news

Fulham have signed Gonzalo Garcia and Cesar Palacios from Real Madrid on five-year deals.

Garcia, 22, made 39 appearances for the Spanish giants last term, scoring eight goals in all competitions.

The forward, who won his first cap for Spain in June, will reunite with new Fulham manager Alvaro Arbeloa, for a reported fee of around £34m, with the pair having worked together at the Bernabeu.

“I’m very grateful, very happy to be here,” Garcia said.

“I have to thank the board and Arbeloa for the trust they’ve put in me, and I’m very, very excited to start.”

The highly rated striker, joint-top scorer at the Club World Cup last summer, will be joined at Craven Cottage by former Real team-mate Palacios.

The 21-year-old attacking midfielder also arrives on a contract that runs until the summer of 2031, although the club has the option to extend the agreements for both players by a further 12 months.

Palacios made five appearances for Real’s senior side – all from the substitutes bench – and has played for Spain at under-20 level.

Mauricio Pochettino has agreed to extend his tenure as coach of the United States men’s soccer team for another four years through the 2030 World Cup. The 54-year-old Argentinian took the US to the round of 16 at this year’s finals.

Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso – Captain Ibrahim Traore, a 38-year-old army officer who seized power in a 2022 coup, has become one of Africa’s most recognisable leaders, hailed by supporters as a symbol of sovereignty and resistance to foreign influence.

But while his image has grown across the continent, his rule has also been marked by increasing restrictions on political activity, persistent insecurity and questions over whether his message of national renewal can translate into lasting change.

In April, Traore told Burkinabe people to “forget about democracy”, arguing that the country was in a revolutionary phase rather than a democratic one. The remark came after his government extended the military-led transition and dissolved political parties, signalling that a return to civilian rule was no longer an immediate priority.

The contrast between Traore’s growing international reputation and the realities inside Burkina Faso has become one of the defining questions of his presidency.

Burkina Faso has been at the centre of the Sahel’s security crisis for nearly a decade, with armed groups linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) expanding across large parts of the country and overwhelming successive governments.

Why has Traore become so popular?

Traore’s appeal extends well beyond Burkina Faso because he has tapped into wider frustration across parts of Africa over foreign military intervention, economic dependence and political elites seen as disconnected from citizens.

Since taking power in a coup in September 2022, he has expelled French troops, strengthened ties with Russia, promoted local industry and agriculture, and presented economic self-reliance as a national priority. His government has joined other military-led governments in the Sahel region moving away from traditional Western security partnerships.

His speeches frequently invoke the legacy of former revolutionary leader Thomas Sankara, who ruled Burkina Faso from 1983 until his assassination in 1987 and who remains a symbol of anti-imperialism and self-reliance across Africa.

Supporters argue that Traore has restored national pride and challenged a system in which Burkina Faso remained politically and economically dependent on external powers.

“What’s happening in Burkina Faso is a genuine decoupling of legitimacy from performance,” Kabir Adamu, a security analyst and founder of Beacon Consulting Limited in Nigeria, told Al Jazeera. “Traore has restructured the security architecture around sovereignty rather than efficacy.”

Adamu said measures such as the creation of the Volunteers for the Defence of the Homeland, Burkina Faso’s withdrawal from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and closer security ties with Russia have resonated with a population exhausted by years of foreign-backed military efforts that failed to stop the spread of armed groups.

A Burkinabe diplomat based in Ghana, who requested anonymity because they were not authorised to speak publicly, said Traore’s appeal reflects a desire among some citizens for a leader who appears less influenced by external powers.

“I have followed the speeches of Western leaders for decades,” the diplomat told Al Jazeera. “Traore is the first leader in years who looks like he isn’t reading from their script.”

The diplomat said some supporters view criticism from Western governments as evidence that Burkina Faso’s attempt to pursue a more independent path challenges established relationships.

What has changed under his government?

Traore has sought to turn his sovereignty message into policy, with his government prioritising local production, state control of strategic sectors and reduced dependence on foreign partners.

Officials say Burkina Faso has increased investment in agriculture, particularly in staple crops such as rice and maize, while encouraging local manufacturing and processing industries. The government has also promoted infrastructure projects and sought greater national involvement in strategic economic sectors.

Supporters argue that these measures are laying the foundations for greater economic independence and ensuring that national resources are directed towards domestic development rather than external interests.

The government has also expanded the Volunteers for the Defence of the Homeland programme, a government-backed civilian force created to support the military in areas where the state has struggled to maintain security.

Has security improved?

This remains the central test of Traore’s presidency.

He came to power promising to reverse the deterioration in security that had plagued Burkina Faso for years. Successive governments struggled to contain armed groups linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) that expanded across the Sahel following instability in neighbouring Mali.

Since 2022, the military has intensified operations across the country and repeatedly announced the recapture of towns and strategic positions. Government officials say security has improved in several areas and that the state has regained ground previously controlled by armed groups.

“Traore’s presidency is ultimately judged by whether security has improved,” Mustapha Bature Sallama told Al Jazeera. He is a private investigator and security and intelligence specialist from Ghana who is based near the Ghana–Burkina Faso border.

Sallama said Burkina Faso continues to face serious threats from armed groups linked to Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), al-Qaeda’s affiliate in the Sahel, and ISIL’s West Africa Province (ISWAP), with millions of people requiring humanitarian assistance, more than two million displaced and limited independent verification of official security claims.

He added that Burkina Faso and Ghana maintain intelligence cooperation to monitor cross-border threats and prevent the spread of armed group violence into the region.

Despite government claims of progress, Burkina Faso remains one of the countries most affected by armed group violence. Attacks continue across multiple regions, civilians are regularly killed and humanitarian organisations report that millions of people require assistance.

More than two million people remain displaced and access to many affected areas is limited. Independent verification of military claims has also become increasingly difficult as access for journalists, researchers and humanitarian groups has narrowed.

What about political freedoms?

Traore’s government has increasingly moved beyond a military transition towards a broader consolidation of power.

In January, authorities dissolved political parties and suspended political activities, arguing that they fuelled division during a period of national crisis. The move followed an earlier extension of the military transition, effectively postponing a return to electoral politics.

The tightening of state control has also extended beyond politics. Last month, Traore publicly declared that “the battle has begun” against Muslim scholars he accused of promoting religious extremism, following the adoption of a new Religious Freedoms Law and the arrest of several prominent Sunni clerics.

The confrontation was significant because many Muslim leaders had previously been viewed as part of Traore’s support base. Critics warned that the measures risked weakening religious independence and freedom of expression, while authorities argued that extraordinary steps were necessary during a national security emergency.

Rights groups have also raised concerns over restrictions affecting political parties, journalists and civil society organisations.

