump will seek it.

Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, asked Hegseth whether Trump will seek congressional authorization or ask for the 30-day extension. The Defense secretary said the clock pauses during a ceasefire. Kaine disagreed based on his reading of the law.

The Trump administration is in “active conversations” with lawmakers on addressing the 60-day timeline, according to a White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

Finley, Groves and Kinnard write for the Associated Press. Kinnard reported from Columbia, S.C. AP writer Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

Published on 30/04/2026 – 10:17 GMT+2•Updated
10:28

Brent crude, the international standard for oil prices, jumped by over 7% during early trading on Thursday, touching $126 per barrel, the highest intraday level since 2022 when Russia initiated the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The US benchmark crude, WTI, also rose more than 3% and hit over $110 per barrel.

At the time of writing, prices have corrected slightly with the front month contract for Brent trading at around $122 per barrel and WTI at roughly $108.5.

Prices are now the highest they have been since the start of the Iran war.

The surge in oil prices is a direct consequence of stalled negotiations over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the absence of a clear path toward ending the war and a seemingly increased chance of US-Israeli military action returning.

US President Donald Trump is set to meet with the head of the US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, on Thursday and receive a briefing on new military options for action in Iran, according to Axios which cites two unnamed people.

The meeting signals the potential for fresh escalation in the Middle East as the resumption of combat operations is reportedly “seriously under consideration” and oil markets have reacted swiftly to the news.

A ceasefire has held since early April but recent negotiating efforts have fallen flat with the two sides refusing to meet. Meanwhile, the US and Iran both maintain their blockade of the vital Strait of Hormuz.

US Central Command has also reportedly asked for hypersonic missiles to be sent to the Middle East, which would mark the first time the US army has deployed that type of weapon.

The persistent blockade of ports and the threat of expanded combat have fundamentally reshaped market expectations.

A shifting landscape for OPEC and global supply

The spike in prices is occurring against a backdrop of significant structural change within the global oil hierarchy.

Earlier this week, the United Arab Emirates officially withdrew from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its wider alliance (OPEC+), a move the nation claimed was necessary to prioritise its own national interests.

Under normal market conditions, the exit of a major producer from the cartel might be expected to signal a potential increase in supply or a decrease in price stability.

However, the sheer scale of the Iran war has rendered the UAE’s departure secondary in the minds of traders.

Despite the UAE’s exit, which was expected to potentially weaken OPEC’s grip on production quotas, prices have continued their upward trajectory.

This suggests that the “war premium” currently dominates all other market fundamentals.

Investors are currently less concerned with the internal politics of oil-producing nations and more focused on the immediate physical absence of Iranian crude, suspended shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz and the threat to regional infrastructure.

However, the transition of the UAE to an independent actor still highlights a growing fragmentation in global energy governance at a time when the world’s energy security is at its most vulnerable.

WASHINGTON — Making his first appearance before Congress since the Trump administration went to war in Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced withering questioning from skeptical Democrats Wednesday over a costly conflict being waged without congressional approval.

The war has cost $25 billion so far, according to Pentagon numbers presented to the House Armed Services Committee during the contentious hearing, ostensibly focused on the administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which would boost defense spending to a historic $1.5 trillion.

While Republicans focused on the details of military budgeting and voiced support for the operation, Democrats pivoted to the ballooning costs of the war, the huge drawdown of critical U.S. munitions and the bombing of a school that killed children. Some lawmakers also questioned President Trump’s dealings with allies and his shifting justification for the conflict.

Hegseth dismissed the criticism as political and rebuked lawmakers who pushed him for answers.

“The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans,” Hegseth said.

Democrats press about reasons for war

Wednesday’s hearing stretched nearly six hours as Democrats and some Republicans questioned Hegseth over the war and his ouster of several top military leaders.

In one tense exchange, Hegseth told Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) that Iran’s nuclear facilities were obliterated in a 2025 attack by the U.S., prompting Smith to question the Trump administration’s reasoning for starting the Iran war less than a year later.

“We had to start this war, you just said 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat,” said Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee. “Now you’re saying that it was completely obliterated?”

Hegseth responded by saying that Iran “had not given up their nuclear ambitions” and still had thousands of missiles.

Smith said the war “left us at exactly the same place we were before.”

Democrats accused Hegseth of misleading Americans about the reasons for the conflict and said rising gas prices are now threatening the pocketbooks of millions of people in the U.S.

“Secretary Hegseth, you have been lying to the American public about this war from day one and so has the president,” said Rep. John Garamendi of Walnut Grove, who called the war “a geopolitical calamity,” a “strategic blunder” and a ”self-inflicted wound to America.”

Hegseth blasted Garamendi’s remarks.

“Who are you cheering for here?” he asked the lawmaker. ”Your hatred for President Trump blinds you” to the success of the war.

Hegseth defends firings of officers

The Defense secretary faced intense questions from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) about his decision to oust the Army’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Randy George, one of several top military officers to be dismissed since Trump’s reelection.

Houlahan said George was deeply respected by both members of the military and Congress and asked why Hegseth fired him. Hegseth’s response that “new leadership” was needed failed to satisfy Houlahan.

“You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most decorated and remarkable men —” Houlahan began before Hegseth interrupted her. “We needed new leadership,” he repeated.

The Pentagon announced this month that Navy Secretary John Phelan was stepping down. Hegseth previously removed Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy’s top uniformed officer, and Gen. Jim Slife, the Air Force’s No. 2 leader, while Trump fired Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said that while Hegseth is empowered to make personnel changes, he shares what he called “bipartisan concern” about the firings.

“We had a huge bipartisan majority here that had confidence in the Army chief of staff and the secretary of the navy,” Bacon said. “And I would just point out it may be constitutionally right … but it doesn’t make it right or wise.”

Hegseth has said the changes are part of building a “warrior culture” at the Pentagon.

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina defended Hegseth’s personnel moves, saying he is “trying to innovate and trying to change the way we do business.”

“I’m glad that you’re firing people,” Mace said. “There are people there that are getting in your way. They need to go.”

Republicans back Trump on Iran

During the extended hearing, Hegseth detailed plans to increase pay for service members and upgrade munitions while also announcing that, as of Tuesday, the Pentagon had authorized $400 million in military aid for Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

But the debate and the questions were dominated by the war in Iran.

While a fragile ceasefire is now in place, the U.S. and Israel launched the war Feb. 28 without congressional oversight. House and Senate Democrats have failed to pass multiple war power resolutions that would have required Trump to halt the conflict until Congress authorizes further action.

Republicans say they back Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear program, the potential for talks to resume and the high stakes of withdrawal. Still, GOP lawmakers are eager for the conflict to end, and some are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on.

Democrats questioned Hegseth over the war’s economic impact and rising gasoline costs, noting Trump’s promise to lower consumer costs. Hegseth responded by citing the threat posed by Iran.

“What is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon that they wield?” he said.

Republicans expressed support for Trump’s decision to strike Iran, including Mace, who in late March had expressed concerns about the justification for the war. “The longer this war continues, the faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people,” she wrote in a social media post.

On Wednesday, Mace noted her past concerns but said she is “impressed with where we are today.” She told Hegseth: “Everything I have seen, you have surpassed all of my expectations.”

Iran’s closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor for the world’s oil, has sent fuel prices skyrocketing and posed problems for Republicans ahead of the midterm elections. The U.S. has imposed a naval blockade of Iranian shipping and three American aircraft carriers are in the Middle East for the first time in more than 20 years.

The countries appear locked in a stalemate. Trump told Axios on Wednesday that he is rejecting Iran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the U.S. blockade.

Finley, Groves, Klepper and Toropin write for the Associated Press.

Oil markets face renewed instability following the United Arab Emirates’ formal exit from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its wider alliance (OPEC+), announced on Tuesday and taking effect on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move, which ends decades of membership, comes as the global economy continues to reel from the ongoing war with Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz remains in place.

Investors are currently weighing the potential for higher future output from the UAE against the immediate and acute risks posed to global supply routes, as well as the increased chances that more countries drop out of OPEC and OPEC+.

Following the announcement, markets reacted swiftly as the potential for oversupply from the UAE was priced in. Oil prices fell by between 2% and 3%, particularly in futures contracts a couple of months ahead.

However, the move was just as quickly offset by the risk premium associated with the Middle East conflict and the current halt to US-Iran negotiations.

At the time of writing, US benchmark crude, WTI, is trading above $105 a barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, is over $112. Both prices are around 4% higher on Wednesday from the UAE announcement low.

The UAE’s decision follows years of simmering tension between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh over production quotas. The UAE has invested over $150 billion (€128bn) in the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) to expand its capacity to five million barrels per day.

However, under OPEC’s restrictive framework, much of this capacity remained underutilised, now prompting the government to prioritise its national interest.

The departure of the group’s third-largest producer is a significant blow to the cohesion of the 60-year-old organisation. Maurizio Carulli, global energy analyst at Quilter Cheviot, noted the limitations this exit places on the remaining members.

“Until tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is safe again, OPEC’s ability to stabilise prices is sharply constrained, while US producers have gained outsized influence,” Carulli explained.

While the UAE has pledged to bring additional production to the market in a “gradual and measured” manner, the sudden lack of coordination within OPEC has introduced a new layer of uncertainty.

