news

Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping plan to ‘further strengthen the comprehensive partnership’, the Kremlin says.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin will pay an official visit to China from May 19 to 20, the Kremlin has announced.

Putin and his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, plan to “further strengthen the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation” between Moscow and Beijing, the Kremlin said in a statement.

Putin is also scheduled to discuss economic and trade cooperation with Chinese Premier Li Qiang.

Russia’s TASS news agency reported that the visit is timed to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, a key Moscow-Beijing agreement signed in 2001.

News of Putin’s forthcoming trip arrives one day after United States President Donald Trump departed China following the first presidential visit to Beijing in almost a decade.

Although Trump and Xi touted several broad trade deals, they appeared to make little public progress on key sticking points related to Taiwan or the US-Israel war on Iran.

They also touched on the Russia-Ukraine war, in which China is officially neutral and Xi has presented himself as a mediator.

Still, Xi’s “no limits” alliance with Putin – announced just before the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – has undercut that stance.

China has also denied reports from Reuters and other news agencies showing that Chinese firms have single-handedly sustained Russian drone production, in part by shipping engines mislabelled as “industrial refrigeration units” to drone assembly plants.

“We discussed – well, it’s one that we’d like to see settled,” Trump said in remarks reported by the Kyiv Post.

Trading partners

As Washington and Beijing’s relationship has been beset by tension, Chinese-Russian relations have only appeared to deepen in recent months.

Although the duo are not formal military allies, they maintain extremely close political and economic ties, with China stepping in to buy Russian oil and goods after Western nations cut ties with Moscow.

Before a four-day trip to China last August, Putin decried “discriminatory” Western sanctions and heaped praise on Beijing.

China is now by far Russia’s biggest trading partner by volume, and transactions are almost entirely carried out in Russian roubles and Chinese yuan, Putin said at the time.

Last month, Xi pressed for “closer and stronger strategic coordination” between Beijing and Moscow in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Xi also visited Russia in May last year and pledged to stand with Moscow against “unilateralism and hegemonic bullying”.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has defended Spain’s boycott of the Eurovision Song Contest over Israel’s participation, saying ‘silence is not an option’ while citing the genocide in Gaza and the ‘illegal war’ on Lebanon.

An especially large motorcade ferried President Donald Trump around Beijing during his trip to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping this week. However, a pair of heavily-laden Chinese SUVs with huge custom roofs, a configuration that does not appear to have been previously seen, were of particular interest. The motorcade also featured several other vehicles with interesting, but far less substantial additions to their roofs.

The unusual SUVs were first spotted as Trump’s motorcade moved through the Chinese capital on May 13, as can be seen in the video in the social media post immediately below. They continued to be a feature of the motorcade throughout the U.S. President’s state visit, which wrapped up today.

The U.S. Secret Service has confirmed to TWZ that it was not the operator of any of the vehicles discussed in this piece, but it could not say whether they belonged to the U.S. Embassy or the Chinese government. The Secret Service and other U.S. authorities bring large numbers of vehicles and other assets to support any presidential visit overseas, especially very high-profile ones like Trump’s trip to meet with Xi this week. State Department and other U.S. government resources already in the destination country — or region — are leveraged, as well. Local security forces also help protect American presidents during these occasions.

The two high-top SUVs that were seen in the motorcade are based on one of the current generation models available from Chinese manufacturer Hongqi.

There were two other SUVs with notable modifications to their roofs – a Chevy Suburban and a Lincoln Navigator. There was also a Ford E-series van with a prominently modified roof.

All of the American-designed vehicles in question are available in China, and they were all seen with Chinese license plates. However, the Suburban had a black plate with white lettering, a type issued for foreign-owned vehicles, which might point to it belonging to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. At the same time, China has issued specific diplomatic plates over the years that are black and white, but also include red kanji, which was not seen in this case. A general example of this is seen in the social media post below. We will come back to this later on.

The licence plate “132 021” appears to be a Chinese diplomatic one. The first character in red may be 使 which represents the Embassy. “132” refers to the Mission, which could actually be Czech — though this needs corroboration with other open sources. https://t.co/Y2kvTTD4Wx pic.twitter.com/VQnI1jVMQa

— Christiaan Triebert (@trbrtc) May 2, 2019

Regardless of their operators, the modified Hongqi SUVs were clear standouts that quickly caught attention online.

Trump had his entire motorcade flown in on C-17s a few days ago!

500+ tons of equipment and vehicles, including these advanced surveillance/deterrence SUVs.

They can literally see through walls 👀

A level of security that is incomprehensible ⚠️ pic.twitter.com/Nt94ut5Opn

— Matt Wallace (@MattWallace888) May 13, 2026

The purpose of the custom tops on the Hongqi SUVs is unknown, but they would offer space to fit additional outsized equipment. Possible options might include an electronic warfare system, directed energy weapon, or a communications array. On the subject of advanced electronic warfare systems and directed energy weapons, these capabilities are set to become increasingly commonplace in VVIP motorcades, in general, due to the danger of drone attacks.

A new high-top roof could allow individuals to stand up fully while still inside the vehicle, but the benefit that would provide in this case is unclear. There are no obvious apertures or firing ports. It is unknown whether any part of the very top retracts to allow for the deployment of something inside. There is something of an upper fairing visible on the front, but it could be there for a number of reasons.

Whatever the case, the modified Hongqi SUVs are definitely very heavy-set, with the vehicles running visibly low on their rear axles in particular. There is also some kind of feature attached to the rear of the vehicles. However, without a full view from the rear, whether this might be a lift or something else is not clear. A lift would make some sense considering whatever is inside appears to be very heavy.

There was also clearly some value to having one of the SUVs in this configuration positioned at different points in the motorcade simultaneously. One at the front and one at the rear are seen the main video posted above.

The modified Lincoln Navigator has a far smaller, but still interesting addition to its roof, which could contain an electronic warfare and/or satellite communications systems. It also has what may be a small electro-optical sensor turret on top of the front end of the roof. Several whip-type antennas mounted on top of the vehicle are also seen.

It is worth noting here that marked Chinese Police Ford F-150 pickups were also seen deployed in Beijing during Trump’s visit with a roughly similar configuration, including the sensor turret on top.

The Chevy Suburban also has a slightly raised roof with an array of antennas, including an X-shaped type commonly associated with UHF satellite communications arrays. Interestingly, this SUV looks similar in some broad respects to Suburbans configured as command, control, and communications support vehicles that the White House Communications Agency (WHCA) and certain elements of the U.S. military have operated over the years. These are more commonly referred to as “Roadrunners” and are a staple in U.S. presidential motorcades, as you can read more about here. As already noted, this particular SUV had a type of license plate pointing to a foreign owner. While we know that this is not a U.S. Secret Service vehicle, the WCHA or another U.S. government operator could still be a possibility.

Last, there is the Ford E-series van. The available views of this vehicle are more limited, but it does have a modified roof with what look to be work lights positioned at various points around the edges. This is in addition to the red and blue emergency lights along the front edge. There is also an unknown feature at the top left corner of the roof, which has a cone-shaped protrusion at the front. Its purpose is not immediately clear.

Vans are inherently multi-purpose vehicles by design, and Chinese policies are known to use marked E-series types for various purposes, including riot control. It is possible this particular example could be part of a rapid response team, or serve some other function.

In general, specialized, unique, and sometimes unusual vehicles are common to see in VIP motorcades, especially presidential ones. TWZ has been among the first to call attention to new additions to the U.S. presidential motorcade lineup, in particular, over the years. This includes the appearance of new Cadillac Escalade presidential limousines just in January of this year.

If the vehicles seen during Trump’s recent trip to China, especially the Hongqi SUVs with the huge custom tops, continue to be features of motorcades during state visits by prominent leaders to Beijing, more details about their configuration and functions may emerge.

Special thanks to Newsweek‘s Ryan Chan for bringing this to our attention.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Liverpool’s woes deepen as Ollie Watkins scores a brace to help his side to a dominant win at Villa Park.

Ollie Watkins scored twice as Aston Villa eased to a 4-2 Premier League victory over Liverpool to seal Champions League qualification for next ⁠season and leave their visitors looking over their shoulder at the chasing pack.

The win on Friday moves Villa into fourth place with 62 points from their 37 games, leapfrogging their opponents, who have 59 points from ⁠the same number of matches.

Liverpool remain vulnerable to being caught by both Bournemouth and Brighton in the race for a Champions League place as they slipped to a 12th defeat of the season with a single point from the last nine available.