So does the record match the reputation?

Traore’s rise has been built on a powerful message: that Burkina Faso should have greater control over its security, resources and political direction.

For many supporters, he represents a generation of African leaders willing to challenge former colonial powers, reject Western security frameworks and demand greater control over national resources. In a region where frustration with foreign intervention has been growing, that message has resonated strongly.

But the strength of Traore’s image has also created a difficult test: whether symbolic victories can translate into improvements in people’s daily lives.

If the measure is sovereignty, political messaging and the ability to inspire supporters, Traore has achieved remarkable influence in a short period and become one of Africa’s most recognisable political figures.

If the measure is security, humanitarian conditions and political freedoms inside Burkina Faso, the picture is far more complicated. Armed violence continues, displacement remains widespread and questions remain over whether military rule can deliver lasting stability.

Traore has proved highly effective at turning sovereignty into a powerful political message. The question now is whether that message can deliver the security and justice that many Burkinabe people expect.

“We are proud to see a leader who stands up to the West and wears our traditional clothes. That pride is real,” a youth leader in Ouagadougou, who requested anonymity because of concerns for their safety, told Al Jazeera.

“But pride doesn’t feed a family, and it doesn’t protect a village. We want Captain Traore to be a symbol of strength, but we also need him to be a symbol of safety and justice here at home.”

Netanyahu and board director Maldenov meet amid tensions over Gaza disarmament roadmap and recent Israeli attacks.

The US-led Board of Peace has said that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will only take place after the disarmament of Hamas is complete, following a meeting between the body’s director, Nickolay Mladenov, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The meeting on Monday in West Jerusalem came as Israeli politicians signalled their displeasure with the deal, announced by US President Donald Trump last Thursday.

“Contrary to inaccurate reports, we note that the withdrawal of the [Israeli military] beyond the Yellow Line will take place only once decommissioning is complete, as Hamas committed to the mediators,” the Board of Peace, established by Trump in January to oversee the administration of Gaza after Israel’s genocidal war, said. “This applies to light weapons, heavy weapons, and the tunnels alike.”

The “Yellow Line” is the term used to refer to the demarcation line behind which Israeli forces continue to base themselves in Gaza.

“The goal is clear and is not in question: the complete decommissioning of weapons in the Strip and the transition away from rule by the gun to civilian governance,” the Board of Peace added in a social media post after the meeting.

For its part, Hamas has insisted that the deal will not be implemented unless Israel implements its part of the agreement.

During the talks, Mladenov urged Netanyahu to stop attacks on Gaza, two people familiar with the meeting told The Associated Press news agency. Israel has steadfastly refused to do so, despite an October 2025 “ceasefire”, since which it has killed more than 1,200 Palestinians, including more than 36 after the disarmament deal was announced.

Israel has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza since its genocidal war began in October 2023.

Before the meeting, Netanyahu’s office said that the version of the agreement made public “does not reflect Israel’s positions”, and that its concerns had been shared with the US.

Members of the Israeli prime minister’s far-right government have already signalled that they want to backtrack on the deal.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said the agreement was “completely different” to the one the Israeli government had approved, and demanded a new vote “immediately”.

Israel has repeatedly flouted agreements and has been accused of being unwilling to make concessions during negotiations. The latest reversal comes despite a push from Trump to secure a deal, but months ahead of an Israeli election in which the government is under pressure from its base to demonstrate it has achieved total victory in Gaza.

Mladenov criticised the strikes over the weekend, without directly naming Israel. “Achieving a lasting peace is hard but achievable if everyone makes their best efforts,” he wrote.

Egypt, Qatar, and Turkiye, which mediated the disarmament deal, issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s targeting of civilians and healthcare facilities as a “flagrant violation of international law”.

Hamas said it and other Palestinian factions remained committed to the completion of the second phase of the ceasefire, and were awaiting a clear, official response from Mladenov and the mediators.

Breast cancer is a leading cause of death in women under 50 in the UK.

About one in seven women develop breast cancer in their lifetime, yet only 5-10% of cases are linked to inherited genes.

Most cases – 96% – are in women over 40, while 25% are in women over 75.

Men can get breast cancer too, with about 420 new cases every year in the UK.

In England, guidance from Nice recommends GPs ask about family history if a woman is worried that she might have a higher risk of breast cancer, and sometimes if they are over 35 and using an oral contraceptive pill or considering taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

Hormones have been linked to a slightly increased risk of breast cancer, although larger risk factors include alcohol intake and obesity.

The study, by a team from Cambridge University and the Institute of Cancer Research, looks at how to predict breast cancer risk in younger women.

They used a risk calculator called Boadicea that combines factors such as family history, lifestyle, reproductive history and genetic information to give a risk score.

If all women under 50 were to have this done, they estimate about a quarter (26.5%) would be categorised as at above-average risk and referred for further assessment.

This would include a third of women under 50 (34.8%) who develop breast cancer within 10 years.

By comparison, the current Nice criteria would result in 1.4% of women under 50 being referred for further assessment, which would include just 4.4% of those women who develop breast cancer.

A main reason for the disparity, the researchers say, is because three-quarters of women (73%) under 50 who develop breast cancer within a decade have no family history of breast cancer – the key criterion in the Nice guidelines.

The states claim the new levies are a pretext to re-impose tariffs that were ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court.

A group of 25 Democratic-led states has sued Donald Trump’s administration over its latest tariffs, claiming that the US president has exceeded his legal authority to implement the levies.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade on Monday, targets new double-digit tariffs imposed on 60 trading partners last month over allegations they were not doing enough to stop the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

These latest tariffs took effect just as the clock ran out on temporary tariffs that Trump had turned to after the Supreme Court struck down his flagship “liberation day” levies in a February ruling.

“After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The states that sued over the new tariffs, including Oregon and New York, all have Democratic attorneys general or governors.

In response, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the levies were an appropriate and legal response to unfair trade practices in other nations.

“A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens US commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed,” Desai said.

Revive US manufacturing

Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive US manufacturing, last year overturned decades of Washington policy that favoured lower tariffs and ever-freer trade.

Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country, saying the US’s longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.

But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorise tariffs. The decision forced the administration to establish a refund process for importers who had paid the tariffs.

Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10 percent worldwide tariffs, but they expired at midnight on July 24.

The latest round of global tariffs was imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, meant to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices by other nations. The tariffs imposed in July affect more than 99 percent of US imports.

The states’ complaint, like two previous lawsuits filed by small businesses over the tariffs, argued that the new tariffs used “forced labor” as a pretext to re-impose the tariffs that had already been ruled illegal in court. They said that a sweeping tax on imports would do nothing to address the real problems of forced labour around the world.