For the UAE, the blockade served as a final catalyst for its exit. With its primary export route under threat, Abu Dhabi has sought the diplomatic flexibility to forge independent security and trade partnerships outside the traditional cartel structure.

Despite the geopolitical turmoil, energy equities have remained resilient.

According to Carulli, “integrated majors such as BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, ENI, Chevron and ExxonMobil are benefitting from a price uplift that could add 5-10% to operating cash flow for every $10 increase in oil prices.”

Standoff over the Strait of Hormuz

In a separate but related development, the security situation in the Middle East remains precarious despite a fragile ceasefire. Iran has recently offered a ten-point proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

In exchange for restoring maritime traffic, Tehran is demanding a full withdrawal of the US naval blockade and an end to the current hostilities.

US President Donald Trump, who recently extended the two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan, described the latest Iranian offer as “much better” than previous iterations but still did not accept the terms.

Shortly after, Trump posted on social media claiming that Iran is in a dire and desperate condition with no leverage to negotiate.

Washington continues to insist on a permanent settlement regarding Iran’s nuclear programme and an “unconditional” reopening of the waterway before sanctions are lifted.

The impact of this blockade on global energy security cannot be overstated.

“The prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz has removed roughly 12% of global oil supply from the market, according to the IEA, a bigger disruption than the Yom Kippur war, the Iran‑Iraq conflict, the invasion of Kuwait or even the fallout from Ukraine,” Carulli highlighted.

Good morning from Brussels.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Events in Washington DC this weekend caught Brussels off guard as officials were enjoying the start of spring.

A 31-year-old man named as Cole Tomas Allen has been arrested after opening fire Saturday evening outside the reception hall of the annual White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA gala), which Donald Trump was attending for the first time. The White House says it was a targeted attempt at the life of Trump and his officials.

Fortunately, no one was killed.

In Europe, EU leaders quickly voiced support for the US President, who had skipped the event for years before agreeing this time to attend, despite strained relations between the White House and the press corps under his second term.

“I just spoke to @POTUS Donald Trump to express my solidarity with him and @FLOTUS after the attempted attack,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote on X. She added that “political violence has no place in our democracies”.

French President Emmanuel Macron called the incident “unacceptable”, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said: “We decide by majorities, not by the gun.”

Transatlantic tensions briefly faded, even as Reuters reported the US could seek to suspend Spain from NATO over its refusal to back the US and Israel’s war in Iran.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez played down the threat and joined EU leaders in condemning the attack. “Violence is never the answer,” Sánchez wrote on X. “Humanity will only move forward through democracy, coexistence and peace.”

On Sunday, Trump rejected any link between the armed intrusion at the WHCA dinner and the Middle East war. He said the incident would not “deter” him from “winning the war”.

Earlier in the weekend, Trump cancelled a trip to Pakistan planned for envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, writing on social media: “Too much time wasted on traveling, too much work!” He added, referring to Iran: “There is tremendous infighting and confusion within their ‘leadership’.”

On his side, after going to Oman and Pakistan over the weekend, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghtchi landed in Russia to meet Vladimir Putin.

According to the Iranian news agency Fars, Tehran has sent, via Pakistan, written messages to Washington regarding its “red lines” in the negotiations.

After talks with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, Araghchi wrote on Telegram that he had briefed his French counterpart on ceasefire developments and ongoing diplomatic efforts “to end the imposed war”. He stressed “the importance of European countries playing a constructive role in this process”.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the situation remains fragile. Over the weekend, Israel and Hezbollah accused each other of violating the ceasefire.

The Shia Islamist political party and military organisation released several statements on Sunday saying its fighters targeted Israeli troops and positions in response to Israeli ceasefire violations and attacks on Lebanese villages.

On Sunday evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a group of ministers and senior security officials to discuss both Iran and the situation in Lebanon, according to local media. One option under consideration is escalating strikes against Hezbollah, including targeting areas beyond southern Lebanon.

At least 2,509 people have been killed and 7,755 injured in Lebanon since the start of Israeli strikes in early March, the country’s health ministry said.

Lebanon’s Minister for Displaced Persons, and Technology and AI, Dr. Kamal Shehadi told Euronews’ Europe Today that “the truce is not holding” but there are “clear signs that both sides are making an effort” to avoid escalation beyond the current level of violence.

Shehadi said the government’s most important leverage to help disarm Hezbollah is having the vast majority of the Lebanese people backing them and calling for Hezbollah to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese Armed Forces.

“The international community is supportive of Lebanon’s intention to control all the weapons on Lebanese territory. Now, that’s not enough, clearly, and so what we need to do is continue to put pressure on Hezbollah to get Hezbollah to accept and to relinquish its weapons, because the weapons today are only going to bring more retaliation from Israel,” Shehadi said. Watch the full interview here.

Meanwhile, Brussels is preparing for the visit of Péter Magyar, whose opposition party won Hungary’s 12 April election.

“I will travel to Brussels on Wednesday for informal talks with the President of the European Commission on unlocking EU funds,” he wrote on X. “We have no time to waste.”

A honeymoon now begins between Budapest and Brussels after 16 years of tension under outgoing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who announced on Saturday he won’t take up his seat in parliament after his Fidesz party suffered a heavy loss in the 12 April vote.

Meanwhile, incoming Prime Minister Magyar said on Saturday he had information that wealthy figures linked to Orbán’s outgoing government were moving assets abroad and called on authorities to detain fleeing oligarch families.

“I am aware that Hungary’s National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV), based on reports from banks, has suspended several high-value transfers linked to Antal Rogán’s circle on suspicion of money laundering. I call on the leadership of NAV to immediately freeze these stolen funds,” Magyar wrote on X, referring to the outgoing top minister under Orbán’s administration.

On 40th Chernobyl disaster anniversary, Zelenskyy accuses Russia of committing ‘nuclear terrorism’

As Ukrainians marked the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Russia of “nuclear terrorism”, alleging it repeatedly sends attack drones over the site.

On social media, Zelenskyy warned that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has once again pushed the world to “the brink of a man-made disaster”.

He also said drones now regularly fly over Chernobyl. “The world must not allow this nuclear terrorism to continue, and the best way is to force Russia to stop its reckless attacks.”

Russian strikes on Ukraine continued through the anniversary, with Moscow launching 144 drones in a barrage during the night between Saturday and Sunday.

Read the full story by Lucy Davalou.

Germany suspects Russia of Signal phishing attacks targeting politicians

The German government believes Russia is behind a new phishing campaign targeting lawmakers and senior officials via the Signal messaging app.

The incident is the latest in Moscow’s hybrid war targeting Europe.

Victims are said to receive messages posing as Signal support, prompting them to enter a PIN, click a link or scan a QR code. If successful, the scam gives hackers access to messages, group chats, and any photos or files shared by the user.

Media reports say at least 300 accounts belonging to political figures were compromised. Civil servants, diplomats, military personnel and journalists were also targeted.

Vice-President Andrea Lindholz (CSU) has ruled out banning Signal, saying MPs should be free to decide how they communicate.

You can read the story of Sonja Issel & Evelyn Ann-Marie Dom here.

More from our newsroom

Zelenskyy says he is ready to meet Putin in Azerbaijan. On a visit to Azerbaijan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he is ready to meet Vladimir Putin there, as US-led diplomatic talks have stalled in recent weeks. Read **Sasha Vakulina’**s story here.

Kenya’s Sabastian Sawe becomes first person to run marathon in less than two hours. In London, Kenya’s Sabastian Sawe made history by becoming the first athlete ever to break the two-hour barrier in the marathon. Jesús Maturana has the full story.

Today we are also keeping an eye on

– European Parliament plenary session kicks off in Strasbourg. A debate on the “Importance of consent-based rape legislation in the EU” is scheduled later today.

When you break a promise as clear as “No new wars,” you shouldn’t be surprised when even your most loyal supporters revolt. And that’s exactly what is happening to President Trump.

One such disillusioned supporter is Tucker Carlson — who on a recent podcast with his brother Buckley admitted, in essence, “My bad.”

“You wrote speeches for him. I campaigned for him. I mean, we’re implicated in this, for sure,” Tucker Carlson said during the conversation.

“In real ways, you and me, and millions of people like us, are the reason this is happening right now,” Calson confessed, referring to the Iran war. “We’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be, and I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people, and it was not intentional.”

Having worked for Carlson for six years at the Daily Caller, I’ve always found him intelligent and funny and generous, even as I have profoundly differed with him on a variety of issues throughout the Trump era.

It did my heart good to hear him accept some responsibility for what Trump has wrought.

A lot of people were complicit in boosting Trump, and some of them have even subsequently criticized him for various sins (failing to release the Epstein files, going to war with Iran, etc.). But this is the first time I can recall anyone of this stature explicitly apologizing for helping elect Trump. And that warrants a certain amount of respect.

Still, let’s be clear-eyed about what Carlson is — and isn’t — saying here. Specifically, it’s worth noting that the apology doesn’t extend to validating those of us who opposed Trump from the beginning.

In fact, it almost can’t.

Doing that would require the confessor to reinterpret not just Trump’s presidency, but also the entire ecosystem that made supporting Trump a viable option in the first place.

It would mean admitting that the framework he used to evaluate Trump was flawed, not just the outcome.