Morgan Rogers gave Villa a first half lead before Virgil van ‌Dijk equalised for Liverpool early in the second period and then got another in added time.

But Watkins’ double and a brilliant late fourth from John McGinn sealed the win for Unai Emery’s side, who head into Wednesday’s Europa League final against Freiburg in buoyant mood.

“We had to get over the line,” McGinn told Sky Sports. It allows us to be excited and enjoy Wednesday properly.

“[Watkins] was obviously disappointed in March [being left out of the England squad] but if it gave him a kick ⁠up the backside, he’s certainly responded in the best way.

“We’re so fortunate to ⁠have him, what he’s done for this club the past few seasons has been incredible. Hopefully he can carry that into next week.”

Villa head to Istanbul to meet Freiburg with one of their major goals this season already achieved, and the chance ⁠to lift silverware to cap their campaign.

The hosts took the lead on 42 minutes against the run of play. Lucas Digne found Rogers in space ⁠on the left-hand side of the box and the forward curled ⁠it into the far corner.

Liverpool levelled on 52 minutes when Van Dijk headed home at the back post from Dominik Szoboszlai’s free-kick, before 17-year-old winger Rio Ngumoha struck the base of the post from the edge of the box.

But a slip from Szoboszlai ‌presented Watkins with a second goal for the home side, and Emiliano Buendia struck the Liverpool post with a curling shot as Villa looked the more likely to score again.

And so it proved as ‌Watkins ‌netted his second via a rebound from close range.

McGinn curled in a beautiful shot to make it 4-1 on 89 minutes, before Van Dijk’s second headed goal brought some respectability to the scoreline.

Liverpool manager ‌Arne Slot said he feels no added pressure after the defeat but admitted ⁠his side are conceding too many soft goals.

“It’s not about me, it’s about us being disappointed with the result,” Slot told the BBC. “I spoke yesterday on it [my future] and that’s enough.

“Our focus is on the Brentford game [next weekend] and making sure we earn the support of the fans by starting the game aggressive and ⁠well.”

Villa scored four times on Friday but might have had several ⁠more goals as they cut apart Liverpool’s defence.

“We have conceded a ⁠lot of goals this season, which you’d find hard to believe unless you live it and that’s what we did today,” he said.

“Villa were the better team and the game ‌went away from us.”

Foreign ministers from the BRICS nations ended a two day meeting in New Delhi without issuing a joint statement, highlighting deep divisions within the bloc over the ongoing conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.

The diplomatic gathering brought together representatives from an increasingly diverse and politically complex alliance that now includes both Iran and the United Arab Emirates, two regional rivals currently on opposite sides of the escalating Middle East crisis.

Because member states could not agree on language regarding the war, host country India released only a chair’s statement summarizing discussions rather than a unified declaration endorsed by all participants.

Iran Pushes for Stronger Condemnation

Iran reportedly sought a stronger collective position condemning the United States and Israel for military operations against it.

Tehran also accused the UAE, a close American partner in the Gulf region, of involvement in military activities linked to the conflict.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated that one BRICS member blocked sections of the proposed statement, although he did not directly name the UAE.

Araqchi attempted to soften tensions publicly by emphasizing that Iran did not view the UAE itself as a direct target in the conflict. He argued that Iranian strikes had focused only on American military facilities located on Emirati territory.

At the same time, he expressed hope that relations inside BRICS could improve before the leaders’ summit later this year.

India’s Carefully Balanced Position

India’s final chair statement revealed the difficulty of managing competing geopolitical interests within the expanded BRICS bloc.

The document acknowledged that member countries held different perspectives regarding the Middle East crisis. According to the statement, discussions included calls for diplomacy, respect for sovereignty, protection of civilian lives, and the importance of maintaining secure maritime trade routes.

However, the absence of a formal joint declaration demonstrated that BRICS members remain divided on critical geopolitical questions.

India’s approach reflected its broader diplomatic strategy of balancing relations with multiple global powers simultaneously. New Delhi maintains close ties with the United States and Gulf countries while also preserving strategic partnerships with Russia, Iran, and China.

Gaza and Palestine Also Cause Disagreement

Divisions were not limited to the Iran conflict.

The chair statement noted that BRICS ministers reaffirmed support for Palestinian self determination and described Gaza as an inseparable part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

The document also supported efforts to unify Gaza and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and backed the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

However, the statement acknowledged that one unnamed member state held reservations regarding aspects of the Gaza section as well.

This further illustrated the challenge of building unified foreign policy positions within a grouping that includes countries with vastly different regional interests and diplomatic alignments.

BRICS and the Global South Narrative

Despite internal disagreements, BRICS members emphasized the importance of cooperation among developing nations.

India’s statement described the Global South as an important force for positive international change during a period marked by rising geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty, technological disruption, protectionism, and migration pressures.

The expanded BRICS bloc now includes:

• Brazil
• Russia
• India
• China
• South Africa
• Ethiopia
• Egypt
• Iran
• UAE

The expansion of the bloc has increased its global economic and political weight but has also introduced more ideological and strategic divisions.

The Economic Impact on India

The Middle East conflict has had serious economic implications for India.

As one of the world’s largest oil importers, India depends heavily on energy shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The disruption of maritime traffic in the region has increased energy costs and raised concerns about inflation and supply stability.

Indian personnel have reportedly been killed in incidents linked to the regional conflict, while an India flagged vessel was sunk during the recent escalation.

Against this backdrop, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the UAE and publicly condemned attacks targeting the Gulf nation.

Modi praised the UAE’s restraint and described attacks against it as unacceptable, signaling India’s effort to maintain strong ties with key Gulf partners despite its participation alongside Iran in BRICS.

Analysis

The failure of BRICS foreign ministers to produce a joint statement highlights the growing contradictions inside the expanded organization.

Originally conceived as an economic coalition of major emerging powers, BRICS increasingly aspires to become a broader geopolitical platform representing the Global South. However, the inclusion of regional rivals and states with conflicting strategic interests makes unified diplomacy increasingly difficult.

The Iran conflict exposed these tensions clearly. Iran sought solidarity against the United States and Israel, while Gulf states inside the bloc maintain close security relationships with Washington and face direct security threats from Tehran.

India’s cautious wording reflected the reality that BRICS currently functions more as a flexible diplomatic forum than a cohesive political alliance.

The episode also demonstrates a larger shift in global politics. As Western led institutions face criticism from many developing nations, alternative groupings like BRICS are gaining visibility. Yet these organizations must still overcome major internal disagreements if they hope to shape global governance effectively.

For India, the situation illustrates the complexity of its foreign policy position. New Delhi seeks leadership within the Global South while simultaneously maintaining relations with competing regional and global powers.

Ultimately, the Delhi meeting showed both the growing importance and the structural limitations of BRICS. The bloc may continue expanding economically and politically, but achieving consensus on major international crises will remain a significant challenge as geopolitical rivalries deepen across the world.

With information from Reuters.

At least seven Palestinians were killed when Israeli air strikes hit a residential building and a civilian vehicle in Gaza City Friday night. Israel says it was targeting the head of the armed wing of Hamas in Gaza. Al Jazeera has not independently verified Israel’s claims.

After months of tension over the Iran war, markets finally got something to feel good about. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing on May 14 and agreed the Strait of Hormuz “must remain open,” along with a shared stance that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon.” Easing tensions in the Middle East usually means one thing for crypto: risk-on sentiment comes back.

That’s why the search for the best crypto to buy now is heating up again. This article looks at three picks worth a closer look while the mood is shifting: Poly Truth ($PTRUE), Meme Punch ($MEPU), and Bittensor (TAO).

Why the Trump-Xi Meeting Matters for Crypto

Approximately one-fifth of all oil shipments worldwide pass through the Strait of Hormuz. When it’s in danger, markets become anxious, oil prices increase, and inflation pressure increases. The opposite happens when it’s safe. Money often returns to more volatile investments, such as cryptocurrency.

That is the change that is currently beginning to take shape. The direction has shifted, but the war is still ongoing and the ceasefire is still unstable. Generally speaking, markets are more interested in future trends than current conditions.

Therefore, it makes sense that more buyers are considering cryptocurrency once more. Also, smaller picks usually move first when the mood improves.

Best Crypto to Buy Now in 2026

1. Poly Truth ($PTRUE)

Check polytruth.io for live numbers.

2. Meme Punch ($MEPU)

Check memepunch.io for the current presale price and staking APY.

3. Bittensor (TAO)

The price action tells a useful story. TAO spent most of April trading sideways between $240 and $255 while markets digested the Iran war and the fragile ceasefire. Then, in early May, the breakout came. TAO climbed to around $326 on May 10 and now sits near $306, up over 20% in a month.