In a separate statement, Lissie Harper, PC Harper’s widow, said it was “disgusting” that his killers could be eligible for early release.

She said she was “beyond appalled and bristling with anger to hear that Andrew’s killers are soon to be free to roam the streets”.

Thames Valley Police Chief Constable Jason Hogg said the decision not to exclude them was “demoralising for all police officers”.

The Sentencing Act was amended in January, with the eligibility for early release based on the length of fixed sentence, rather than the type of offence.

The act already excluded some of the most serious and dangerous offenders, such as murderers serving life sentences or those on extended sentences.

But last month, Burnham paused the plans after backlash from survivors. The scheme will now restart in October.

Announcing the changes on Monday, he said: “I fully understand the anger, anxiety and distress that’s been caused. I’ve heard that loud and clear.”

Under the revised plans, rape and child sexual offences will now also be excluded from early release.

The government also announced an extra £10 million will go to front-line victim support services, including a new national helpline.

This move does not require changes to the existing legislation before October, the government said, though it may make amendments in the future to exclude certain offenders from being released.

Offenders of other crimes serving longer sentences of four years or more will be eligible for release halfway through their sentences rather than two-thirds as had previously been the case.

Those serving less serious sentences could be freed after a third of their time, rather than half.

The changes are due to be phased in, beginning with prisoners serving sentences of less than 575 days, going up to inmates jailed for 12 years or more being eligible for early release in June 2027.

The “presumption” will be that offenders are tagged and will face longer periods of supervision and tough new rules including “restriction zones”, Burnham said.

The number of individuals released each time will depend on the make-up of the prison population, which the government says will evolve between now and implementation.

United States President Donald Trump has lambasted the nation’s biggest oil and gas giants as Houston, Texas-based Chevron reported record earnings while consumers struggle with soaring petrol prices.

“I don’t like it,” Trump told reporters on Monday in reference to the blockbuster second-quarter earnings, as his war on Iran has kept oil prices high for months.

“Chevron, too much money. ExxonMobil, too much. Too much money.”

Trump’s comments came on the heels of an interview Chevron CEO Mike Wirth gave on the Fox News programme Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. Writing on his Truth Social platform, the US president berated Wirth for not crediting his administration’s efforts to help the oil industry.

“The only thing he [Wirth] conveniently forgot to mention is that, without the genius, foresight, strength, and stability of the TRUMP Administration, the Oil Industry, and our Country itself, would be DEAD!”

Chevron reported its highest quarterly profits in six years on Friday. Adjusted earnings per share came to $6.06, or $12bn, as tensions between the US and Iran strained global oil supply chains in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, where roughly one-fifth of the world’s energy supply travelled through before the war, sending prices soaring.

Chevron rewarded its employees. Wirth praised them for their work and said in an email that most workers would receive a bonus equivalent to half their monthly base pay, the Reuters news agency reported, citing an internal email.

Al Jazeera has not been able to independently confirm Reuters’ reporting.

Chevron’s strong earnings come as the company is less reliant on Middle Eastern production operations than its competitors, allowing it to reap the benefits of higher global oil prices during the quarter. Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil prices, was 23 percent higher than in the first three months of the year.

“Being less dependent on the Strait of Hormuz is definitely helping them. It’s also the refining they’re able to do here. The fact that Chevron has less than 5 percent exposure there gives it some protection,” Bill Drolet, executive director, mergers & acquisitions at The Post Oak Group investment bank, told Al Jazeera.

“More than 70 percent of Chevron’s production is concentrated in America, and that’s where it’s making its biggest margins right now.”

Chevron also benefitted from the president’s move to open up oil production in Venezuela after US special forces abducted the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, in January. Chevron had stayed on in the South American nation even after former President Hugo Chavez nationalised oil production.

Chevron did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Competitors also performed well. ExxonMobil on Friday posted its best quarterly profits in four years, but they fell short of analysts’ expectations. Earnings raked in $9.2bn.

Exxon did not respond to a request for comment.

On Thursday, Valero Energy reported its highest ever second-quarter profit, with net income coming in at $3.7bn as US refiners reap the benefits of tensions choking oil production across the Middle East.

But those benefits have not reached consumers, who are feeling the strain at the petrol pump. Petrol prices are above $4 a gallon (3.78 litres) across the US. The average price for a gallon of petrol is $4.09, down from $4.11 this time last week, but up from $3.82 a month ago, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices.

By comparison, when the US and Israel first struck Iran in late February, the average price was $2.98.

An analysis from Bank of America published in April showed consumers spending as much as 4.2 percent of their income on petrol in March, up from 3.9 percent in 2019. Lower-income earners are hit much harder, with more than 10 percent of households spending more than 10 percent of their monthly income on petrol.

This comes as pressure on the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve continues. The reserves hit their lowest level since 1983 this week, according to the Department of Energy. They fell by 2.8 million barrels over the week to 304.8 million barrels.

Political pushback

The condemnation of the oil industry has come from across the political spectrum.

“A decent industry would say, ‘this was money we didn’t earn, it’s a windfall we get from our cartel pricing scheme.’ Not these corrupt, greedy and grasping rogues,” Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island wrote in a post on X on Sunday.

But lowering prices might not be as easy. Beyond pressure from consumers, companies across the corporate United States are beholden to a concept called shareholder supremacy. This means that while lowering prices might be in the best interest of pinched consumers, it may not be possible given the legal framework and companies’ fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

“They’ve [oil companies] got shareholders they’re responsible for. They could reduce share buybacks or dividend payouts, but right now, I don’t see oil companies doing much,” Post Oak Group’s Drolet said.

He said if he were advising a member of Congress or the president, providing relief to consumers might be easiest by suspending the so-called gas tax, which varies by state. In Texas, for example, the gas tax accounts for 20 cents per gallon, while in California, it is 63 cents per gallon.

“From a political standpoint, the best thing our government can do is suspend gas taxes, especially in California. If they put a temporary hold on taxes, that would help everybody get through this challenging time.”

Al Jazeera asked the White House if that policy is on the table, but the press office did not respond.

Heading into the US midterm elections, cost of living remains among the highest concerns for consumers. In a Washington Post/Ipsos poll last month, 54 percent of respondents said that high prices and the economy were a chief concern heading into November.

“They see the price of fuel and net profit for Exxon and Chevron and feel that they are abusing US consumers, especially as US consumers have access to the correct fuel, whereas other areas around the world have shortages [such as Germany, Philippines],” Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at American University, told Al Jazeera.

“The reality is that as the war [On Iran] progresses, the impacts of the lack of supply will create full price and supply shocks.”