That would end up being perceived as an indictment on the broader Republican electorate — and on Carlson’s worldview and judgment — not just on Trump’s recent performance or (even more conveniently) the notion that Trump has changed or was co-opted by Israel (or whomever) since 2024.

It’s a much bigger ask than saying, “I regret this specific result.”

Specifically, Carlson is not conceding that the “Never Trump” crowd got it right — which is what those of us who have spent a decade opposing Trump (with little fanfare) have been dying to hear for a decade (even more so than “I’m sorry.”)

This is an important distinction, partly because it means that, although Carlson is now a convenient ally in the “resistance,” he is not opposing Trump for the same reasons that most Democrats or Never Trump conservatives oppose Trump.

If you put aside Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran, the Carlsons’ second-biggest criticism of Trump (based on their two-hour-long podcast) is his failure to more vigorously defend the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters.

That’s right. It’s not that he sicced immigration enforcers on immigrants and that they subsequently killed two American citizens. It’s not that DOGE fired lots of good people. It’s not that this president tried to use the Department of Justice to seek vengeance on his political rivals. It’s that Trump — the person who pardoned these people — wasn’t aggressive enough in defending the criminals who stormed the U.S. Capitol while trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

And while there’s no reason to doubt Carlson’s remarks are sincere (he has been a vocal opponent of war with Iran) and meaningful (he’s an influential figure), his comments may also signal something else: a recognition that opportunity awaits.

Consider this: Trump’s political standing is in deep trouble (Trump’s approval rating is down to 33%, according to a new AP-NORC poll).

What is more, Trump’s fading fortunes aren’t just isolated to Trump. As always, there is collateral damage: JD Vance.

Once seen as Trump’s obvious heir, Vance now finds himself in a difficult position, defending the war in Iran and attacking the pope, while simultaneously releasing a book about his Catholic conversion.

In that sense, Carlson’s apology could be less a grudging epiphany than a strategic recalibration. It acknowledges that Trump has gone off the rails but stops short of examining why it was destined to go wrong in the first place.

Carlson gets close to the answer when he tells his brother, “there were signs of low character. We knew that,” but then dismisses it by saying “there are tons of people of low character who outperform their character.”

Without deeper reflection, this apology risks becoming just another pivot — one that has as much to do with positioning as it does with repentance.

And that would be a shame.

It’s easy to regret an outcome. It’s much harder to interrogate the instincts that led you (and tens of millions of Americans) to enable it.

Apologies like Carlson’s won’t close the chapter on this long national nightmare.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

WASHINGTON — Many of the groups that helped elect Donald Trump as president again are deeply unhappy with his performance, according to a new AP-NORC poll.

Trump’s return to the presidency was fueled by a wide-ranging coalition that built on his loyal base of supporters. Now that Trump has been in the White House for more than a year, the survey of more than 2,500 U.S. adults from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that many key groups — including Hispanic adults, younger adults and men — are increasingly dissatisfied with his presidency.

The poll was conducted from April 16 through Monday, as oil prices fluctuated and Americans spent more at the gas pump.

It’s a particularly bad moment for Trump, a Republican whose economic approval slumped over the past month as the Iran war drives prices higher. But AP-NORC polls show that discontent has been building among critical segments of the population over the past year.

Trump’s overall approval among Hispanic adults has fallen 16 percentage points since March 2025, and his support has declined by 9 percentage points among men.

And while Trump’s base is still largely behind him — most Republicans approve of his performance — there are signs that his second term may not be living up to their expectations.

Here’s what polling shows about Trump’s current status with four important groups:

Hispanic adults

Hispanic Americans have grown increasingly discontented with Trump over the past year.

About one-quarter of Hispanic adults approve of how he’s handling the presidency in the new poll, down from about 4 in 10 in March 2025.

That decline has been visible since late last year — suggesting that it’s not just the war in Iran or recent spikes in gas prices that are leaving this group unhappy.

Trump’s restrictive immigration approach may be playing a role. Only about one-quarter of Hispanics approve of his handling of immigration, down from 36% at the beginning of his term.

His immigration tactics appear to be particularly unpopular among younger Hispanics — a group with which he made gains in 2024. Only 18% of younger Hispanic adults approve of his performance on immigration, compared with 40% of Americans overall.

There is also broad discontent about the state of the U.S. economy among Hispanics. Only about one-quarter of Hispanic adults approve of how Trump is handling that issue, and about 2 in 10 say they approve of his approach to the cost of living. Few Hispanic adults, about 2 in 10, describe the nation’s economy as “good.”

Young adults

Trump’s overall approval with Americans under age 45 has slid over the past year, falling from 39% in March 2025 to 28% in the latest poll.

Younger women have a particularly dim view of Trump’s handling of the economy.

Only about 2 in 10 women under age 45 approve of how Trump is handling the economy, including only 7% of younger Hispanic women who approve of his economic approach. More young men, about 3 in 10, approve of him on this issue.

Trump’s struggles among young adults extend to other groups, too. Only about one-third of white adults under age 45 approve of his overall performance, compared with 45% of white adults age 45 or older.

A downtick among men

Trump made broad appeals to men throughout his 2024 campaign, and most male voters backed Trump in the presidential election over Democrat Kamala Harris. In particular, he made slight but significant gains with Black and Hispanic men, who were drawn by his vows to revitalize the economy.

Since he reentered office, though, American men have become slightly less likely to approve of his performance, declining from 47% at the start of his second term to 38% in the most recent poll.

There are signs that Black men, in particular, aren’t seeing Trump’s economic promises pan out. Black men are more likely than white or Hispanic men to disapprove of Trump’s approach to the presidency, as well as his approach to the economy, the cost of living and Iran. Only about 1 in 10 Black men say they approve of how Trump is handling the cost of living, and roughly 2 in 10 approve of how he’s handling the economy.

Hispanic men, too, have a relatively dim view of Trump’s overall performance. About 3 in 10 approve of how Trump is handling the presidency, regardless of their age. That support is stronger among white men, with about half approving of Trump.

While young Republicans are frustrated, MAGA still backs Trump

Trump has benefited from Republicans’ loyalty for years, but there are recent signs of frustration even within his base.

Roughly two-thirds of Republicans approve of Trump’s job performance. That is down slightly from 82% near the start of his second term and is generally in line with the GOP low point from his first term.

But only about half of Republicans overall approve of Trump’s approach to the cost of living, and a majority of Republicans under age 45 disapprove of him on that issue.

Trump is still buoyed by the support of his MAGA base, even as he faces backlash from conservative media figures on some of his recent actions in Iran.

About 9 in 10 MAGA Republicans — those who consider themselves supporters of the “Make America Great Again” movement — approve of Trump’s job performance, and a similar share approve of his handling of Iran.

It’s a good sign for Trump that his most robust supporters are still in his corner, but not all Republicans identify with MAGA. About half of Republicans, 54%, say they consider themselves MAGA supporters.

Among non-MAGA Republicans, Trump’s approval is much lower, at 44%.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

Published on
22/04/2026 – 10:40 GMT+2

The cost of living in the UK accelerated throughout March, propelled by a significant increase in petrol and diesel prices following the outbreak of the Iran war.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

According to the Office for National Statistics, the annual consumer price inflation rate moved to 3.3% from 3% the previous month, a shift that matched the forecasts.

This inflationary pressure is largely attributed to an 8.7% monthly jump in motor fuel costs, which represents the sharpest rise seen since the summer of 2022, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Beyond the petrol stations, the fallout from higher energy prices has trickled down into airfares and food supplies, complicating the economic landscape for the government and the Bank of England.

UK Treasury chief Rachel Reeves noted that while the conflict is not a domestic one, it is directly pushing up bills for families and businesses across Britain.

Lindsay James, an investment strategist at Quilter, observed that “this morning’s inflation data showed CPI creeping back up to 3.3%, confirming that price pressures are re-accelerating rather than fading away since the outbreak of the war in Iran.”

While international markets have shown some signs of recovery in equity prices, the physical market for oil delivery into Europe remains under immense strain.

Experts suggest that a swift reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is the only viable path to unwinding the current inflationary trend, yet the situation remains volatile and unpredictable.

The Bank of England’s policy dilemma

The timing of this inflation surge is particularly problematic because it coincides with a period of cooling in the domestic economy.

Recent data from the labour market indicates that payrolled employment is falling and economic inactivity is on the rise, while wage growth has started to ease.

For the average British worker, the combination of rising essential costs and stagnating earnings growth creates a challenging environment for real purchasing power.

As for the Bank of England, this sudden spike in prices has disrupted the projected path of beginning to lower borrowing costs this spring.

Prior to the escalation of the Iran war, there was a growing consensus that the central bank would reduce its main interest rate from 3.75% as inflation appeared to be heading back toward the official 2% target.

However, with inflation now expected to potentially hit 4% in the coming months, the Monetary Policy Committee faces a much more difficult decision during its meeting next week.

There is a growing debate among economists regarding whether traditional interest rate hikes are the correct tool to address this specific crisis.

According to James “a rise in rates risks misdiagnosing the problem. This inflationary pulse is being driven by supply disruption, not excess demand. Higher interest rates will do nothing to increase the flow of oil or other goods from the Middle East.”

This sentiment suggests that the Bank of England may choose to maintain its current stance, keeping rates on hold while monitoring whether these price increases begin to manifest in higher wage demands across the broader economy.