It’s a clear example of what happens when tensions decrease. Capital flows back into infrastructure plays, and AI is one of the strongest narratives going.

What to Watch Next

• The Israel-Lebanon talks: New peace talks kicked off in Washington this week. A real deal would push sentiment further into risk-on territory.
• The ceasefire holding: The Iran ceasefire has been in place since April 8, but it’s fragile. Any breakdown would pull money back to safety fast.
• US-China follow-through: The Trump-Xi meeting was a positive signal, but the real test is what gets done in the weeks after.
• ETF flows: Spot ETFs for AI tokens like TAO are pending. Approvals or strong inflows would add fuel to the AI narrative.

Conclusion

If you’re looking at the best crypto to buy now, the three picks above cover different angles. Poly Truth ($PTRUE) for the AI tool with a real use case. Meme Punch ($MEPU) for the meme coin you can actually play. Bittensor (TAO) for the established AI infrastructure pick is already moving on the news.

Take a look, read up on each, and only put in what you’re okay risking.

FAQ’s

Which cryptocurrency is best to invest now?

What is the best buy in crypto right now?

What crypto under $1 will explode?

Which crypto has 1000x potential?

British artist Matthew Collings says his exhibition “Drawings Against Genocide”, depicting Israeli violence against Palestinians, has been falsely portrayed as anti-Semitic. After outrage and protests, the London show has been cancelled.

Lebanon’s Ministry of Health said Israeli attacks have killed 2,951 people since March 2 with at least 8,988 wounded.

Dogecoin is trading near $0.116 in May 2026, with a market cap of around $17.9 billion and a 24-hour volume of over $2.37 billion.

The latest Dogecoin price prediction data shows room for a move toward the $0.13 to $0.25 range in 2026, but DOGE still needs stronger meme coin demand before a larger rally becomes realistic.

For traders looking beyond older meme coins, Meme Punch and Poly Truth add two newer presale stories through P2E gaming and prediction market data.

This article breaks down DOGE’s 2026 outlook, the main rally drivers, and how $MEPU and $PTRUE compare with Dogecoin’s meme coin setup.

How Dogecoin Is Performing in May 2026

Dogecoin still has one of the strongest brands in crypto. It ranks inside the top 10 by market value, and CoinGecko shows DOGE up 22.2% over 30 days, which keeps it active on trader watchlists.

Daily volume also supports the short-term case. DOGE’s 24-hour trading volume was about $2.37 billion, which shows a recent rise in market activity and gives traders enough liquidity for short-term moves.

However, DOGE is no longer a small coin. A market cap near $18 billion means each major price move needs real buying pressure, not only social media noise.

Dogecoin Price Prediction for 2026

CoinCodex gives DOGE a short-term target of $0.1302 for one month and $0.1491 for three months. Its near-term table also shows a 5-day target around $0.1142, which keeps DOGE close to its current range before any stronger move develops.

Changelly gives a wider full-year 2026 range. Its analysis places DOGE between $0.0957 and $0.142, with an average price near $0.119. For May 2026, Changelly estimates a range between $0.108 and $0.131, with an average near $0.120.

Binance’s prediction page takes a different approach because its figures are based on user input and shown on an “as is” basis. The page also states that the data does not represent Binance’s own view or advice, which makes it useful as crowd input rather than a firm forecast.

Can DOGE Stay a Top Meme Coin in 2026?

What Could Push Dogecoin Higher?

Why New Meme Coin Presales Are Getting More Attention

Meme Punch ($MEPU)

Meme Punch turns meme coin culture into a medieval P2E battle arena. Players choose meme-inspired knights, fight rivals, climb the leaderboard, and earn $MEPU rewards.

The game loop is easy to scan.

• Players choose from meme fighters such as Pepe, Doge, Floki, Brett, and Pudgy Penguin.
• Arena battles decide leaderboard progress.
• Winners earn $MEPU rewards.
• $MEPU can be used for weapons, skins, and special powers.
• Staking adds another token use inside the project.

$MEPU has a total supply of 10 billion tokens.

• Presale: 40%
• DEX/CEX liquidity: 12%
• Marketing: 16.5%
• Game rewards: 9.5%
• Staking: 14.5%
• Project funds: 7.5%

Poly Truth ($PTRUE)

Poly Truth gives the presale market a data-led angle through prediction market intelligence. The project uses AI-powered analysis to help users read active events across crypto, sports, politics, and other markets.

Its system has three parts.

• The Runners collect data from active prediction events across the internet.
• The Starlet compares sources, finds patterns, and calculates probability scores.
• The Presenter turns the analysis into event reports that show which outcome has stronger data support.

$PTRUE has a total supply of 11.5 billion tokens.

• Presale: 40%
• Liquidity pool: 17%
• Development: 13%
• Team: 10%
• Staking rewards: 10%
• Marketing: 8%
• Community and airdrops: 2%

DOGE vs. $MEPU and $PTRUE

Is DOGE Still One of the Best Meme Coins to Buy Now?

For traders comparing old and new meme coin stories, Dogecoin still holds the benchmark spot. Meme Punch brings a playable meme coin model through $MEPU, while Poly Truth adds a different presale route through $PTRUE and prediction market intelligence.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. ModernDiplomacy.eu is not a licensed crypto-asset service provider under EU regulation (MiCA). Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and involve significant risk. Always conduct your own research and consult a licensed advisor before making any investment decisions.

The lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student targeted for deportation by the United States government over his pro-Palestine advocacy, have called on an immigration appeals court to reopen and terminate his case.

The latest legal appeal points to new evidence, some of which was documented in media reports, that Khalil’s lawyers said it “suggests that the Trump Administration secretly engineered the outcome of his immigration case to make an example of him”.

It comes just over a month after the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final order of removal for Khalil, who was first detained by immigration enforcement agents in March 2025, one of several students targeted for their participation in pro-Palestine campus protests that swept the US the previous year.

Khalil, a US permanent resident who is married to a US citizen, has long maintained that he has been unjustly targeted for his political views.

His legal team said on Friday that “apparent procedural abnormalities” support that view.

“It’s clear that the revelations of DOJ misconduct corroborate what we have known since Mahmoud was arrested–that the administration has reverse-engineered its desired outcome by weaponising a farcical proceeding littered with abnormalities,” Johnny Sinodis, a lawyer representing Khalil, said in a statement.

The new evidence includes a report by The New York Times that found that Khalil’s case had been flagged as high priority before it had arrived at the Board of Immigration Appeals, in what his lawyers say indicated the case was being “fast-tracked”.

The report, citing case documents, also found that the court had been instructed to treat Khalil’s case as if he were still in detention custody, which typically results in an expedited processing timeline.

Khalil was released from immigration detention in June 2025 following a federal judge’s order. An appeals court later ruled the judge did not have jurisdiction over the matter. He is also appealing that decision, during which time authorities are barred from re-detaining or deporting him.

The New York Times report also found that three judges at the Board of Immigration Appeals recused themselves from the case. While the reasons for the recusals were not made public, experts familiar with the board’s procedures have said the rate of recusals was extremely rare.

The Board of Immigration Appeals is meant to be independent. Like other immigration courts, it falls under the Department of Justice in the executive branch, which critics say makes it more vulnerable to interference.

Other federal courts fall under the independence of the judicial branch.

The Trump administration has framed Khalil’s deportation as part of a crackdown on anti-Semitism. They have presented no evidence to back the claims against him, and Khalil has never been charged with a crime.

This week, The Intercept news site reported that shortly after he was detained by immigration agents, the FBI had closed an investigation into a tip that Khalil had called for “violence on behalf of Hamas”, saying it did not warrant further investigation.

In targeting Khalil, US Secretary of State Marco had invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and National Act that allows the deportation of individuals deemed to be a national security threat based on “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful”.

The manoeuvre raised questions over freedom of speech and whether those protections extended to permanent residents like Khalil. The government later added the claim that Khalil had intentionally failed to disclose his past work for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) on his immigration application.

Administration officials have repeatedly stood by the claims and maintained that Khalil received proper due process.

In a statement on Friday, Khalil said the administration “wants to arrest, detain, and deport me to intimidate everyone speaking out for Palestine across this country, and they are willing to violate longstanding US rules and procedures to do it”.

He added, “No lies, corruption, or ideological persecution will stop me from advocating for Palestine and for everyone’s right to free speech.”