Amid Trump’s comments, Chevron’s stock is on the downturn in midday trading, tumbling more than 2 percent from the market open. However, it is up more than 1.1 percent over the last five days.

ExxonMobil is down 0.5 percent for the day and 0.1 percent over the last five days.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez says 6,125 people confirmed dead as government response faces scrutiny.

The Venezuelan government has announced that the confirmed death toll from a pair of heavy earthquakes that struck the country in June has risen to 6,125 people.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez announced the updated figures on Monday, stating in a post shared on the Telegram messaging app that 61,000 people had been treated in hospitals.

The announcement comes as the Venezuelan government, headed by interim President Delcy Rodriguez, faces mounting criticism for shortcomings in the government’s response to the deadly earthquakes.

As Venezuelans searched for missing friends and loved ones in the aftermath of the quakes, some criticised the government and military forces for their perceived failure to do enough to help residents.

The magnitude 7.2 and 7.5 earthquakes occurred on June 24, with the coastal state of La Guaira and the national capital, Caracas, hit the hardest.

Rodriguez said that 16.5 percent of debris from the tremors has been removed, but questions have continued about the country’s path to recovery.

A report from the World Bank has placed the physical damage from the earthquakes at nearly $20bn. Despite pledges of support from countries around the world in the days following the earthquake, it remains unclear where such funds might come from.

The United States has maintained a high degree of control over Venezuela since abducting former President Nicolas Maduro in a military raid in January, and some US economic sanctions from Maduro’s tenure in office remain in place. Advocates have called for the remaining sanctions to be loosened or cancelled to help facilitate the flow of funds into Venezuela.

Alex Eala rallies past top seed Jessica Pegula in a two-day, rain-hit final, while Taylor Fritz beats teen Rafael Jodar.

Alexandra Eala made history as the first player from the Philippines to win a WTA Tour-level singles title, defeating top seed Jessica Pegula at the Mubadala DC Open before Taylor Fritz claimed the men’s crown.

The 21-year-old Eala rallied to beat world number three Pegula 4-6, 6-4, 6-0 in a weather-disrupted women’s final that spanned two days, ending on Monday.

Rain had suspended play on Sunday with Pegula leading by a set but trailing 2-1 in the second. Upon Monday’s resumption, Eala dominated, winning 10 of the final 13 games with aggressive baseline play and a formidable serve to seal her breakthrough victory.

“I feel so much love. My first chance at a title, knowing it won’t be the last, and already having achieved this milestone for my career,” Eala said on the court after lifting the trophy in front of a vocal contingent of supporters. “I knew whatever happened after this match would have already been a win for me.”

Pegula, who previously won the DC Open in 2019, praised the young Filipina’s remarkable campaign.

“To see how far you’ve come over the last couple of years… to see the amazing fans that follow you every place you go, it’s not fun to play against, but I think it’s amazing,” Pegula told Eala during the trophy presentation.

In the men’s final, American Taylor Fritz earned his 11th career ATP title by defeating 19-year-old Spanish rising star Rafael Jodar 7-6(2), 6-4.

Fritz, returning to peak form following a knee injury that sidelined him earlier this season, produced a steady performance behind his serve, winning 81 percent of his first-serve points.

The 28-year-old American edged a tight opening-set tiebreak before securing the decisive break in the second set to seal his first title of 2026.

The double bill concluded a rain-plagued week in the US capital as players now head into the North American hardcourt swing ahead of the US Open.

Dearborn, Michigan – Yemeni-American activist Samraa Luqman has no regrets about voting for President Donald Trump in 2024.

While the United States president has been a disappointment to Arab Americans in Michigan with his pro-war and anti-immigration policies, she stressed that it was untenable for the community to vote for Democrats as Israel’s genocide unfolded in Gaza.

“There had to be accountability for the genocide. We’re OK with what we voted for,” Luqman told Al Jazeera.

“I said from the beginning, I’m willing to live through another four years of Trump, that we expected him to be bad on our issues, but it was a pill we were willing to swallow in order to hold the Democratic Party accountable.”

Luqman is not alone.

Despite Trump’s staunchly pro-Israel policies and unpopular war on Iran, many say supporting Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in 2024 was out of the question, and it was the right choice for the community to break with the Democratic Party.

“I could not – with a good heart, good conscience – tell someone to vote for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump”, but the approach of “lesser of two evils” no longer works to sway Arab voters, Hussein Dabajeh, a prominent political strategist in the Detroit area, home to large Arab and Muslim communities, told Al Jazeera.

Democrats’ popularity amongst Arab Americans nosedived in 2024 as President Joe Biden ignored calls to compel a ceasefire in Gaza and continued to provide Israel with weapons and military aid as it killed tens of thousands in Palestine and Lebanon.

Then, Vice President Harris refused even to consider an arms embargo against Israel.

As a result of these policies, many Arab Americans, who had been reliable Democratic voters for years, ditched the party and refused to support Harris in her presidential bid.

Trump swept in, presented himself as a “peace” candidate, and his campaign forged ties with Arab community advocates.

Trump’s policies

At a rally in Michigan ahead of the 2024 vote, Trump brought local Muslim imams to the stage and praised the community.

The Republican leader also visited the predominantly Arab and Muslim Detroit suburb of Dearborn ahead of the election.

Trump ended up winning Michigan as many Arab voters in the Dearborn area refused to back Harris. Some voted for him, while others voted for a third party, left the top of the ticket blank, or skipped the election altogether.

According to an Al Jazeera analysis of election results in heavily Arab precincts in east Dearborn, about 45 percent of the votes went to Trump, 29 percent to Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and 16 percent to Harris.

As president, Trump allowed Israel to continue its attacks on Gaza and Lebanon and launched an unprovoked war against Iran that has sent petrol prices soaring.

He has also intensified the crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy at home with a campaign to deport noncitizen student activists critical of Israel.

In February, he also terminated immigration protections for Yemeni nationals, sowing fear and uncertainty in a community where many leaders had endorsed him in 2024.

Asked how Arab Americans feel about Trump now, Dabajeh said: “They hate him. There’s no other way of putting it. I don’t think there is a single person I know that voted for Trump from the Arab and Muslim community specifically that looks at what Trump is doing and is happy with what he’s doing, or what he’s done.”

‘The genocide matured us’

Many Arab Americans stress that withholding support for Harris in 2024 was not out of love for Trump.

“No one understands the horrors of Trump’s policy more than us. We were his first victims in 2017,” said Amer Zahr, a comedian and Dearborn Board of Education trustee.

Shortly after starting his first term in 2017, Trump implemented a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.

“No one is more aware of the harm that Trump can cause than we are,” Zahr added. “But the genocide matured us in a way that we finally got to the point where we were willing to tell politicians ‘no’.”