The benchmark US equity indices surged to new territory entering price discovery, reflecting a market that appears to be looking past immediate geopolitical risks in favour of potential de-escalation and corporate strength.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

On Wednesday the S&P 500 closed 0.8% higher at 7,022 points, up on the day and surpassing its previous peak from January of this year.

The S&P 500 is now 11% higher since it bottomed on 30 March and after it first dropped 9% during last month.

The Nasdaq Composite also posted a record, rising 1.6% to over 24,000 points while the Dow Jones Industrial Average edged 0.15% lower and continues significantly below its all-time high.

The advance comes despite persistent headwinds.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for roughly one-fifth of the global oil supply, has been severely disrupted since late February following Iranian actions and a subsequent US naval blockade.

Traffic has dropped sharply, with Iran declaring the strait closed to vessels linked to the US, Israel and their allies.

The US Central Command also confirmed its blockade of Iranian ports took full effect earlier this week, stating that “ten vessels have now been turned around and ZERO ships have broken through since the start of the US blockade on Monday”.

Oil prices, while easing in the last two weeks, remain elevated.

At the time of writing, Brent crude stands at around $96.5 per barrel and WTI at $92.5, still well above pre-war levels and contributing to inflationary concerns.

The International Monetary Fund has responded by lowering its global growth outlook. In its latest World Economic Outlook, released on Monday, the IMF cut the 2026 forecast to 3.1% from 3.3% previously projected, citing energy price spikes and supply disruptions.

Headline inflation is now seen at 4.4% for the year, under a reference scenario assuming a short-lived conflict, with risks of even weaker growth and higher prices if tensions escalate and prolong.

The modest decline in energy prices followed reports that the two-week ceasefire is holding and that fresh talks between the US and Iran could resume soon.

US President Donald Trump also indicated that negotiations for lasting peace might restart by the end of the week.

Investors appear to be pricing in an eventual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a contained negative impact of the war in general.

Speaking to Euronews, Alan McIntosh, chief investment officer of Quilter Cheviot Europe, explained that “although the first round of talks led to no agreement, a likely extension of the ceasefire gives optimism that an early resolution can be reached”.

“Assuming a fairly swift end to hostilities and a resumption of oil shipments, the economic damage to global inflation and growth should be fairly limited,” he added.

Why US indices defy the odds

Analysts point to several factors behind the market resilience.

Hopes of a swift end to hostilities have encouraged risk-taking, while corporate America is showing strength. Bank executives highlighted a strong US consumer and a healthy pipeline for deals and initial public offerings.

Earnings expectations for the first quarter have been revised higher, with S&P 500 companies now forecast to report combined profits of over $605 billion (€513bn), up from earlier estimates.

Tech shares, particularly those linked to AI, provided additional support. The Nasdaq’s outsized gain reflected renewed enthusiasm for growth-oriented stocks even as broader economic projections softened.

McIntosh told Euronews that “the capital spending boost relating to AI shows no sign of slowing down so this continues to support US economic growth. We have just started the US quarterly results season and so far there is limited evidence of a negative impact from the current Middle East conflict”.

The indices also include defence companies that have all performed well with the war in the backdrop pushing governments, in particular the US, to increase military budgets.

History also offers context for the current rebound. In past US-involved wars, equity markets have frequently experienced short-term volatility followed by recovery and gains.

During the 2003 Iraq War, for example, the S&P 500 rose over 25% in the first full year after the invasion began.

The Gulf War of 1990-1991 saw an initial 11% decline in the index, but a strong relief rally followed the swift coalition victory, delivering positive returns in the subsequent year.

Similar patterns emerged in the Korean War and Vietnam War eras, where stocks posted solid long-term advances despite prolonged uncertainty.

Data compiled by the Royal Bank of Canada and other sources indicate that, across multiple conflicts, equities rose in the first year of hostilities around 60% of the time.

Markets have tended to focus on eventual outcomes rather than immediate shocks, rewarding resolution and economic adaptability. The latest record for the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq underscore this enduring pattern.

While risks remain if the Iran conflict worsens, investors are currently betting that diplomacy and corporate fundamentals will prevail.

Trading on Tuesday began with high expectations that the Iran war is inching to a close, fuelling gains across major stock markets and pushing oil back under $100 a barrel.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Investors remained hopeful for a lasting de-escalation of the conflict, now in its seventh week, as the US and Iran are said to be weighing a second round of talks before a temporary ceasefire agreement expires next week.

The US military on Monday began a blockade of Iranian ports as Washington steps up pressure on Tehran, following weekend ceasefire talks between the two sides that ended without agreement.

Trump also suggested on Monday that the United States is still willing to engage with Tehran.

“I can tell you that we’ve been called by the other side,” he said, without elaborating further.

Oil prices continued to pull back on Tuesday from earlier gains.

Brent crude, the international standard, was down 0.8% at $98.62 per barrel, nearing 8 am CET.

It reached nearly $104 early on Monday amid Iran war concerns and limited progress in weekend ceasefire talks.

Benchmark US crude fell 1.7% early Tuesday to $97.40 a barrel.

The global energy shock stemming from maritime traffic disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil is typically transported, has led to surging fuel prices and threatens to push up inflation in many countries and weigh on economic growth.

Stock markets are hungry for good news

Investors were quick to recover after the dismal first trading day on Monday. Asian markets were mostly up on Tuesday morning, tracking Wall Street gains.

Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 was up 2.4%, while South Korea’s Kospi jumped more than 3% to 6,004.30.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rose 0.4% to 25,759.75, while the Shanghai Composite climbed 0.6% to 4,010.45.

This comes as China on Tuesday reported worse-than-expected export growth.

The world’s second-largest economy expanded its exports by 2.5% in March year on year, significantly slower than the previous two months as uncertainties rose from the Iran war and its impact on energy prices and global demand.

The March data missed analysts’ estimates and was sharply down from the 21.8% export growth recorded in January and February.

Wall Street rose on Monday. The S&P 500 gained 1%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 0.6% and the Nasdaq Composite added 1.2%.

Shares in Goldman Sachs fell 1.9% despite the investment bank posting better-than-expected quarterly profits.

In other trading, gold and silver prices rose on Tuesday. Gold was up 0.6% at $4,796.60 (€4,219.62) an ounce, while silver gained 1.8% to $77.05 (€67.80) per ounce.

The US dollar fell to ¥159.08 from ¥159.45. The euro was trading at $1.1766, up from $1.1759.

WASHINGTON — President Trump was propelled into office in large part by support from evangelicals and Catholics, at times framing his political rise in divine terms.

But that relationship is now fraying, and, in some corners of the Catholic Church, breaking, after Trump spent the weekend maligning Pope Leo XIV — “Leo is WEAK on Crime” — and circulating a widely condemned social media post depicting himself as Jesus Christ.

Leo, meanwhile, on Monday repeated his calls for an end of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. “I have no fear of neither the Trump administration nor of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel,” Leo told reporters. “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Trump had lashed out at the pontiff in a Truth Social post on Sunday night and repeated those criticisms Monday. “I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo,” he said. “He’s a very liberal person, and he’s a man that doesn’t believe in stopping crime. He’s a man that doesn’t think we should be toying with a country that wants a nuclear weapon so they can blow up the world.”

The tirade drew swift backlash from Catholic leaders and rank-and-file believers alike, who have increasingly withdrawn support from the president since he and Israel launched attacks on Iran, according to recent polls.

Also fueling backlash was the artificial-intelligence-generated image of Trump, in a white robe and a red stole, placing his hand on the forehead of a man in a hospital bed. Trump confirmed he had posted the image but insisted he thought it portrayed him as a doctor, not Jesus healing the sick.

That’s not how many people viewed it.

“In the Christian faith, this is considered blasphemy: depicting yourself as Christ, elevating yourself to the level of Christ,” conservative commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin said on “The View.” “Our faith is bigger than our politics. That is one thing that will always trump politics for people who are practicing in their faith. He clearly doesn’t understand that.”

The Rev. Thomas Reese, who also works as an analyst at Religious News Service, called Trump’s AI-generated image “an absolute disaster and blasphemous,” adding that it appeared to unsettle even some of the president’s religious supporters. The post was later removed from Truth Social.

More broadly, Reese said the war itself, and the way it has been framed, is colliding with core church teaching.

“To invoke God for a war of choice is just wrong,” he said, noting that Catholic leaders have increasingly emphasized diplomacy and reconciliation over military action.

“The Catholics who voted for him feel betrayed,” Reese said. “I think they’re beginning to say, ‘This is not what we voted for,’ especially when you tie the war to higher gasoline prices, higher food prices.”

In his Truth Social post, Trump also took some credit for Leo’s election as pontiff last year after the death of Pope Francis, writing that Leo was chosen “because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.”

Tensions had been simmering between the two leaders for months, but boiled over after Trump issued a threat to use the U.S. military to wipe out all of Iranian civilization.

At a peace vigil at St. Peter’s Basilica on Saturday, Leo said that a “delusion of omnipotence” is fueling the war that has left thousands dead. Though he did not name Trump, the pope has repeatedly cautioned against invoking religion to justify violence.

Many Trump supporters have claimed he had a divine mandate, and Trump himself has repeatedly asserted that God saved him in the July 2024 assassination attempt so that he could lead the United States.