Northampton: Furbank, Freeman, Litchfield, Hutchinson, Hendy, Smith, McParland; Iyogun, Smith, Millar Mills, Coles, Prowse, Kemeny, Pollock, Chick

Replacements: Walker, Fischetti, Green, Van Der Mescht, Pearson, Graham, Mitchell, Dingwall

Bristol: Lane, Rees-Zammit, Janse van Rensburg, Williams, Ravouvou, Jordan, Randall; Genge, Thacker, Kloska, Dun, Batley, Owen, Harding (c), Grondona

Replacements: Gwilliam, Woolmore, Lahiff, Taylor, Ivanishvili, Marmion, Moroni, Heward

Referee: Luke Pearce

US President Donald Trump concluded a two-day summit in Beijing with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The high-profile visit, in which Trump aimed to reset relations with Beijing, saw discussions on trade, Taiwan, and the war on Iran.

Several women sexually violated in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have come forward to report the war crimes committed against them by the M23 rebels amid the ongoing war in the country. The women spoke to Human Rights Watch researchers, but asked to be kept anonymous out of fear of retribution from the predators. 

The international organisation documented it in a report the atrocities committed by the rebels and Rwandan soldiers against the Congolese women. The report, published on May 13,  revealed how the duo summarily executed men and raped women during raids on civilian communities. Victims described being raped under threat of death and at gunpoint in their homes or in fields while searching for food, according to the HRW report. The attackers assaulted or killed relatives who attempted to stop them from sexually violating women. The absence of operational healthcare services in Uvira during the violent operations deprived survivors of crucial medical attention, including access to post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent HIV infection.

A woman who was allegedly raped by a combination of the M23 rebels and Rwanda soldiers in Uvira told  HRW researchers about the hell she was put through by the invaders in Uvira. 

“They stripped me completely naked, tied my hands behind my back with my clothes and then raped me. They continued doing so for a long time, and when my husband tried to intervene, they took him outside our house and shot him dead, ” the woman whose identity is being withheld in order to maintain her dignity told HRW.

The woman eventually lost consciousness and later consulted a health professional, receiving analgesics and a post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) kit. She says she still suffers from a persistent infection. The woman is one of eight individuals identified in the recent HRW report. 

According to the report, survivors of the atrocities identified their torturers as M23 combatants and soldiers of the Rwandan army, notably because they spoke the Kinyarwanda language and wore uniforms of the Rwandan army. They also carried military hardware which could easily be recognised and linked to the Rwandan army. 

Another woman cited in the report revealed how she was sexually violated on the same day, while she was working on her farm in Katala, situated in Uvira territory. She said two fighters approached her, one of them pointed a gun at her and declared in Kinyarwanda: “If you don’t do what I tell you, I will kill you”. The men, whom she identified through their Rwandan army uniforms, then went ahead to rape her. She eventually went to the Kavimvira health centre in Uvira for treatment, but she received no medical attention.

A third woman revealed that she was also sexually assaulted in December when she went to search for food, as provisions have been dwindling since the arrival of the M23 rebels in the zone. She said a Congolese and a Rwandan assaulted her sexually.

“The Rwandan man said he wanted to kill me, but the Congolese said ‘no, rape her’,” the woman revealed. She said after having been raped, she was afraid to go to a hospital for treatment and rather opted to go buy drugs from a pharmacy which only sold antibiotics to her. She stated that she continues to experience pain and has ongoing bleeding, but she has been unable to undergo medical tests, including an HIV test. 

Another woman told HRW that she was sexually assaulted on January 3, 2026, while she was on her farm on the periphery of Uvira. She said an M23 combatant and a Rwandan soldier who were pretending to be searching for water accosted her, and one of them ordered, “If you shout, we will kill you”, adding that they had not been with a woman for over six months, during which time they were in the bush. Since the rape incident, she has been bleeding and sick.

The woman revealed that during the occupation of Uvira by the M23 rebels, hospitals were not providing treatment for sexual violence, so she did not benefit from the medical kit necessary within 72 hours following sexual violence.

“In all the accounts rendered, the survivors underlined the almost total absence of accessible health services during the M23 and Rwandan occupation, and in particular, the absence of post-rape treatment at the appropriate time, as well as adequate treatment for wounds and infections provoked by sexual violence. Other essential services, including psycho-social support, the collection of proofs and judicial assistance were also not available”, the HRW report reveals.

The United Nations Population Fund, on its part, notes that sexual violence committed by the belligerent parties in the Eastern DR Congo has increased, with more than 80,000 cases of rape reported between January and September 2025, which is a 32 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2024.

The sudden and chaotic cuts in international aid introduced by the American government at the beginning of 2025 abruptly halted emergency medical treatment and various forms of support for thousands of survivors of sexual violence.

The survivors have been confronted by a bigger risk of contracting HIV or unplanned pregnancies because the clinics and hospitals in the Eastern DR Congo no longer have stocks of post-exposure prophylactic (PEP) kits, which were hitherto mostly supplied by projects financed by the United States. These kits are supposed to be administered 72 hours after exposure in order to prevent infections like HIV.

The strategic town of Uvira has, since the M23/AFC rebels occupied Bukavu at the beginning of December 2025, become the provisional capital of South Kivu province despite the signing of the Washington Accords by Felix Tshisekedi and Paul Kagame in the presence of Donald Trump. Supported by Rwanda, the M23/AFC rebels launched a rapid offensive, resulting in the capture of the town.

Russia launched more than 1,400 drones and 56 missiles into Ukraine on Wednesday and Thursday.

Much of the onslaught was aimed at the capital Kyiv, days after Russia threatened to do so only if Ukraine attacked its Victory Day parade in Moscow’s Red Square on May 9. It is a major Russian holiday commemorating the end of the Second World War.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had proposed a ceasefire, beginning as early as May 5.

Moscow did not respond until May 7, and presented its peace proposal as a unilateral initiative, accompanied by threats to punish Kyiv if it did not respect its terms.

Moscow said Russian front line units would “launch a massive missile strike” on central Kyiv if attacked.

Forty-three Russian drones and a number of ballistic missiles were launched into Ukraine on May 9, and another 27 drones on May 10. It was not until May 11 that Ukraine had a day of peace.

Moscow justified these attacks as reciprocity for Ukrainian assaults. Kyiv accused Moscow of breaking its own ceasefire.

Once the ceasefire was over, on the night of May 11, Russia launched 216 drones and followed up with a massive strike involving 892 drones overnight on May 12 and during the day on May 13.

The night of May 13-14 was worse with 675 drones accompanied by 56 missiles.

Official Ukrainian reports recorded strikes in at least 20 locations in the capital, including a nine-storey apartment building where 12 people were killed in the collapse.

“These are ordinary residential buildings, a school, a veterinary clinic, and other purely civilian infrastructure,” wrote Zelenskyy on his Telegram messaging channel. “These are definitely not the actions of those who believe that the war is coming to an end.”

Throughout the week, Ukraine said it shot down 92 percent of the 1,930 drones launched, close to Zelenskyy’s 95 percent kill target, with 41 out of 57 missiles downed.

Russia’s army slows down

Russia’s onslaught of came as its armies in eastern Ukraine slowed down.

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, estimated they had advanced by an average of 2.9 sq km (1.1 sq miles) in the first four months of 2026, compared with 9.76 sq km (3.76 sq miles) a day in the first third of 2025 and 14.9 sq km (5.8 sq miles) a day between October 2024 and March 2025.

Two weeks into May, that daily average had already dropped to 2.63 sq km (1 sq mile), suggesting Russia’s advance is slowing almost daily.

The ISW recently estimated that Ukraine made net territorial gains of 116 sq km (45 sq miles) in April – its first such advance since a September 2023 counteroffensive.

Some of that success is attributed to Ukraine’s successful use of drones behind the front lines.

On May 8, the Azov Corps of Ukraine’s National Guard announced it had “returned to Mariupol”, four years almost to the day since it surrendered control of the city to Russian forces.

The Corps filmed drone strikes on Russian diesel tankers, army trucks and other logistics 160 km (99 miles) behind the front line along the T-0509 highway, which feeds the Russian war effort in the Donetsk region.

“The strike depth will increase,” said the Azov Corps.

Their strikes are part of a broader Ukrainian campaign to hit Russian logistics at middle ranges of about 120-150 km (75-90 miles) from the front line as announced by Zelenskyy at the end of April.

“This primarily involves military logistics, enemy warehouses and headquarters, air defence systems and other components,” he said, adding that Ukraine had increased its strikes at this depth five-fold during the past year.

“We’re already carrying out about five thousand successful strikes at a depth of 20 plus km (12 miles) every month,” said Ukrainian Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov this week.