As the election season returns to Michigan, Arab Americans once again find themselves at a political crossroads.

The community is rallying behind Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed – who had previously endorsed Harris – but some are keeping their political options open.

Luqman, the Yemeni activist, said she will certainly vote for El-Sayed and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib – who are outspoken critics of Israel – in the Democratic primary on Tuesday and in the general elections in November.

Luqman said Democratic voters’ support for progressive candidates will help the party regain credibility with Arab voters.

“Those are things that do bring the Democratic Party a little bit of relevance and credibility within our community,” Luqman told Al Jazeera.

“It has kind of brought the community back to centre, whereas they were kind of swinging to the right by a large margin.”

Palestine or bust

While some political commentators have been questioning why US support for Israel has become a decisive issue in US politics, particularly Democratic primaries, the answer in the Arab community is clear.

Advocates say domestic policy takes a backseat when their loved ones are being killed, and their hometowns are being wiped out by their own tax dollars via military aid to Israel.

“Gaza and Palestine and Middle Eastern issues have now become the forefront, the top of everybody’s issues, and it’s become a red line for my community,” Luqman said.

“So if you’re a Republican or Democrat and you hate AIPAC and you value Palestinians’ rights to self-determination, then you’re going to be getting our vote, regardless of what party you’re in,” she said, referencing the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group.

Zahr echoed that message.

“People want us not to be single-issue voters. In other words, they want us to forgo our main issue, get screwed on it, watch our families die because Trump’s bad, and accept all that,” he said.

“Well, we said ‘no’. The blood of the children of Gaza had to mean something.”

Zahr emphasised that Arab Americans are not alone in centring Palestine in their electoral choices, pointing to the defeats that pro-Israel incumbents have suffered across the map in this primary season.

“You’ve gotten to a point where if somebody says, ‘Stop bombing hospitals’, everyone knows you’re talking about Israel. That’s because of Israel. That’s not because of us. That’s because of what Israel did,” he told Al Jazeera.

“And so, people are keying into the truth. And when you learn the truth, something that comes along with that is you learn that you’ve been lied to, and you get angry. A lot of righteous anger is pushing a lot of this.”

Dabajeh, the political strategist, said that while Arab voters care about the economy, affordability and infrastructure – like all Americans – they cannot overlook US policy on Israel.

“Are we supposed to call our family members overseas and be like, ‘Listen, khalto [auntie], this guy over here that’s running for office might kill some of your neighbours, might kill some of your kids, but don’t worry about it, he’s going to take care of the flooding in our homes’?”

“It’s not going to work. We can’t do that.”

Islamophobia and racism

Republicans tried to court Arab and Muslim voters in 2024 and capitalise on the discontent over Gaza policies, but now, many conservatives have returned to demonising the community as an electoral strategy.

Weeks after he was elected, Trump endorsed Randy Fine, a Florida politician with a history of anti-Muslim statements, for Congress. Fine would go on to win and call for the “destruction” of all Muslims.

Meanwhile, Republican governors in Florida and Texas have designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a “terrorist” group.

In Michigan, Republican Congressman John James, who is running for governor, has also pledged to blacklist the group.

Luqman said James had spoken to community members and promised to engage voters in Dearborn before that announcement.

“There was a really big opportunity for the Republican Party to solidify the swing of the pendulum, if you will, and they lost that option. They really missed that opportunity,” she said.

Migrants rushed to receive water and beverages in Ceuta, Spain, where many have spent days on a beach holding signs seeking asylum. Hungry and thirsty, they remain in the tiny Spanish territory as authorities struggle to manage thousands after a mass border rush.

Migrant children in Ceuta suffer loss, hunger in hope of a safer life in mainland Europe.

Hundreds of unaccompanied minors are stranded in Ceuta in North Africa, following the massive surge of migrants who swam around the border fence with Morocco to reach the Spanish territory.

Some of the children are traumatised after witnessing family members drown in the Mediterranean Sea, as tens of thousands left Morocco in search of better opportunities.

An estimated 3,000 to 5,000 migrants, of the roughly 60,000 who arrived in Ceuta on Thursday, have avoided expulsion.

More than 800 unaccompanied minors are among the remaining migrants and face an uncertain future.

A 17-year-old girl from Tangier told the Associated Press she saw Spanish police pulling the body of her eight-year-old brother from the sea when she made it to shore. She was also separated from her mother during the journey.

“I saw people stepping on the dead,” she said through a translator. “Now we are children begging on the street.”

After finding a government facility for youths in need full, she is now relying on locals for food and shelter.

Minors must be cared for under Spanish law

Spanish law says adult migrants can apply for asylum, but the bar is normally set very high for Moroccans to be granted humanitarian protection. If rejected, they will face expulsion procedures.

Article 35 of Spain’s 2000 law on foreigners’ rights states that when police identify young children and teenage migrants who are unaccompanied by adults, the minors must be granted protection and receive “immediate attention’ from Spanish child protection services.

An AP journalist saw Spanish soldiers escorting an unaccompanied Moroccan boy who was crying and begging not to be sent back. Due to pressure from local residents who insisted he was a minor, the boy was transferred to the Spanish Civil Guard instead of being repatriated.

Most of the Moroccan adults who arrived last week have either voluntarily gone home or were pushed back by Spanish police. Among the remaining in Ceuta are significant numbers of people from other countries, including Sudanese fleeing their war-torn country, Palestinians from Gaza, Afghans and people from several African nations.

The city’s migrant centre is full — it has a capacity for 600 people. Food is scarce among the migrants, according to reporting by AP and AFP.

Many are sleeping outside or resting on the beach or on the hills surrounding Ceuta. In the hazy distance, mainland Europe, their ultimate goal, lies across the sea.

At first glance, the Soviet submarine S-49 looks like a design mistake. While its hull resembles a normal Cold War diesel-electric submarine, its bow appears to have been fitted with a strange pair of enormous “barrels” pointing forward. But the bizarre nose and bug-eyed look was the result of a highly specialized Soviet effort to create a submarine that could test a new generation of underwater weapons. At a time when extreme submarine modifications were in vogue, S-49 stood out for its pioneering work and long service.

S-49 began life as an ordinary Project 633 submarine, known to NATO as the Romeo class. The Project 633 submarines were diesel-electric attack submarines developed for the Soviet Navy in the 1950s and built in Gorky (modern-day Nizhny Novgorod). Since this was hundreds of miles from the sea, submarines built here were transported by river on special barges, then completed and tested at coastal shipyards before entering service.

The early career of S-49 was completely conventional. Its keel was laid in March of 1961, it was launched in July, and commissioned into the Soviet Navy in December.