His administration has undertaken extraordinary efforts to infuse Christianity into government functions — establishing a White House Faith Office and holding prayer services at the Pentagon and the Labor Department.

After Iran shot down a U.S. fighter jet on April 3, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth compared the rescue of one of the aviators to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection: “Shot down on a Friday, Good Friday. Hidden in a cave, a crevice, all of Saturday and rescued on Sunday. Flown out of Iran as the sun was rising on Easter Sunday. A pilot reborn, all home and accounted for, a nation rejoicing.”

A military watchdog group last month said it had received more than 200 complaints from U.S. service members reporting that military commanders were telling troops that the Iran war was part of a divine plan by God to trigger Armageddon. A group of Democratic lawmakers called for an investigation into whether military operations were being guided by “end-times prophecy.”

Catholics rallied for Trump in 2024, when 55% of voting Catholics cast their ballots for Trump, clocking in at 12 points higher than his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris.

But he’s steadily lost their support since the onset of the war, according to new bipartisan polling. Some 52% of Catholics say they disapprove of the president’s job performance, according to one survey by Republican pollster Shaw & Co. Research and Democratic pollster Beacon Research. Another 23% say they strongly approve of the job he is doing and another 25% somewhat approve.

Consisting of about a quarter of the U.S. population, the Catholic voting bloc has long been regarded as the bellwether demographic, having historically chosen the winner of the popular vote in nearly every presidential election for the last 50 years.

Since ascending to the throne of St. Peter, Leo has frequently clashed with the administration on issues ranging from immigration to foreign policy, emphasizing humanitarian concerns and diplomacy over force.

That attitude appears to be resonating in the pews. Reese, the commentator and priest, pointed to growing frustration among Catholic voters, including some who backed Trump in 2024 expecting an end to prolonged Middle East conflicts.

Reflecting on church history, he said: “The papacy survived Attila the Hun. They survived Napoleon, they survived Mussolini and they survived Hitler. They will survive Trump.”

In AD 452, when Attila the Hun sacked city after city in his conquest of the known world, it was the Catholic Church, not the Roman military, that met him in a show of diplomacy. The pontiff of the time, who persuaded Attila to turn his army back and spare Rome, was called Pope Leo I.

NEW YORK — Calls inside Congress for investigations into the prediction market platform Polymarket are increasing after the latest instance in which groups of anonymous traders made strategic, well-timed bets on a major geopolitical event hours before it occurred.

On Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that at least 50 new accounts on Polymarket placed substantial bets on a U.S.-Iran ceasefire in the hours, even minutes, before President Trump announced it late Tuesday. These were the sole bets made on Polymarket through these accounts.

In January, an anonymous Polymarket user made a $400,000 profit by betting that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro would be out of office, hours before Maduro was captured. In the hours before the start of the Iran war, another account made roughly $550,000 in a series of trades effectively betting that the U.S. would strike Iran and that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be removed from office.

Such prescient wagers have raised eyebrows — and accusations that prediction markets are ripe for insider trading. And the issue goes beyond these three geopolitical events, according to at least one report.

Researchers at Harvard University released a paper last month in which, using public blockchain data, they estimated that $143 million in profits have been made on Polymarket by individuals who potentially had insider information about events ranging from Taylor Swift’s engagement to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize last year.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y who sits on the House Financial Services Committee as well as the subcommittee on digital assets and financial technology, sent a letter Thursday to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission demanding the regulator review and investigate these well-timed trades. The CFTC regulates the derivatives markets, which includes prediction markets.

“This pattern raises serious concerns that certain market participants may have had access to material nonpublic information regarding a market-moving geopolitical event,” Torres wrote. The letter was shared exclusively with AP.

“What is the statistical likelihood that of anyone other than an insider trader placing a winning bet 12 minutes before a market-moving presidential announcement?” Torres said in an interview with AP. “There are two answers: God, or an insider trader. And something tells me that God is not placing bets around Donald Trump’s posts on Truth Social. “

Prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket allow users to bet on everything from whether it will rain in Phoenix, Ariz., next week to whether the Federal Reserve will raise or lower interest rates.

Americans have limited access to Polymarket, which was banned from the U.S. in 2022. The company has moved to reenter the country by acquiring a CFTC-licensed exchange and clearinghouse, giving it a legal pathway to start offering contracts domestically. The company has begun a limited rollout in the U.S.

Polymarket also operates a separate, crypto-based platform offshore that remains outside U.S. jurisdiction. That platform accounts for most of its activity.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., sent a letter to Polymarket on Thursday demanding the company explain why it continues to allow trades on war and violence as well as whether the company is making efforts to keep insiders from trading on the platform.

“Polymarket has become an illicit market to sell and exploit national security secrets unlike any in history, and by extension a potential honeypot for foreign intelligence services watching for those same suspicious bets and wagers,” Blumenthal wrote.

Republicans also have criticized these platforms and called for bans on these sorts of bets. There are at least two bills pending in Congress co-signed by both parties, one in the House and one in the Senate.

“We don’t want to imagine a world where America’s adversaries use prediction markets to anticipate our next move,” Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, said after the release of AP’s findings on the ceasefire wagers.

Polymarket did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The stakes are high for both Polymarket and Kalshi as they seek approval to operate nationwide, particularly in the lucrative sports betting market.

Kalshi, which already is regulated in the U.S., and its executives have a goal of making the company the nation’s dominant prediction market. Kalshi has leaned heavily into sports, which critics have said effectively makes it a sports betting platform that dabbles in event-based contracts on the side. Both companies also announced partnerships with sports teams and even news organizations to broaden their reach as well. AP has an agreement to sell U.S. elections data to Kalshi.

The competition also carries political overtones. Donald Trump Jr. is an investor in Polymarket through his venture capital firm, 1789 Capital, and separately serves as a paid strategic adviser to Kalshi.

Sweet writes for the Associated Press.

Published on 08/04/2026 – 9:14 GMT+2•Updated
9:25

Oil prices have fallen sharply and Asian markets surged on Wednesday after the US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire that includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz but traders are cautious so far until the truce proves durable.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Brent crude stood at $92.99 per barrel as of Wednesday morning, up 28.30% since the war began in late February but well below the peaks of recent weeks which went up to $110 per barrel.

WTI crude sat at $94.70 per barrel, still 41.30% above pre-war levels despite the ceasefire-driven selloff. Wholesale gasoline was at $2.94 per gallon, also up more than 41% since the conflict began.

The moves follow a dramatic overnight plunge after US President Donald Trump said he was holding off on threatened strikes against Iranian bridges, power plants and other civilian infrastructure.

Iran’s foreign minister confirmed the Strait of Hormuz would be open to shipping for the next two weeks under Iranian military management.

Asia surges, Europe slides

Asian markets responded with enthusiasm. Japan’s Nikkei 225 gained 5.0% in early Wednesday trading, South Korea’s Kospi soared 5.9% and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng jumped 2.6%.

European markets told a different story. The Stoxx Europe 600 was down 6.82% in early trading, reflecting the accumulated damage from weeks of war-driven volatility rather than Wednesday’s ceasefire bounce — European markets having closed before the overnight news broke.

On Wall Street, the S&P 500 is down by 3.81% in pre-market US trading, having swung sharply during Tuesday’s session before clawing back losses after Pakistan’s prime minister urged Trump to extend his deadline and called on Iran to reopen the strait.

Cautious optimism

The ceasefire has done little to fully settle markets.

Attacks were still reported in Israel, Iran and across the Gulf region in the early hours of Wednesday, and neither side has specified when the truce formally begins.

The worry that has stalked markets since late February remains, namely that a prolonged disruption to Gulf oil flows will keep energy prices elevated long enough to push a fresh wave of inflation through the global economy — with or without a ceasefire.

Published on
07/04/2026 – 11:02 GMT+2

Both European and Asian markets opened slightly lower on Tuesday as investors brace for US President Donald Trump’s deadline for Iran to either agree to a deal, or have their energy infrastructure targeted by air strikes.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The deadline falls at 8 pm Eastern Time (2 am CET), giving Iran until then to accept a deal that would keep the Strait of Hormuz open to all shipping or face what Trump has called the “complete demolition” of its civilian infrastructure, including every power plant and bridge in the country.

At the time of writing, Benchmark US crude is trading at $113.5 a barrel while Brent crude, the international standard, is around $111. Both prices are up around 1%.

The Euro Stoxx 50 and the broader pan-European Stoxx 600 are both up 0.5% as well.

The UK’s FTSE 100 is flat while Germany’s DAX 30 is around 0.2% higher, and France’s CAC 40 and Italy’s FTSE MIB have risen close to 1% each.

Over in Asia, there is a mixed reaction from markets in anticipation of the deadline.

South Korea’s Kospi has jumped 0.8% while Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 is effectively trading flat.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng is down 0.8% while the Shanghai Composite is slightly higher by 0.3%. Additionally, Australia’s ASX 200 and Taiwan’s Taiex both rose 2%.

On Easter Sunday, President Trump renewed the threat publicly for the last time before the deadline stating that “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!”

US futures and precious metals

On Tuesday morning, US futures are all trading between 0.1% and 0.3% lower.

The moves follow a strong close on Monday as the S&P 500 rose 0.4%, coming off its first winning week in the last six. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 165 points, or 0.4%, and the Nasdaq composite climbed 0.5%.