Also this week, a Russian military reporter said Ukrainian Hornet drones were targeting Russian logistics on roads closer to the frontlines.

“Although the front line is more than 35 km away from the M-30, it is currently paralysed due to enemy [First Person View drone] surveillance,” wrote the Russian reporter.

“In 2014-2015 the front line was closer, but the M-30 was safer,” he added. “This is because many people think that if the front line moves away from large cities and logistics routes they become safer, but for some reason no one takes into account that the range of enemy drones, even FPV surveillance, increases more rapidly relative to the movement of the front line.”

Russia’s declining performance is not due to lack of effort.

“The enemy has intensified offensive actions along almost the entire front and is regrouping its troops,” said Ukrainian commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskii on May 8. “The most tense area is currently the Pokrovsk direction, where the Russian aggressor has concentrated about 106,000 personnel,” he said.

Since March, Ukraine has increased strikes against Russian oil infrastructure as many as 1,700 km (1,056 miles) inside Russia, in an effort to starve its war machine of diesel and export revenue.

Andriy Kovalenko, the head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, said the Ukraine Security Service (SBU) hit the Yaroslavl oil refinery and Perm oil pumping station on May 8 – Perm sends oil in four directions across Russia to refineries and export terminals.

Russian media reports said the fire from a previous strike on the pumping station was not put out until May 11.

The SBU also said it hit the Perm refinery that day.

During the week, Ukrainian forces struck drone bases and a radar research centre in Rostov-on-Don, the Bryansk chemical plant, an explosives warehouse in Nizhny Novgorod and other targets.

Fedorov on Monday thanked Germany for investing $1bn in Ukraine’s deep strike capabilities, when his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, visited Kyiv.

“Overall, Ukraine’s positions right now – on the front line, in our long-range sanctions, and in our joint results with partners – are the strongest they have been in years,” said Zelenskyy.

Who: Chelsea vs Manchester City
What: English FA Cup final
Where: Wembley Stadium in London, United Kingdom
When: Saturday, May 16 at 3pm (14:00 GMT)
How to follow: We’ll have all the buildup on Al Jazeera Sport from 11 GMT in advance of our live text commentary stream.

History will be made on Saturday as Manchester City become the first side to line up in four consecutive finals as they take on Chelsea for the trophy.

Between them, the sides have won 15 FA Cup titles, but this is a first meeting between the clubs in the final itself – despite the teams between them appearing in five of the last six finals.

City, who have already claimed the League Cup, are still in with the chance of a domestic treble. Chelsea, however, have been engaged in a managerial merry-go-round – all off the back of beating Paris Saint-Germain to claim the expanded FIFA Club World Cup last year.

Al Jazeera Sport takes you through all the information you need to know in the run-up to the 145th FA Cup final.

Who won last season’s FA Cup final?

Crystal Palace beat City 1-0 in last season’s final to lift the trophy for the first time in their history.

Eberechi Eze scored the only goal of the game after 16 minutes to sign off from the Eagles in style. The England forward joined Arsenal at the end of the season.

City had dominated the final with a staggering 78 percent of possession.

Who did Chelsea beat in the FA Cup semifinal?

Chelsea overcame Leeds United 1-0 in their last four clash, with Enzo Fernandez scoring the only goal in the 23rd minute.

The Blues thumped Port Vale in the quarterfinals with a 7-0 win, while there was a more Hollywood feel to their clash with Wrexham in the prior round.

Extra time was required in their 4-2 win in Wales.

Who did Man City beat in the semifinals?

City were well tested in the semifinal by Championship side Southampton as Nico Gonzalez scored with three minutes remaining after Jeremy Doku’s 82nd-minute strike cancelled out Finn Azaz’s opener.

Liverpool were seen off in the quarterfinals with a 4-0 thumping at Etihad Stadium, while a 3-1 win was recorded at Newcastle United in the round prior to that.

What happened the last time Chelsea played Man City?

Manchester City were 3-0 winners in the last meeting between the sides, which came in a Premier League fixture in west London on April 12.

All three goals came within 17 minutes of each other in the second half, with Nico O’Reilly, Marc Guehi and Jeremy Doku netting at Stamford Bridge.

Where are Man City and Chelsea in the Premier League?

City sit second in the English top flight, just two points behind leaders Arsenal with two games to play.

Club World Cup holders Chelsea have sacked both Enzo Maresca and Liam Rosenior this season and sit ninth in the league.

Calum McFarlane will be taking charge of his sixth game in his second spell as the club’s interim manager.

What happened the last time Chelsea and Man City met in the FA Cup?

The teams last met in the FA Cup in a semifinal clash at Wembley Stadium in April, 2024.

Bernardo Silva scored the only goal of the game to send City through to the final, where they were beaten 2-1 by Erik ten Hag’s Manchester United.

Alejandro Garnacho, now of Chelsea, gave United the lead, which Kobbie Mainoo doubled before the break. Jeremy Doku netted an 87th-minute goal to set up a tense finale.

How many times have Chelsea won the FA Cup?

Chelsea have had their name etched on the trophy on eight occasions, with their first win coming in 1970 as they beat Leeds United 2-1 in a replay at Manchester United’s Old Trafford.

The first attempt ended in a 2-2 draw, leading to the first time a final would be replayed. Wembley hosted the opening match, but was unavailable for the replay due to the pitch being in unfit condition.

How many times have Man City won the FA Cup?

City have lifted the cup on seven occasions, with their first win coming in 1904 with a 1-0 win over Bolton Wanderers.

When did Chelsea last win the FA Cup?

Chelsea’s last win came in 2022 and required penalties against Liverpool to seal the win.

The match ended 0-0 after extra time – the first final to end goalless since Sir Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United beat Arsene Wenger’s Arsenal on spot kicks in 2005.

When did Man City last win the FA Cup?

City last lifted the trophy in 2023, beating Manchester United 2-1.
In a final that would see a rerun between the cross-city rivals the following year, Ilkay Gundogan opened the scoring in the first minute and later restored his side’s lead five minutes after the break, after a Bruno Fernandes penalty had levelled the tie at the break.

Who has won the most FA Cup titles?

Arsenal are the record winners of the competition with 14 victories to their name. The first was in 1930 under the club’s famous manager, Herbert Chapman. The Gunners beat Huddersfield Town 2-0 in the final.

Their last win came in 2020 when they beat Chelsea 2-1. It was the first of three successive finals for the Blues, who tasted defeat the following year against Leicester City before the 2023 win against Liverpool.

Manchester United are the second-most successful side in the competition’s history with 13 wins. Chelsea’s eight victories are joint third on the list with Liverpool and Tottenham.

When was the first FA Cup final and who won it?

The first FA Cup final was staged in 1872 with Wanderers beating Royal Engineers 1-0 in a match staged at the Kennington Oval cricket ground, which remains the current home to the English county cricket club, Surrey.

Head-to-head

This will be the 181st meeting between the teams, with Chelsea winning 99 of the meetings and Manchester City winning 68 of the encounters.

The first match was played in 1907 in the old Division One of English football (now the Premier League), with the match ending in a 2-2 draw in London.

How many times have Man City and Chelsea met in the FA Cup?

This will be the 11th meeting between the sides in the FA Cup, with City winning six of the matches to Chelsea’s four wins.

The first cup meeting was in February, 1915, with Chelsea winning 2-1 in Manchester. City had to wait 33 years for a chance of cup revenge, which they took at first attempt with a 2-0 home win in January 1948.

This will be the side’s seventh meeting in the competition in the last 13 seasons.

Chelsea team news

Estevao Willian, Jamie Gittens and Jesse Derry are all out with injuries, but Robert Sanchez, Pedro Neto and Alejandro Garnacho have all trained in the build-up to the game as they attempt to shake off knocks.

Chelsea predicted starting lineup

Sanchez; Gusto, Fofana, Colwill, Hato; James, Caicedo; Palmer, Fernandez, Cucurella; Pedro

Manchester City team news

Guardiola made several changes to his starting lineup for their last outing in the Premier League game against Crystal Palace, ⁠with Erling Haaland playing no part.

The Norwegian will be leading City’s attack in Saturday’s showpiece, though, aiming to correct a remarkable statistic.

Haaland has scored 161 goals in 196 games for City in all competitions, yet has never found the net or made an assist in the 12 semifinals or finals in which he has ⁠featured.

Rodri remains an injury doubt with a groin issue.

