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.