Monday also offered the first chance for US markets to react to a report from Friday that stated American employers hired more workers last month than economists expected.

These were encouraging signals for an economy that’s had to absorb painful leaps in costs for gasoline since the Iran war started.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline is nearly $4.12 across the country, according to AAA. It was below $3 a couple days before the US and Israel launched attacks to begin the war in late February.

In other trading, gold is up 0.77% at around $4,685 while silver is rose roughly 0.2% to $72.95 an ounce.

Published on
06/04/2026 – 15:51 GMT+2

With European markets reopening after the Easter holidays, investors are set to navigate a mix of geopolitical risks and crucial economic data that may shape sentiment over the coming week.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Attention will focus on Iran’s response to US President Donald Trump’s deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies. Any escalation or de-escalation could quickly affect energy markets, driving oil prices and inflation expectations.

J.P. Morgan noted on Thursday that oil prices could reach as high as $150 a barrel if supply disruptions persist until mid-May.

Beyond geopolitics, inflation data, central bank signals and corporate updates will also draw attention as markets gauge the outlook for the second quarter.

Economic data in focus

The macroeconomic calendar kicks off on Tuesday with the release of eurozone PMI data, a key leading indicator of economic activity. Recent readings have pointed to slowing growth in the bloc, with the composite PMI signalling only marginal expansion amid softening demand and heightened uncertainty.

On Wednesday, investors will examine the latest eurozone retail sales and industrial producer price figures from Eurostat. These will shed light on consumer demand and upstream inflation pressures.

The European data schedule remains relatively light but still significant. Euro area financial accounts will provide additional detail on lending trends, while UK markets stay attuned to labour market and growth signals following recent signs of stagnation.

Focus then shifts to the US, with the release of the Federal Reserve’s latest meeting minutes on Wednesday. These will be scrutinised for hints on policymakers’ views regarding the timing of any potential rate cuts.

Thursday brings key US labour data, including weekly jobless claims, offering further insight into employment conditions.

The week ends with the US consumer price index for March, including the closely watched core CPI reading. A stronger-than-expected figure could dampen hopes for policy easing and spark volatility in global markets, including Europe.

On the corporate side in Europe, activity is limited, although Raiffeisen Bank International’s annual general meeting on Thursday will be watched for any signals on banking sector health and regional credit conditions.

Published on 06/04/2026 – 9:46 GMT+2•Updated
9:56

OPEC+ members met virtually on Sunday and afterwards announced plans to hike crude quotas by 206,000 barrels per day (bpd) in May as the Strait of Hormuz, which is the world’s most important route for black gold, continues to face disruptions as a result of the US-Iran conflict.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

However, the modest rise agreed by the eight key producing countries — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Oman — is not likely to bring down oil prices as it represents less than 2% of the supply disrupted by the Hormuz closure. Moreover, the increase is more symbolic than material as the oil can’t be exported until the Strait of Hormuz opens.

“In their collective commitment to support oil market stability, the eight participating countries decided to implement a production adjustment of 206 thousand barrels per day from the 1.65 million barrels per day additional voluntary adjustments announced in April 2023. This adjustment will be implemented in May 2026,” the group said in a statement.

The members’ statement also noted that the 1.65 million barrels per day may be returned in part or in full subject to evolving market conditions and in a gradual manner.

“The countries will continue to closely monitor and assess market conditions, and in their continuous efforts to support market stability, they reaffirmed the importance of adopting a cautious approach and retaining full flexibility to increase, pause or reverse the phase out of the voluntary production adjustments, including reversing the previously implemented voluntary adjustments of the 2.2 million barrels per day announced in November 2023,” the statement also said.

Efforts to stabilise soaring oil prices

The latest statement from OPEC+ comes as oil prices have surged since the Iran conflict began, with Brent and US crude nearing $120 a barrel, driving up fuel costs and putting pressure on consumers and businesses worldwide.

Meanwhile, J.P. Morgan said in a note on Thursday that oil prices could go as high as $150 a barrel if supply flows remain disrupted until mid-May.

US President Donald Trump has given Iran a deadline of Tuesday to open the Strait of Hormuz and has vowed to hit the country’s power plants and bridges otherwise.

European markets were closed on Monday for the Easter holiday.

WASHINGTON — Merely two weeks had passed since the Iran war began when Gen. Randy George, the Army’s highest-ranking officer, began sounding an alarm.

Touring a weapons depot in North Carolina, George warned lawmakers present that the conflict’s vast and ever-growing list of targets was straining U.S. capacity — “depleting our stockpiles faster than we can replace them,” as one congressman recalled. Since assuming Army leadership, George had made it his mission to strengthen the nation’s industrial base in anticipation of precisely this moment, when the United States would be engaged in a major war with a formidable adversary.

On Thursday, in a brief phone call, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired George. No reason was given, a U.S. official familiar with the matter told The Times.

The forced departure of George in the middle of a war created yet another blow to morale inside the Pentagon, where multiple officials expressed dismay over the state of the department’s leadership. Over the last year, Hegseth has fired five sitting members of the joint chiefs of staff, with only two holdovers remaining in their posts.

“Whenever you have a change in leadership, military or otherwise, there is bound to be some churn in information management,” one U.S. official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “So what you’re doing, in the middle of a war, as we are taking U.S. casualties, is you’re taking out the general in charge of making sure the right people and equipment are flowing into the Middle East.”

Inside the building, officials believe that Hegseth’s next target is Dan Driscoll, the Army secretary and an ally to President Trump. Driscoll has been seen by Hegseth’s aides as outshining the Defense secretary on prominent policy initiatives.

Gen. Randy George, U.S. Army chief of staff, speaks with soldiers during training exercises at Lightning Academy at Schofield Barracks in Honolulu on Nov. 10, 2025.

(Christopher Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

It is a purge that Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill fear could have tangible, detrimental effects on the war effort. Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Joni Ernst of Iowa, all members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have expressed private concerns over George’s firing, a second U.S. official said.

Forcing out Army leadership responsible for training and equipping its soldiers, and for ensuring weapons stockpiles continue to meet demand, risks bureaucratic chaos and despair in the ranks at a time when the Trump administration is openly considering a ground operation in Iran.

Others in the Pentagon have raised concern over the U.S. military stockpile, including Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, who last month warned at a defense conference that munitions shortages were a concern even before the war began.

“It was something that we were concerned about even before the operation,” Meink said. “It has just been the fact that we couldn’t see the threat evolving and what we’re facing. So we definitely have to improve on that.”

Trump has denied that the United States faces weapons shortages, even after meeting with the nation’s top contractors last month in a push for them to increase — and on some products, quadruple — their output.

“What interceptors we have for Iran is because of Randy George,” the first U.S. official countered. “He continued to work that problem set up through [Thursday]. It’s a problem set he was working in real time.”

Jerry McGinn, director of the Center for the Industrial Base at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said U.S. forces have reached a stage in the war where they can pivot away from standoff weapons systems. With Iran’s air defenses largely degraded, they can instead rely on weapons such as laser-guided bombs, helping ease pressure on stockpiles.

But Iran’s downing of two U.S. aircraft on Friday suggests that longer-range weapons may still be necessary.

“When the stockpile is stressed, as it was after Ukraine and then now with Iran, any surge in need leads to a backlog as they try to replenish,” McGinn said.

“The three things they’ve been using a whole lot of are Tomahawks, [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] and Patriots, and those inventories were already somewhat depleted after Midnight Hammer last summer,” McGinn added. “You can’t crank those out very fast.”

Beyond his role tending to the nation’s “magazine depth” — making sure the military isn’t firing more weapons than it is able to replenish — George also led the Pentagon’s effort to set up a joint task force last year aimed at speeding up the U.S. military’s ability to counter small unmanned aircraft systems, or drones.

The program has proved critical in the war effort. Tehran now relies heavily on its Shahed drones, with its missile production and launch capacity severely diminished.

Acknowledging the Pentagon expulsions, Iran’s embassy in South Africa posted photos on social media Friday x-ing out portraits of several top U.S. military officials fired in recent months.

“Regime change happened successfully,” the Iranians wrote.

NEW YORK — This is not the run up to the midterm elections that Republicans wanted.

A year and a half after winning the White House by promising to lower costs and end wars, Donald Trump is a wartime president overseeing surging energy costs and an escalating overseas conflict that many in his own party do not like.

He offered little clarity to a nation eager for answers this week during a prime-time address from the White House, his first since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran more than a month ago, simultaneously suggesting that the war was ending and expanding.

“Thanks to the progress we’ve made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly,” Trump said. “We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.”

Trump’s comments come roughly six months before voters across the nation begin to cast ballots in elections that will decide control of Congress and key governorships for Trump’s final two years in office. For now, Republicans, who control all branches of government in Washington, are bracing for a painful political backlash.

“You’re looking at an ugly November,” warned veteran Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. “At a point in time when we need every break possible to hold the House and Senate, our edge is being chipped away.”

Republicans confront evolving political landscape

It’s hard to overstate how dramatically the political landscape has shifted.

At this time last year, many Republican leaders believed there was a path to preserve their narrow House majority and easily hold the Senate. Now they privately concede that the House is all but lost and Democrats have a realistic shot at taking the Senate.

Republicans are also struggling to coalesce around a clear midterm message on Iran.