Manchester City predicted starting lineup

Trafford; Nunes, Khusanov, Guehi, O’Reilly; Gonzalez, Bernardo; Semenyo, Cherki, Doku; Haaland

The Pentagon has outlined plans to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles over the next three years, as well as a similar number of relatively ‘cheap’ Blackbeard hypersonic missiles. The new framework deals are part of a broader strategy to dramatically bolster America’s stockpiles of standoff strike munitions and prime the industrial base to sustain those inventories going forward. This is all seen as especially critical for supporting the demands of future high-end fights, such as one in the Pacific against China, and doing so in a cost-effective manner.

“The Department of War has reached new framework agreements with a slate of disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators to aggressively expand the United States military’s strike capabilities,” the Pentagon declared in a press release today. “Agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, Leidos, and Zone 5 will launch the Low-Cost Containerized Missles [sic; Missiles] (LCCM) program, while a parallel agreement with Castelion advances an initiative to scale low-cost hypersonic solutions.”

“The new frameworks for LCCM will drive a fast-paced experimentation and assessment campaign that will culminate in a Military Utility Assessment by the sponsoring Service Components. Designed to move at the speed of commercial industry, the agreements establish the terms for future firm-fixed-price production contracts,” the release adds. “This effort positions the Department to procure over 10,000 low-cost cruise missiles across these portfolios in just three years, starting in 2027. The Department is creating a pathway for rapid and repeatable production of high-volume, lethal strike capabilities. The agreements include firm fixed material-unit costs for production lots in 2027 through 2029.”

The Pentagon has not yet explicitly defined what it means by “containerized” in this context, or how exactly these munitions might be fielded. However, there is already a clear focus on designs that could be fired from containerized launchers on land or loaded on ships. As TWZ has reported on many occasions, containerized systems offer immense operational flexibility, as well as the ability to blend in with standard shipping containers, creating targeting challenges for opponents. The LCCM munitions could be adapted for air launch, if they are not expected to also be employable in that mode already. Common munitions that could be employed from launch platforms across domains would offer additional benefits in terms of logistics and production, as well as helping to keep costs down through economies of scale.

Anduril has already announced that its contribution will be the surface-launched version of its Barracuda-500M design, a weapon that can also be air-launched. The company says it plans to deliver a minimum of 1,000 of these weapons to the U.S. military each year for the next three years.

Leidos says it will supply an LCCM design that leverages existing work on its air-launched AGM-190A Small Cruise Missile (SCM), also known as Black Arrow, originally developed for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The company plans to deliver 3,000 of these units under the new framework deal.

Leidos completes successful test launch of a Small Cruise Missile

“At approximately twice the size of the AGM-190A, the LCCM offers increased mission effectiveness and fuel capacity to maximize range. Building on the Leidos Small Cruise Missile’s heritage, the LCCM leverages key design features including a modular airframe and a common Weapon Open Systems Architecture (WOSA) to enable rapid integration, upgrades and mission adaptability,” Leidos’ press release adds. “The design also utilizes Leidos’ established supply chain and scalable production approach. While initially ground-launched, LCCM’s modular design could also support maritime platform integration and air-launched variants.”

At the time of writing, CoAspire and Zone 5, the latter of which was recently acquired by Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, do not appear to have issued press releases regarding the Pentagon’s LCCM announcement. However, both companies have already developed cruise missile designs under the U.S. Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program, which was focused first on delivering new, lower-cost air-launched strike capabilities to Ukraine. CoAspire’s ERAM design is called the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM), while one from Zone 5 is named Rusty Dagger.

RAACM Cruise Missile Video Long Range Flights Summer 2025 Cleared for Public Release

ERAM is also now feeding into the Air Force’s Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. That service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year had already laid out plans to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions over the next five years.

CoAspire has talked in the past about surface-launched versions of its RAACM and its new longer-range RAACM-ER. Zone 5 could similarly look to adapt its existing Rusty Dagger missile to meet the specific LCCM requirements.

“Concurrently, once Castelion achieves testing and validation, the Department will award a two-year multi-year procurement contract for a minimum of 500 Blackbeard missiles annually, with options to extend for up to five years,” the Pentagon’s press release today also notes. “To further encourage Castelion’s self-funded facility expansion, the Department is actively seeking the necessary authorizations and appropriations to purchase over 12,000 Blackbeard missiles over five years.”

Castelion has already been developing a ground-launched version of Blackbeard for the U.S. Army. Last month, the company formally announced that it had received a separate contract from the U.S. Navy for an air-launched version to arm that service’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

“The experimentation and assessment campaign for LCCM will be led by the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering, with the Army Program Acquisition Executive Fires serving as the transition partner and acquisition lead for procurement,” according to the Pentagon. “To kickstart this initiative, the Department will procure test missiles from all four LCCM companies starting in June 2026, laying the groundwork for the assessment phase of the program. These agreements were developed in close coordination with the United States Air Force Program Acquisition Executive Weapons, the Test Resource Management Center and multiple components across the War Department, including the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment.”

It should be stressed here that the problem set that LCCM and the tangential framework arrangement with Castelion are intended to address, that of a critical need for production of cost-effective strike munitions at scale, is not new. Expenditures of critical air-to-surface and surface-to-surface munitions, as well as anti-air interceptors, by the U.S. military, as well as its allies and partners, in conflicts in recent years have only underscored the vital need to bolster these inventories. Demand for stand-off munitions, in particular, would be far greater in any future high-end fight against a near-peer adversary like China. That is a scenario where American forces could easily find themselves tasked to prosecute tens of thousands, of targets, just in the opening phase.

Furthermore, existing munitions are often exquisite in design, and take months, or more often years, of lead time to produce. The Pentagon’s focus on “disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators,” rather than any of America’s long-established prime defense contractors, with its newly announced framework deals, is extremely significant in its own right. This is the latest example of a major shift away from awarding high-profile contracts to large legacy providers, helping to diversify the industrial base and promote competition. This also means moving away from companies accustomed to very long lead procurement and production arrangements.

The LCCM effort follows years of work in the pursuit of lower-cost stand-off munitions, especially by the U.S. Air Force. This is underscored by the fact that all of the companies named today already have relevant designs that they have been working on under contract to the U.S. military. This, in turn, has already led to an explosion in the market for munitions in this general category, many of which increasingly blur the line between long-range kamikaze drones, traditional cruise missiles, and decoys. It should also be noted that the new lower-cost munitions are not intended to replace existing exquisite designs, but instead to form a valuable high-low capability mix that offers a more cost-effective and flexible blend of options for striking targets.

The U.S. Army and U.S. Navy have also made significant investments already in containerized launchers capable of firing various types of longer-ranged missiles.

If the frameworks announced today produce the promised results, they could be instrumental in laying the foundation for the production of lower-cost strike munitions for years to come.

Update: 6:20 PM EST –

Zone 5 has now provided a statement regarding today’s announcement from the Pentagon.

“Zone 5 is proud to partner with the Department of War on the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles program to deliver affordable, scalable strike capacity to our warfighters needed to deter and defeat emerging threats,” Thomas Akers, CEO of Zone 5 Technologies, said. “This program reflects exactly where American defense innovation must go: faster development, on-demand production, and high-volume weapons that can be fielded at the pace of relevance. We are honored to be a part of this effort to expand the munitions industrial base and strengthen America’s arsenal.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Manchester City face Chelsea in the FA Cup final looking to add to their League Cup success and with eye on EPL title.

Pep Guardiola insists Manchester City have had a successful season, whether or not they win the Premier League title or the FA Cup final against Chelsea on Saturday.

Guardiola’s side will put their attempt to catch Premier League leaders Arsenal on hold as they head to Wembley for a fourth successive FA Cup final appearance.

City start every season with the Premier League and Champions League as their main targets, but they are on the verge of falling short in both.

Knocked out of the Champions League last 16 by Real Madrid in March, City will be five points behind Arsenal if the Gunners beat relegated Burnley at home on Monday.

Guardiola’s men can close the gap back to two points with victory at Bournemouth in their penultimate match of the season on Tuesday.

But Arsenal would then still be able to guarantee their first English title since 2004 by winning at Crystal Palace on May 24.

Having already won the League Cup by beating Arsenal, City have a chance for a domestic double this weekend.

However, Guardiola is adamant the campaign has been positive, no matter what happens at Wembley or in the title race.

“It depends on the trophies you lift. Sometimes you lift trophies and the season has been successful,” said Guardiola, who would only offer “we’ll see” when asked if Rodri would be fit to start in midfield.

“Sometimes, you lift and the truth is the season has been really, really bad.

“I said a few weeks ago this season has been good. Really, really good.”