S-49 initially joined the Black Sea Fleet, was transferred to the Northern Fleet in 1962, and conducted routine submarine operations, including Mediterranean deployments.

In 1969, S-49 returned permanently to the Black Sea Fleet and continued in service as a normal Soviet attack submarine.

By the 1960s, however, faced by the growing threat of the U.S. Navy’s emerging nuclear-powered submarine fleet, Soviet naval engineers were developing a new class of faster, farther-reaching weapons: submarine-launched anti-submarine missiles. These were essentially long-range weapon delivery systems whose purpose was to allow one submarine to attack another far sooner and from much farther away than was practical with a conventional torpedo, allowing the shooter to remain at standoff distance. This was especially vital in a nuclear warfighting context.

A live test of a nuclear-armed U.S. Navy SUBROC submarine-launched rocket — broadly similar in concept to the Soviet submarine-launched anti-submarine missile — gives an idea of its destructive power:

Swordfish Sailor Hat MK57 ASROC ASTOR SUBROC DOE Video #0800046

The Soviet concept combined a torpedo or a depth charge with a missile; the weapon would be launched underwater from a submarine or fired from a surface combatant into the water. After a brief period of submerged travel through the water, it would break the surface, a rocket motor would ignite, and the weapon would fly rapidly — according to available sources at around Mach 0.8 — toward the target area. The weapon could deploy a homing torpedo or a nuclear depth-charge warhead.

In the early 1970s, the Soviet Navy was working on two next-generation anti-submarine missile systems: the RPK-6 Vodopad (Russian for waterfall) was designed around a 533mm torpedo-tube launch system, while the RPK-7 Veter (meaning wind) was a larger 650mm weapon with greater range and depth capability — it could only carry a nuclear depth charge.

In practice, while both Vodopad and Veter could be launched from submarines, surface combatants had only 533mm tubes, so were limited to the Vodopad. The RPK-6 Vodopad had a range of about 20 nautical miles, while the RPK-7 Veter increased this to around 54 nautical miles.

A 2018 video showing the Kirov class nuclear battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy firing multiple Soviet-era RPK-6 Vodopads during a drill:

Пуски ракет-торпед ТАРКР «Петр Великий» в Баренцевом море

There is some confusion about the NATO designations of these weapons. Some sources suggest both Vodopad and Veter were known as SS-N-16 Stallion, others that SS-N-16 Stallion applied to different generations of 650mm anti-submarine missiles, while SS-N-15 Starfish applied to different generations of 533mm weapons.

Needing a test submarine for the weapons, the Soviets chose two Romeo class boats, S-49 and S-11, both of which were converted into the experimental Project 633RV standard.

OTD 1961: S-11, Project 633 ROMEO SS, was launched. Between 1970 & 1972 she and S-49 were converted to Project 633RV 65cm torpedo test sub. pic.twitter.com/cW0FgFRqhH

— AncientSubHunter 🇺🇦 🇮🇱🌻 (@AncientSubHunt) April 15, 2017

Podwodny ,,Star Trek,, ,czyli ,,Romeo,, projekt 633RV.
Pod koniec lat 60. do testowania kompleksów przeciwpodwodnych RPK-7 “Veter” i RPK-6 “Vodopad” przebudowano dwie jednostki typ,,Romeo,,(S-11 i S-49) …. 1/2 pic.twitter.com/rNnwfzUiOG

— StaryOkręt (@Zbignie87752240) July 2, 2023

Between December 1971 and October 1972, S-49 underwent a major reconstruction at Sevmorzavod in Sevastopol, on the Crimean peninsula.

The modification completely transformed the submarine, the most visible change being the enormous forward superstructure containing two giant external 650mm tubes for the Veter, which were simply too large to fit inside the original Romeo class hull. At the same time, two internal 533mm launch tubes were modified for the Vodopad.

As well as the new launchers, specialized systems included weapon programming equipment, electrical connections for pre-launch testing, fire-control systems, special sealing arrangements, and guide tracks that prepared the weapon during launch.

Essentially a giant underwater weapons laboratory, the Project 633RV allowed engineers to test the entire firing process before the weapons entered service on operational submarines.

Inside the forward section, engineers removed normal submarine equipment and replaced it with test systems. Spare torpedo storage was taken out, and improved sonar equipment and upgraded navigation systems were added.

Overall, the systems were designed to replicate those of Soviet nuclear attack submarines, including those planned for the Project 671 (Victor class) nuclear attack boats.

As well as firing missiles, the modified submarine was equipped to measure launch behavior, weapon performance, effects on the submarine, underwater pressures, guidance system operation, and reliability.

After conversion, S-49 became one of the most important weapons-testing submarines in the Soviet fleet.

In December 1972, S-49 conducted the first Soviet underwater launch of a Vodopad missile-torpedo, from a depth of 50 meters (164 feet).

During 1973 and 1974, 24 successful launches were completed from depths between 50 and 150 meters (164 and 492 feet) and under increasingly demanding conditions.

In 1975, S-49 received an improved deep-water launch system and successfully completed another 22 launches, including one from an unprecedented depth of 240 meters (787 feet).

For S-49, the mission expanded beyond Vodopad and Veter.

In 1977, the submarine participated in testing of the new 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) land-attack cruise missile, a turbofan-powered weapon that was deployed from a launch capsule via a 533mm launch tube. Analogous to the U.S.-made Tomahawk, this was the first missile of its class fielded on Soviet submarines.

From 1977 through 1985, S-49 continued to support Soviet missile-torpedo development.

After a major overhaul between 1986 and 1991, S-49 continued weapons-related duties until 1995, when it was removed from active naval service.

But even retirement did not end its unusual career.

In late 1995, S-49 was transformed again, emerging as PZS-50, a floating battery charging station. The submarine supported the Black Sea Fleet by charging batteries and assisting submarine training activities.

S-49 remained in service as a support vessel into the 2010s, finally retiring around 2019.

#SovietNavy #ColdWar Today, after dock repairs and museumification, the submarine S-49 (PZS-50) of Project 633RV was towed to the Southern Bay of Sevastopol. This is a temporary mooring and in the near future the submarine will be towed to Balaclava. pic.twitter.com/PZ7d0d7jNy

— Capt(N) (@Capt_Navy) November 8, 2021

In May 2022, S-49 became part of the Balaklava Underground Museum Complex, preserving one of the most unusual submarines of the Cold War era in a former Soviet underground submarine base. With Russia occupying the peninsula and engaged in a war with Ukraine, during which Crimea has been repeatedly targeted, the ultimate fate of the boat is by no means certain.