The Republican National Committee has largely avoided the war in talking points issued to surrogates over the last month. The leaders of the party’s campaign committees responsible for the House and Senate declined interview requests. Many vulnerable Republican candidates sidestep the issue, unwilling to defend or challenge Trump publicly.

The president remains deeply popular with Republican voters, and he has vocal supporters like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

“That was the best speech I could’ve hoped for,” he wrote on social media after Trump’s address on Wednesday evening. Graham said Trump “gave the American people a clear and coherent pathway forward.”

Trump made little effort to sell the conflict to Americans before the initial attack. Five weeks later, at least 13 U.S. service members have been killed and hundreds more injured. Thousands more troops have converged on the region, and the Pentagon requested $200 billion in new funding.

The Strait of Hormuz, a key passage for a fifth of the world’s oil, remains closed. The average price for a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. was $4.08 on Thursday, according to AAA, almost a full dollar higher than on President Joe Biden’s last day in office.

On Wednesday, Trump insisted that gas prices would fall quickly once the war concluded but offered no solution for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Instead, he invited skeptical U.S. allies to do it themselves.

He insisted that the war would be worth it.

“This is a true investment in your grandchildren and your grandchildren’s future,” Trump said. “When it’s all over, the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before.”

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican who was once among Trump’s most vocal allies in Congress, lashed out against his Iran policy.

“I wanted so much for President Trump to put America First. That’s what I believed he would do. All I heard from his speech tonight was WAR WAR WAR,” she wrote on social media. “Nothing to lower the cost of living for Americans.”

Time is not on Trump’s side

About 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the U.S. military action in Iran has “gone too far,” according to AP-NORC polling from March. Roughly a third approve of how he’s handling Iran overall.

The possibility of sending U.S. forces into Iran also appears politically unpalatable.

About 6 in 10 adults are “strongly” or “somewhat” opposed to deploying U.S. troops on the ground to fight Iran. That includes about half of Republicans. Only about 1 in 10 favor deploying troops.

At the same time, Trump’s approval ratings have remained consistently weak. About 4 in 10 Americans approve of how he’s handling the presidency, roughly in line with how it’s been throughout his second term.

Republican strategist Ari Fleischer, a senior aide in former President George W. Bush’s administration, acknowledged that Trump has not received the polling bump in this war that Bush got after invading Iraq.

Bush, of course, worked to build public backing for the Iraq War before going in. Immediately after the 2003 invasion, Bush’s popularity soared, as did the stock market.

Public sentiment and the economy soured only after the conflict stretched on. It ultimately spanned more than eight years, spawning a generation of anti-war Republicans — and sowing the seeds of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.

“My hope is that the Trump experience is the exact opposite of the Bush experience,” Fleischer said.

He said Trump must win the war decisively and quickly to avoid a further backlash, saying there could be a “very significant political upside if things end well, oil comes down and markets rally.”

Fleischer added that Trump’s actions will matter much more than his words.

“Ultimately, he is not going to get judged on his persuasion or his explanations or his assertions, he’s going to get judged on results,” he said.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.

President Trump’s meandering speech on the Iran war late Wednesday — in which he paired promises of a swift exit with new threats of escalated bombing and denied responsibility for the Strait of Hormuz — did little to assuage U.S. allies and world markets concerned about the conflict’s ongoing disruptions to the global oil supply.

Stocks dropped after markets opened Thursday and oil prices soared, with the price of U.S. crude oil jumping more than 10%, to above $110.

In the wake of the speech, diplomats from more than 40 nations — not including the U.S. — met to strategize on how to lift Iran’s continued stranglehold on the strait, the vital oil corridor that the U.S.-Israeli war drove Iran to restrict but which Trump on Wednesday said wasn’t his problem.

Iranian officials remained unbowed, asserting the U.S. and Israel “know nothing” of its remaining capabilities, that “not a single life will be spared” if either attempts a ground incursion into its territory, and that “every last” Iranian would become a soldier if necessary.

“Iranians don’t just talk about defending their country. They bleed for it,” Iranian parliament Speaker Mohammad Qalibaf, a pugilistic figure and one of Iran’s most prominent wartime voices, wrote on X. “You come for our home… you’re gonna meet the whole family. Locked, loaded, and standing tall. Bring it on.”

Meanwhile, remarks Trump made earlier Wednesday about leaving NATO elicited subtle rebukes from both international and domestic allies, including French President Emmanuel Macron and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), while the president’s comments about the U.S. not being able to focus on social services like Medicare or other domestic needs such as child care as it wages its foreign war sparked outrage at home.

Far from a call for a unified push to end the war alongside allies, Trump’s speech — his first formal address to the nation since the war began a month ago — further isolated the U.S. and the Trump administration on the global stage.

Trump firmly asserted in his speech that reopening the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic was not the responsibility of the U.S., despite it causing the war, because it receives less oil from the corridor than other nations.

“The countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage. They must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it. They could do it easily. We will be helpful, but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on,” Trump said.

“To those countries that can’t get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran — we had to do it ourselves — I have a suggestion: No. 1, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much,” Trump continued. “And No. 2, build up some delayed courage.”

He said those nations should have been better assisting the U.S. in its war effort already, but should now “go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves.”

“Iran has been essentially decimated,” he said. “The hard part is done, so it should be easy.”

Trump has consistently downplayed the threat Iran continues to pose in the region. And securing the strait — which runs along Iran’s mountainous coast, full of strategic locations from which Iranian forces can threaten ship traffic — is not an easy task, as was acknowledged by the foreign diplomats meeting to solve the issue without the U.S. on Thursday.

“We have seen Iran hijack an international shipping route to hold the global economy hostage,” said U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper.

Meanwhile, Macron, speaking in South Korea, said the U.S. “can hardly complain afterward that they are not being supported in an operation they chose to undertake alone.”

Macron also slammed Trump’s criticism of NATO, which Trump called a “paper tiger” in remarks prior to his speech Wednesday.

“If you cast doubt on your commitment every day, you erode its very substance,” Macron said.

Trump for weeks has suggested that NATO allies who declined to join the U.S. war had failed to live up to their treaty obligations, and that remaining in the alliance may not be worth it for the U.S., though he made no mention of NATO in his Wednesday evening speech.

Trump has no power to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NATO. That power sits with Congress — where Trump’s own allies downplayed the idea.

“We got an awful lot of people who think that NATO is a very critical, incredibly successful post-World War II alliance,” Thune said. “I think in the world today, you need allies.”

Trump’s formal speech appeared to be geared in part toward his allies at home, including his MAGA base, where frustrations with the war have mounted among the cohort of Trump supporters who’d championed his “America First” message and campaign promises to extricate the U.S. from foreign entanglements, not start new ones.

Trump said he has promised since his first foray into politics in 2015 that he would never let Iran develop a nuclear weapon. He told Americans listening that the war “is a true investment in your children, and your grandchildren’s future,” because it was making the world safer.

However, Trump exacerbated frustrations over the war’s distraction from domestic priorities with separate comments he made earlier on Wednesday at a private Easter luncheon, video of which the White House posted online and then deleted.

In those remarks, Trump said U.S. military needs had to take priority over social services and other major costs for Americans, such as child care, which maybe states could pay for by increasing taxes.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things,” Trump said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.”

The president’s political opponents leaped on the remarks as out of touch.

“Trump says we can pay for war in Iran but can’t afford childcare,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) wrote on X, before asserting that the billions of dollars the U.S. has spent in Iran could have been used to offset Americans’ daycare costs.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response, accused Democrats and the media of taking Trump’s remarks “out of context,” and claiming he was only talking about “stopping the scams” and rooting out fraud in such programs.

Democrats also took broader swipes at Trump’s framing of the war.

“Donald Trump’s month-long war with Iran has come at a big cost to taxpayers and has tragically taken the lives of 13 American service members. He dragged our country into a conflict that rattled markets, drove up gas prices, squeezed working families, and further destabilized the Middle East,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote on X. “With his poll numbers falling to record lows, Trump is now trying to cut and run with little to show for it. He started this unauthorized war with no clear or consistent justification and the consequences of his choices won’t disappear when he walks away.”

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday said the war was “inflicting immense human suffering and already triggering devastating economic consequences,” and called directly on the U.S. and Israel to end it. He also called on Iran to “stop attacking their neighbors” and “respect navigational rights and freedoms along critical maritime routes, including the Strait of Hormuz.”

“Conflicts do not end on their own,” Guterres said. “They end when leaders choose dialogue over destruction.”

In addition to defending NATO, Macron and other French politicians on Thursday were also reacting to Trump mocking Macron in his remarks Wednesday. He mimicked a French accent while accusing Macron of only wanting to aid the U.S. war effort once the battle had been “won” and referenced a moment last year when Brigitte Macron was caught on video pushing her husband’s face, which he said was them joking with each other.

“There is too much talk, and it’s all over the place,” Macron said, according to French newspaper Le Monde. “We all need stability, calm, a return to peace — this isn’t a show!”

Yaël Braun-Pivet, president of France’s lower house of parliament, told the French broadcaster franceinfo that the Iran war is “having consequences for the lives of millions of people, people are dying on the battlefield, and we have a president who is laughing, who is mocking others.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

LONDON — President Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been damning of the U.K.’s naval capabilities. Their jibes may have stung in a country with a long and proud maritime history, but they do carry some substance.