After starting with Erling Haaland, Rayan Cherki and Jeremy Doku on the bench for Wednesday’s win against Crystal Palace, Guardiola is likely to field a full-strength team against Chelsea instead of prioritising the title fight.

“It is the final of the FA Cup. The message is there are two prestigious clubs at Wembley in the FA Cup final. Our fans make an incredible effort to come down to London. It is not cheap,” he said.

“We try to perform as much as possible to win. It is always the game plan.”

City have lost the last two FA Cup finals against Crystal Palace and Manchester United, who they had beaten in the 2023 showpiece.

“There’s excitement, of course. I hope we can do better than the last two times,” Guardiola said.

“Wembley is still a special place. Everything is so nice. The pitch is extraordinary. We are desperate to perform well.”

Ahead of his 24th trip to Wembley with City, Guardiola joked that he is “so disappointed” he has not had a stand named after him at the home of English football.

“So many times I have been there, at least a lounge or a box or something like that. Maybe I have to go 24 more times,” he said.

Guardiola has one year left on his City contract and is yet to sign a new deal amid speculation that he could end his decade at the Etihad Stadium once the current campaign is over.

Asked about reports that City’s fitness coach Lorenzo Buenaventura and goalkeeping coach Xabi Mancisidor are set to leave the club, Guardiola said with a smirk: “I extended the contract with them three more years,” before adding: “Nope”.

US President Donald Trump said he discussed US arms sales to Taiwan with Chinese leader Xi Jinping during talks in Beijing. Trump also said he is considering lifting sanctions on Chinese companies that buy Iranian oil.

Israel is moving to enhance the capabilities of its F-35I Adir fighter, funding a new external fuel tank upgrade that will boost the Israeli Air Force’s potential for conducting long-range strikes. The announcement comes after the jets saw extensive action striking targets in Iran during the campaigns this year and last. In the process, the fleet ran at a tempo of operations that raised questions about Israel’s ability to provide adequate refueling support. The new modification for the F-35I will help address that.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense confirmed today that the development and integration of the external fuel tanks on the F-35I will be carried out by Elbit Systems’ Cyclone subsidiary. Elbit says the deal is valued at over $34 million and will involve tanks based on an existing Cyclone design originally developed for the F-16.

“The new capability is expected to extend the aircraft’s operational range, reduce reliance on aerial refueling, and enhance operational flexibility across long-range missions,” the company added.

Based on the reference to the F-16, the announcement has been widely taken to refer to external drop tanks, but it remains possible, although improbable, that the F-35I is getting some kind of conformal, flush-mounted fuel tank. This could have a reduced impact on stealth and overall performance, but would likely also involve significant shape change and alterations to the airframe. Integrating and clearing tanks of this kind for operational service would be a complex and potentially very lengthy process, since they would disrupt the highly quantified low-observable moldline of the aircraft. However, Israel has experience in operating both F-15s and F-16s with conformal tanks.

Obviously, adding external fuel tanks of any kind to the stealthy F-35I will degrade its low-observable features. However, with the Israeli Air Force putting a premium on its ability to conduct long-range strikes, this is clearly seen as a worthwhile tradeoff. If the upgrade does involve drop tanks, they are also likely to be jettisonable, possibly together with their pylons, meaning they could be discarded before penetrating a hostile air defense system, for example. This would only be the case on extremely high-risk long-range missions, and could not be sustained for long campaigns. They could also be dropped when under threat, giving the F-35I back critical agility and providing a lower radar signature.

There are also means of mitigating the penalty that drop tanks impose on a stealth aircraft. This is best evidenced by the new fuel tanks for the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor, which are seen as a critical addition to ensure that the fighter is able to better cover the vast distances involved in a potential future conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

The new faceted, low-drag tanks for the F-22, like the older ones, can be jettisoned from the jet to restore the full scope of its performance and further reduce its radar cross-section. However, Lockheed Martin says it expects the Raptor to go into direct combat, at least in some scenarios, with the tanks fitted.

There have also been steady signals that some kind of range extension was in the works for the Israeli F-35I.

Back in 2021, a cryptic announcement from Lockheed Martin confirmed that the company was working with an unnamed foreign buyer to develop a modification of the F-35 to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in engineering support work. An Israeli fuel-carriage enhancement was a possibility, as you can read more about this here.

Then, in 2022, separate reports emerged suggesting that Israel had developed an unspecified means of extending the range of its F-35Is, allegedly providing them with enough reach to hit targets in Iran without needing aerial refueling. The 2022 reports might have involved a prototype version of the tanks mentioned in the announcement today, some other kind of external fuel carriage, or they might have been erroneous.

More recently, just before the latest campaign against Iran, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter provided what was likely the first official confirmation that range-extending fuel tanks for the F-35I are already in service. In an interview in mid-February, he stated: “We developed fuel tanks that extend the aircraft’s range without compromising stealth.” Exactly how this was achieved was not revealed, but even small internal tanks may be a possibility, while also presenting a serious engineering challenge.

In the United States, range-extending external fuel tanks for the F-35 also re-emerged in 2025 as part of the ongoing Block 4 modernization effort for those aircraft, years after a requirement for streamlined drop tanks was eliminated. The Pentagon confirmed it will explore the feasibility of all forms of external fuel tanks, including underwing tanks, for all three variants of the F-35.

Overall, the idea of integrating external fuel tanks on the F-35 is far from new. Back in 2019, TWZ reported on how Lockheed Martin was looking at adding two 600-gallon drop tanks under the F-35’s wings as part of a larger range-extension study. This would have increased total fuel capacity by around 40 percent. Prior to that, studies had looked at adding smaller 480- and 460-gallon tanks.

Of these, the original 480-gallon drop tank was abandoned after aerodynamic and stores separation issues emerged. The subsequent 460-gallon design was also not ultimately pursued, and it was found that additional drag also eroded the range increase.

It is notable that Aviation Week previously reported that Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Cyclone had worked on both a conformal tank design for the F-35I and the 600-gallon drop tank.

As an Israeli-specific version of the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, the Adir already incorporates some significant Israeli-developed systems. Many of these have been tested on a specially outfitted one-off version of the aircraft, which arrived in the country in 2020. Israeli additions include electronic warfare systems and also weaponry. The F-35I fleet is expected to be armed with the Rafael SPICE precision-guided bomb, but may eventually include air-to-air missiles and other weapons, too.

At the same time, the F-35’s inboard stores hardpoints are still plumbed for the carriage of external fuel tanks, suggesting that introducing this capability, including on the Israeli-specific F-35I variant, might not be too complicated.

The Israeli requirement for the F-35I to be less reliant on aerial refueling is especially important. The Israeli Air Force currently operates a fleet of only around seven aging Boeing 707 tankers. The overreliance on these aging tankers for long-range missions has led to previous speculation that the Israeli Air Force has relied upon U.S. Air Force refueling support when it has gone into combat. The Pentagon denied this.

At the same time, a strike package that doesn’t require tanker support is in some ways more flexible and more survivable. Moreover, the survivability of traditional refueling jets in or near contested airspace is becoming a growing concern. Meanwhile, Israel is now starting to modernize its tanker fleet, with the first of its more modern KC-46s having begun flight trials earlier this month.

Israel has also previously shown that it is willing to degrade the stealth characteristics of the F-35I to increase its strike capacity. The type has been seen flying strike sorties with external ordnance, demonstrating the F-35’s so-called ‘beast mode,’ featuring loads on underwing pylons.

Israel has repeatedly used its F-35Is in strikes on targets both closer to Israel and much further afield. In 2018, it became the first operator to use the jet on offensive operations. Meanwhile, it has also recorded success in aerial combat against hostile drones.

Last year, the Adir was involved in strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. There were reports that Israeli fighters often landed on fumes after their initial sorties during this conflict. With these jets operating to the edge of their endurance, fuel starvation was a serious threat, and it is perhaps surprising that none were lost. External drop tanks were also found in multiple locations in eastern Iraq, pointing to their use to maximize long-range sortie rates early in the conflict.

The F-35I also played an important role in striking Iranian targets during the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign launched at the end of February this year.

The Israeli effort against Iran, Operation Lion’s Roar, also saw an Israeli Adir claim the first aerial victory for any F-35 against a crewed aircraft. On March 4, in an incident that you can read more about here, an F-35I brought down an Iranian Yak-130 Mitten combat trainer over Tehran.

The importance of the F-35I to Israel has also been demonstrated by the country’s successively adding to its orders for the type.

Earlier this month, it was confirmed that the Israeli Air Force is set to receive a fourth F-35I squadron, bolstering its fighter inventory with another 25 of the aircraft.