S-49 never fired a missile in anger. But without it, some of the Soviet Navy’s most advanced underwater weapons might never have entered service.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

As a keen reminder of the threats Ukraine is facing, Fire Point CEO Iryna Terekh had to stop a recent interview with TWZ to scramble to a shelter as Russian ballistic missiles were approaching. A 35-year-old architect by training, Terekh helped turn Fire Point from a Ukrainian start-up making weapons in a garage into a leading producer of indigenously made long-range strike drones and missiles, and we talked to her about the company’s weapons and future plans. 

Fire Point’s FP-1 and FP-2 drones have been striking Russian targets to devastating effect and its heavy-hitting Flamingo cruise missiles are adding a new level of long-range threat. 

Beyond these, Fire Point is developing the FP-9 ballistic missile to hit targets up to about 500 miles away and the FP-7.x ballistic missile interceptor, intended to provide a more plentiful and cheaper alternative to Patriot munitions.

Among the many topics discussed, Terekh talked about the status of the FP-9 ballistic missile program, roadblocks to fielding an indigenous Patriot interceptor alternative, how her firm is using AI, why the FP-2 drones were so successful against Russian ships in the Sea of Azov and the challenges of building complex weapons systems while under constant Russian fire. Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.

Q: Tell me how Fire Point came to build drones and missiles.

A: Well, we started with the intention to win the war and destroy the Russian Empire, some knowledge in engineering, physics, mathematics, and industrial production, and we started with the FP-1 drone, which was basically the idea behind this. There were two ideas. First is to make an analog of the Shahed drone by technical characteristics, and the second was to utilize a huge stock of Fab 50 bombs. It’s an old Soviet aviation bomb. There was a rumor that there were dozens of thousands of these in Ukrainian stocks, so we decided to build a platform to carry this huge stock.

When we finished designing the aircraft, it turned out that this rumor was just a rumor about the huge stocks of Fab 50s. But anyway, this was a start for FP-1. And when we started to really scale up the production and design a model that would be fitting to be scaled at volume, then we were forced to build a lot of satellite productions around the main production because very soon we met all the possible bottlenecks. And while developing this huge satellite network of productions of the spare parts of different components, we understood that probably we now have enough missiles to go into missile design. That’s the short story.

Footage of the production and testing of the FP-1/2 attack UAVs and the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile

Q: The Flamingo ground-launched cruise missile, which broke cover last fall, has a claimed range of about 1,800 miles. It uses Ivchenko AI-25 turbofan engines that are commonly found on the L-39 Albatros jet trainer. How many of these engines still exist and how long can you sustain production with those surplus powerplants without switching to something that can be produced en masse cheaply today?

A: First of all, the AI-25 TL was the initial engine with which we started to fly, but this is just one of five different engines that we use on Flamingo. So it’s not the only engine, and Flamingo was initially designed to be flexible and to be able to work with different types of engines. So we can really widen up the stock of used engines. 

But at the same time, we started to develop our own turbojet engine with the same design bureau that designed the 25 TL many years ago, and we built it specifically for the purpose of UAV, not for aviation. And it took quite some time, more than a year and a half. And now we are assembling our first 10 prototypes of the future turbojet fan engines of our production.

The AI-25 turbofan engine, part 1

Q: And when will that be ready?

A: As soon as possible. Obviously it is harder to make a turbojet engine than it is to make a missile.

Q: What’s the timeline?

A: The goal is to finish testing all the samples and making all the improvements by the end of this year, and next year go into mass production. 

Q: Fire Point has said that it aims to increase Flamingo production to a daily rate of at least seven missiles by October of this year. This would translate to 2,555 built annually. How can you make this happen?

A: We did not increase the production to these numbers. This is the maximum capacity of our production that we built. Unfortunately, since Ukraine was waiting for the funds coming from the European Union loan, the orders did not match the maximum capacity of the production, so the production was lowered to a lower percentage of what it could possibly provide. We expect to ramp it up to the named number. Probably by the end of this year or beginning next year. It depends on how the contracts will arrive. 

Q: How does the Flamingo do its job? Can you run us through what mission preparation, launch, navigation, impact and after action activities look like? 

A: I personally place Flamingo in the drone category, despite the fact that it’s a big missile, because the process looks almost the same. 

Of course, there are nuances that we need to count on during mission planning, but the mission planning is on the side of Ukrainian armed forces. In terms of our company, as a manufacturer, we do a very detailed after-action review. After each mission, we understand how it reacted to electronic warfare. We were able to do a very effective countermeasure against on-ground air defense systems like Pantsir and Tor. So basically, there is just one threat that is really left for Flamingo, and this is aviation. Against this, we cannot really fight. Otherwise, it’s half of the technical perfection of the missile and half of the art of mission planning. So, to fly as low as possible to plan the mission correctly, to understand the altitudes, we cannot afford the luxury of doing the ramp up before the final attack, because then we would be visible to radars. 

Therefore, when you plan the ramp up picket, it is much easier than to plan a very smooth, almost horizontal few degrees attack. 

Anyway, our armed forces already mastered this as well, and from our side, it is important that we provide a navigation solution that is completely resistant towards electronic warfare, jamming, spoofing, any sort of interference, and this we did. So we see the improvements after each mission on both sides, both on our software part and on the mission planning part.

Q: What navigation and target package suites are available for Flamingo at this time? What about in the future?

A: I don’t want to name exact systems for obvious reasons, but it’s a combination of a [Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna] antenna, inertial navigation system, of specific software, of additional data sources, and sometimes it’s visual navigation as well.

Q: Olena Kryzhanivska, a defense fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, recently told the New York Times that the Flamingo missiles have shown “low effectiveness,” possibly because of accuracy problems and that the “results that we see are not the ones that Ukraine would like to have.” How do you respond?

A: Honestly, I don’t respond to such things at all because in the end, we are no magicians. If anybody could create a cruise missile in one year and then already pay back all of the money spent on this missile with the effect of the damage on the enemy’s territory, they can show better and more effective results.

Ukraine’s New FP-5 Missile Has Twice the Range of a Tomahawk | WSJ Equipped

Q: Let’s talk about the FP-9. Ukraine getting its own ballistic missile is a big deal. What went into developing it and what can you tell us about its design?

A: The FP-9 is a missile that we planned would be able to reach Moscow with a range of 850 kilometers. It required building the whole new infrastructure specifically for casting solid rocket propellants in such a huge amount. The engine itself is 4.6 tons of solid rocket fuel, compared to FP-7, where it’s just one ton of solid rocket fuel, so a whole set of factories of preparation infrastructure. 

Anyway, as we are speaking now, the engines are being cast. Therefore, we expect test launches soon, as soon as possible. The navigation solution, everything else on this missile is already ready. So basically, it’s the last touch on the engine, and we are ready to start. 