The U.K. has been at the forefront of Trump’s ire since the onset of the Iran war on Feb. 28, when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to grant the U.S. military access to British bases.

Though that decision has been partly reversed with the decision to permit the U.S. to use the bases, including that of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, for so-called defensive purposes, Trump is adamant he was let down.

He has repeatedly lashed out at Starmer and branded the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers as “toys.”

“You don’t even have a navy,” he told Britain’s Daily Telegraph in comments published Wednesday. “You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work.”

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales are the largest and most powerful vessels ever constructed for the Royal Navy, though smaller and less capable than the U.S. Navy’s main fleet carriers. However, they are widely considered to be highly capable, especially for coalition warfare, despite some technical issues that have afflicted them in their first years of service.

Hegseth, meanwhile, said sarcastically that the “big, bad Royal Navy” should get involved in making the Strait of Hormuz safe for commercial shipping.

For numerous reasons, the Royal Navy is not as big and bad as it used it to be when Britannia ruled the waves. But it’s not as feeble as Trump and Hegseth imply and is largely similar with the French navy, with which it is often compared.

“On the negative side, there is a grain of truth, with the Royal Navy being smaller than it has been in hundreds of years,” said Professor Kevin Rowlands, editor of the Royal United Services Institute Journal. “On the positive side, the Royal Navy would say that it’s entering its first period of growth since World War II, with more ships set to be built than in decades.”

Capabilities and preparedness

It’s not that long ago that Britain could muster a task force of 127 ships, including two aircraft carriers, to sail to the south Atlantic after Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory. That 1982 campaign, which then-U. S. President Reagan was lukewarm about, marked the final hurrah of Britain’s naval pedigree.

Nothing on that scale, or even remotely, could be accomplished now. Since World War II, Britain’s combat-ready fleet has declined substantially, much of it linked to changing military and technological advances and the end of empire. But not all.

The number of vessels in the Royal Navy fleet, including aircraft carriers, destroyers frigates and submarines has fallen from 166 in 1975 to 66 in 2025, according to the Associated Press’ analysis of figures from the Ministry of Defense and the House of Commons Library.

Though the Royal Navy has two aircraft carriers at its command, there was a seven-year period in the 2010s when it had none. And the number of destroyers has halved to six while the frigate fleet has been slashed from 60 to just 11.

Diminished state

The Royal Navy faced criticism for the time it took to send the HMS Dragon destroyer to the Middle East after the war with Iran broke out. Though naval officials worked night and day to get it shipshape for a different mission than the one it was readying for, to many it symbolized the extent to which Britain’s military has been gutted since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

For much of the Cold War, Britain was spending between 4% and 8% of its annual national income on its military. After the Cold War, that proportion steadily dropped to a low of 1.9% of GDP in 2018, fuel to Trump’s fire.

Like other countries, Britain, largely under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, sought to use the so-called “peace dividend” following the collapse of the Soviet Union to divert money earmarked for defense to other priorities, such as health and education.

And the austerity measures imposed by the Conservative-led government in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-09 prevented any pickup in defense spending despite the clear signs of a resurgent Russia, especially after its annexation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.

No quick fix

In the wake of Russia’s full-blown invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and with another Middle East war underway, there’s a growing understanding across the political divide that the cuts have gone too far.

Following the Ukraine invasion, the Conservatives started to turn the military spending tide around. Since the Labour Party returned to power in 2024, Starmer is seeking to ramp up British defense spending, partly at the cost of cutting the country’s long-vaunted aid spending.

Starmer has promised to raise U.K. defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, and the updated goal is now for it to rise to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, as part of a NATO agreement pushed by Trump. That, in plain terms, will mean tens of billions pounds more being spent — a lot more equipment for the armed forces.

The pressure is on for the government to speed that schedule up. But with the public finances further imperiled by the economic consequences of the Iran war, it’s not clear where any additional money will come.

The jibes will likely keep coming even though the critiques are unfair and far from the truth, said RUSI’s Rowlands, who was a captain in the Royal Navy.

“We are dealing with an administration that doesn’t do nuance,” he said.

Pylas writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — In his first formal address to the nation since launching a war on Iran more than a month ago, President Trump on Wednesday night repeated a familiar list of claimed successes — and brushed aside setbacks — while providing little clarity on a clear path to ending the conflict.

“We are going to finish the job, and we’re going to finish it very fast. We are getting very close,” the president said from the White House.

Trump said Iran is “no longer a threat,” yet spoke of potentially needing to escalate the conflict and increase bombings on Iran’s energy and oil infrastructure if it continues to fight back.

“If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants, very hard and probably simultaneously,” he said. “We have not hit their oil, even though that’s the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it, and it would be gone, and there’s not a thing they could do about it.”

Trump earlier this week said he expects to pull American forces from Iran within three weeks, and emphasized that the United States does not have to be in the Middle East but that it is only there to “help our allies.”

In his speech, Trump did not lay out a specific timeline for an exit strategy, but said the the U.S. is “on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly.”

“We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong,” he said. “In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.”

He also repeated his assertions, made for weeks, that the U.S. has basically already defeated Iran and won the war, which he characterized as a “decisive, overwhelming victory.”

He also stressed that it is “very important that we keep this conflict in perspective,” before listing out — by month and day — the length of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

Prior to Wednesday night’s formal address, Trump had only spoken of the war — which U.S. and Israel launched against Iran on Feb. 28 — in less formal settings, during media gatherings and other public events.

The speech was a key messaging moment for the president, who, 33 days into the war, has struggled to clearly explain the scope and objectives of a conflict that has killed thousands of people in Iran and neighboring countries and disrupted global markets.

Trump repeatedly insisted that the U.S. is doing great, is “in great shape for the future,” and doesn’t need the oil that Iran has put a stranglehold on in the Strait of Hormuz, ignoring the clear effects of the war and those disruptions on the U.S., including on gas prices.

Those effects are already contributing to fractures within Trump’s base. Some have expressed frustration with the administration’s decision to enter a new conflict in the Middle East, concerns that could become a political liability for Republicans ahead of the high-stakes midterm elections in November.

In his remarks, Trump appeared to be speaking to those who have criticized him for deviating from his campaign promises by entering the war, saying he had promised to never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon “from the very first day” he announced his first presidential campaign in 2015.

Trump has repeatedly downplayed the economic pressure the war has placed on Americans, including rising gas prices, arguing that the short-term financial strain is necessary for national security. He has also promised that gas prices will “come tumbling down” when the conflict ends.

“Gas prices will rapidly come back down,” Trump repeated on Wednesday. “Stock prices will rapidly go back up. They haven’t come down very much. Frankly, they came down a little bit, but they’ve had some very good days.”

Trump appeared less energetic during his evening speech than during some of his previous daytime events, where he has consistently maintained an upbeat tone about the war, while offering inconsistent accounts of what his administration aimed to achieve, or how long and what it would take to meet those objectives.

Those inconsistencies were evident even hours ahead of the address. In an interview with Reuters, he said he was not concerned about the enriched uranium held by Tehran — a statement that appeared to undercut a central justification for the war.

“That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. military will be “watching it by satellite.”

In public remarks ahead of the address, Trump said the war was launched to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but also that the U.S. had completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities months prior, in separate attacks over the summer. He also said he was worried about Iran’s enriched uranium, wanted the U.S. to take it, and would even consider sending U.S. forces inside Iran to collect it.

There have also been mixed messages about the U.S.’s intentions for Iran’s leadership since Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed at the start of the conflict, leaving a leadership vacuum that was filled by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, a 56-year-old hard-line cleric who Trump initially called an “unacceptable choice.”

As Iran’s clerical rulers maintained a firm grip on the country, Trump administration officials, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, argued that U.S. war objectives had “nothing to do” with Iran’s leadership. But Trump in recent days has repeatedly talked about how “regime change” was achieved.

On Wednesday, Trump said a deal remained within reach with Iran’s new leaders, who he called “less radical and much more reasonable.”

Hours before Trump was to deliver his speech, Rubio posted a video which he began by saying, “Many Americans are asking, ‘Why did the United States have to attack Iran now?’” — an apparent acknowledgment that Trump’s own answers to that question in recent days may have failed to resonate.

Rubio also pushed another rationale for the war that the administration has floated on and off for the past month — saying Iran was building up an arsenal of missiles and drones to shield its nuclear ambitions, and that the war was the “last best chance” for the U.S. to eliminate those weapons capabilities before it was too late.

“We were on the verge of an Iran that had so many missiles and so many drones that nobody could do anything about their nuclear weapons program in the future,” Rubio said. “That was an intolerable risk.”

Others also tried to frame the war narrative Wednesday.

Prior to Trump’s speech, Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a public letter denouncing what he described as “a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives” from the U.S., and arguing Iran is not a threat and has only ever defended itself against U.S. aggression.

He called on the American people to “look beyond the machinery of misinformation” from the Trump administration and reach their own conclusions about the war and its purpose, at one point echoing a question also being asked by some in Trump’s base: “Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?”

He noted Iran was in the midst of nuclear negotiations with the U.S. when the U.S. attacked it “as a proxy for Israel,” and accused U.S. leaders of committing a “war crime” by targeting Iran’s energy and industrial facilities.

“Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war?” he asked.