In 2023, Israel opted to buy a third squadron of F-35Is, covering 25 more jets. This batch is scheduled to be delivered starting in 2028.

Once all four squadrons are stood up, Israel will have a total of 100 F-35Is.

Before long, we are likely to see at least some of these jets sporting the long-range upgrade announced today. At that point, the precise nature of these external fuel tanks will finally be revealed.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Navy’s near-total abandonment of surface combatants with nuclear propulsion after the end of the Cold War is “one of the largest mistakes” it’s ever made, according to the service’s top officer. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle made this remark today while voicing support for the recently announced decision that the future Trump class battleships will be nuclear-powered. He also explicitly highlighted challenges the Navy has faced when it comes to fueling conventionally-powered ships taking part in operations against Iran, something TWZ recently reported on in detail.

Adm. Caudle, as well as Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Eric Smith, testified before members of the House Armed Services Committee today. The focus of the hearing was on the Department of the Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. The Navy disclosed that it had decided the Trump class warships will feature nuclear propulsion in its latest long-term shipbuilding plan, which was released on Monday.

“I know there have been many conversations and questions over the past few days regarding the news that the Trump class battleship will be nuclear powered. And, as you know, Virginia has a long history of nuclear shipbuilding. What specific design plans can you share at this point and can [you] speak to how nuclear power would enable this system to be successful?” Rep. John McGuire, a Virginia Republican and former U.S. Navy SEAL, asked Adm. Caudle directly.

“Sir, we walked away from surface nuclear power decades ago, and that was one of the largest mistakes the Navy ever did, and we’re bringing it back,” the Chief of Naval Operations said in response. “We need nuclear-powered surface ships to sustain combat operations with our nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.”

Though a major operator of nuclear-powered submarines, the Navy’s aircraft carriers are currently its only nuclear-powered surface ships. The service previously had a mixture of nuclear-powered surface combatants. This included three one-of-a-kind ships, the cruiser USS Long Beach, the destroyer USS Truxtun (later recategorized as a cruiser), and the frigate USS Bainbridge. There were also two California class and four Virginia class cruisers, the latter not to be confused with the subsequent Virginia class of attack submarines. All of these ships entered service in the 1960s and 1970s. Expensive and complex to operate compared to similar conventionally-powered ships, they were all retired in the 1990s as part of post-Cold War drawdowns across the U.S. military.

As Caudle highlighted, the central benefit of nuclear propulsion is functionally unlimited range since naval reactors can operate for decades without needing to be refueled. In the context of modern ships packed with ever-more advanced weapons and other systems, it can also offer an important boost in onboard power generation. As noted, this does come at a cost. Today, Russia is the only country anywhere in the world with a nuclear-powered surface combatant, the Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov. In terms of nuclear-powered surface naval ships of any kind, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is the only other example. Russia also has several nuclear-powered icebreakers, but these are operated by the state-run nuclear company Rosatom.

“Imagine what that would have looked like in the Arabian Gulf if I’d had a nuclear-powered battleship there to give the air and defense and fires [sic] power that it could sustain – rotate ships that roll, that need gasoline around it,” Caudle continued today in his response to Rep. McGuire’s question. “So the imperative for this is crucial to develop that level of payload capacity.”

Navy officials have already acknowledged that Iranian attacks on friendly countries in the Middle East in the course of recent operations significantly disrupted established logistics chains. In particular, this impacted how the service delivered fuel to conventionally-powered warships in the region, as you can read more about here.

Threats to fuel supplies would be something the Navy would have to take into account in any future conflict, especially a high-end fight against China across the broad expanses of the Pacific. There are other logistics requirements that nuclear ships do still have in common with their conventionally-powered counterparts, as well, such as food for the crew and fuel for any embarked aircraft. Even with nuclear propulsion, maintenance and other requirements mean that ships cannot stay at sea indefinitely.

“We intend to, with all we can do, use pull-through technologies, [including] things from that we’ve worked on with DDG(X),” the Navy’s top officer added, speaking about the plans for the Trump class specifically. “It will have the SPY-6 radar. It will have the Baseline 10 Aegis combat system. It will pull through, of course, the A1B Ford class reactor plant and all the design that goes with that. The only thing inherently new to it will be the actual hull itself, and so most of the fixtures in it. And I would say the directed energy [weapons] and up gunning, that will also be new.”

Caudle had first shared the A1B reactor detail at another budget-related hearing earlier this week. It was previously known that the Trump class battleship program would leverage prior work done in relation to the now-defunct DDG(X) next-generation destroyer.

Multiple types of laser-directed energy weapons, as well as an electromagnetic railgun, are core elements of the planned armament package on the future Trump class warships. They are also set to be loaded with a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, in several large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays, and have a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns.

The Navy has previously stated that the battleships, now also referred to as BBGNs, will displace approximately 35,000 tons. This is very roughly three times that of the newest Flight III subvariant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. The Trump class vessels are expected to be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots, as well.

It is worth noting here that Caudle’s comments today represent a huge change in tone from how he had previously talked about the prospect of nuclear propulsion for the Trump class. Speaking to the press at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) main annual symposium back in January, he had notably appeared to downplay the possibility.

“I think it’s a logical question to think, hey, here’s a big capital ship. It’s going to be carrying a lot of load, you know, in places that we don’t necessarily need a strike enforcement air wing as a large ship there that’s in command of a flotilla,” he said at that time. “Wouldn’t it be logical to be nuclear powered? And that brings a tail to the construction of that that [sic] just really fell outside the scope of what we want to do on the speed to get this thing in the water. And so what you trade off with, with persistency that only nuclear power can do, is you end up having, you know, the ability to go produce that — it pushes the battleship into a timeframe that just didn’t meet the operational need of the ship.”

Just last month, former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had also said making the Trump class ships nuclear-powered was unlikely, citing the need to balance cost and complexity against aggressive schedule demands. Phelan was fired unexpectedly just two days after making those comments. There have been reports that disagreements over plans for the battleships, specifically, as well as other friction within the Trump administration, factored into his dismissal.

“He’s a very good man. I really liked him, but he had some conflict with, not necessarily with [Secretary] Pete [Hegseth], but with some other[s],” President Trump said about Phelan while speaking to the press on April 23. “He’s a hard charger, and he had some conflicts with some other people, mostly as to building and buying new ships. I’m very aggressive in the new shipbuilding.”

As it stands now, the Navy still does not expect to order the first Trump class battleship until Fiscal Year 2028 and or see that ship enter service before Fiscal Year 2036. The first example, at least, currently has an estimated unit cost of around $17 billion, which is considerably more than the projected price tag of any of the next four Ford class aircraft carriers.

Even before the nuclear propulsion decision was announced, TWZ had raised numerous questions about the plans for these warships, including their exact operational utility, as well as the costs and risks involved. Caudle’s comments today about leveraging pull-through notwithstanding, nuclear-powered ships are inherently complex and expensive, which are the tradeoffs for the aforementioned boost in capability. A specialized workforce and supply chains are required to build such vessels. Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only yard in the United States currently building surface ships with nuclear propulsion, in the form of new Ford class carriers, all of which have suffered delays.

Enterprise (CVN 80) Construction Update

There are two more yards in the country that make nuclear-powered submarines, both of which are already under strain to meet Navy demands. There is a particular need to keep on schedule with the new Columbia class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines to avoid any gap in capacity when it comes to the sea leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad. Additional plans now to supply Virginia class submarines to the Royal Australian Navy, which Adm. Caudle said today he vehemently supports, can only further add to that workload.

The U.S. naval shipbuilding industry, collectively, has other demands to keep churning out conventionally-powered warships like Arleigh Burke class destroyers, as well. This is an industry that has contracted to a worrisome degree, overall, since the end of the Cold War, especially when compared to the completely opposite trend that has been observed in China. Efforts to reinvigorate America’s shipyards, and the continued challenges the Navy is facing in doing so, were key points of discussion at today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing.

Adm. Caudle’s broad statement of support today for a nuclear-powered surface Navy raises the additional question now of whether the service might be interested in expanding this capability beyond the Trump class. Some of the Navy’s prior nuclear-powered surface combatants were derived from conventionally-powered designs. At the same time, any such decision would run up against the same shipbuilding capacity and other questions facing the new battleships.

Just when it comes to the Trump class, the plans for the ships could easily still evolve further, or even come to an end entirely. The timeline laid out now has the battleship program continuing well into the next presidential administration, where the fortunes of a new nuclear-powered surface navy could change dramatically.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com