Ukrainian FP-9 ballistics ready to strike! 800 km range – MOSCOW is now within reach!

Q: So when will it be operational? It hasn’t been used yet, right?

A: No, we are preparing for the first flight.

Q: When do you think that will be?

A: I understand the curiosity behind the question on when exactly this would happen, but we have our specific dates in mind where we are aiming. But I don’t like naming them because a lot of things could go wrong on the way, so my expectation is that this would be autumn. I would not specify better at this moment.

Q: For the FP-9 ballistic missile, Ukraine had to build a new solid-fuel engine casting facility. How difficult was that and what is the status of it?

A: Obviously, it was quite a challenge because we do have such a factory. Ukraine had such a factory in Pavlograd, but Pavlograd is under constant attack, and also they’re using a little bit different technology for that. We understand if we do not build an alternative to Pavlograd, then we will have no future for the missile program. 

So we built multiple factories in Ukraine and one in Denmark for the sake of solving this task. Of course, it’s extremely challenging. It’s equipment. It’s mixers for casting. It’s a specific post-curing process, casting process. This is a dangerous production, and we had to reinvent in a way this whole technology almost from scratch. Therefore, it was quite a challenge, but I like how it went out. Since we are already casting a lot of solid rocket fuel for smaller rockets, I like how it’s developing and how it’s going. 

Q: How difficult is it to put all this together from so many dispersed locations?

A: Well, the logistics are hell, to be frank (chuckles). But we do not have the luxury to have the factory in a classic way, with the walls and roof, we if when I say factory and we have 90 of them in the moment, when I say factory I mean this whole ecosystem with logistics, with warehouses, everything is hidden and dissolved in a way that the critical components are always duplicated, triplicated, quadruplicated. It’s a lot of additional investments and, of course, a lot of risks and a lot of additional time for logistics specifically, but again, we do not have any other choice. Therefore, the factory in this matter is a whole ecosystem.

Q: Fire Point claims that Ukraine can build missiles faster than Russia by building cheaper, less complex missiles. How would that work?

A: I personally believe that if you want to build something in volume, you need to think of this from day one of future product development, and this is probably a critical thing that we changed in this culture at Fire Point. So understanding how the production works is a very important thought to be established as a fundament of the future development. So in practice, how it looks when we start the R&D process, our chief designer has a lot of ideas. But I have the power to interrupt and to block any idea that will not be possible to mass produce later. Therefore, we are rethinking and rethinking until we get the solution that is possible to mass produce. 

And when you think of this in the design stage, then of course it is easier to do it. In fact, and also technological sovereignty is very important for all the critical components and processes. We have our own capabilities inside Fire Point, all the critical, even the machine production. So we do cover lots of things. We rely at least on subcontractors and contractors, and we try to set up the maximum control over the supply chain. 

Author’s note: At this point Terekh stops talking and looks at her phone.

Terekh: I am looking to see if this is a ballistic missile attack or not. Yeah, it’s ballistics. So, I would be glad to maybe talk more with you on this point, but I have to evacuate now to the shelter. The flight time is like two minutes.

Author’s note: A week later, we continued the conversation.

Q: Can you talk about the arrangement with Diehl Defense to build Flamingos in Germany? How does this help Fire Point and Ukraine? Can you provide any details about the new seeker Diehl is working to outfit the weapon with and any other details about how Diehl will improve the munition?

A: I cannot provide many details yet because the negotiations are ongoing. But basically, in terms of Germany, we are in negotiations with Diehl Defense, they initiated this discussion. We, I’m sure, can be a mutually interested industrial partner for each other. There is something that Diehl can bring to the table in terms of technology. There is definitely something that we could bring to the table in terms of technology and industrial knowledge.

So I consider such types of negotiations and cooperations very useful. Because the way big primes rethink their future by learning from Ukrainian companies and at the same time using their legacy knowledge for future development – I think is very fruitful for both sides. And of course, it all started by an initiative of the German government because everybody wants to have long-range capabilities of domestic production. 

Q: Let’s talk about the FP-1 drone. Created in 2023, it has been widely used in Ukrainian attacks on targets deep inside Russia. How did you ramp up production of this system and improve it to keep it effective against always adapting Russian defenses?

A: At the beginning, I thought that just constantly analyzing the feedback in a correct way, and then adapting and making changes would be enough. But from today’s point of view, I would say that’s definitely not enough. You have to be so deep in the context of what’s happening on the front line, and in general of the development of enemy tactics of electronic warfare. So you have to be able to make some sort of forecast and try to predict what will happen in the future, find a solution for this future problem, test it, validate it, and when the problem actually comes, you have to have something on your shelf already ready for solving this solution. 

So we are trying to trick the timelines a little bit, even if in some cases, my forecasts are not correct. Eighty percent of the time, they are correct, and that’s definitely enough to always keep up in this technological race. 

You can see video of an FP-1 drone being used in an attack below:

Q: There are now two configurations of this drone, one for longer range and one for a larger warhead. Can you talk about them and how they were adapted to be useful over such a wide range of target sets?

A: You know, when we just made the FP-1, it was just 700 kilometers, and then we found a way to increase the distance and increase the accuracy as well. The same logic happened with FP-2. It started as a middle strike of 200 kilometers, and now it’s up to 500 kilometers. So these are gentle improvements, or as I call them, nuanceful improvements. You can work with an engine. You can work with engine consumption. You can work with reassembling some part of the aircraft in a way that is more aerodynamically effective. So when you make a product that you are satisfied with, there is always room for improvement, to be frank. 

In the case of the longer-ranged version of FP-1, it is a little bit more complicated in production. So it’s not possible, at the moment, to make 300 of them per day, but it allows us to go such long distances. It has a different wing. This wing contains additional fuel tanks, and there are also some minor improvements here and there that provide this result.

Q: And the FP-2?

A: The same logic. It could be different changes, but the same logic.

Q: Can you provide any insights into the ongoing Sea of Azov campaign against Russian shipping that relies heavily on the FP-2 drone? What makes this a good weapon for such attacks?

A: It is controlled manually. There is additional AI assistance on that control. So basically, that makes it the best option to fight dynamic moving targets. Especially, it has multiple options for content streamline. I would explain it like this. So, in case one type of connectivity does not work, there are other options for this as well, and it is very effective when you are controlling your aircraft in real time. Then the pilot can target the most vulnerable part of the ship, and unfortunately, as far as I can see, these are the only sanctions that our enemy really understands.

Q: What other options are there when one type of connectivity doesn’t work?

A: I don’t really want to share exactly what the setup we use is because the more detailed I will explain it, the faster the enemy will find the countermeasures for this.

The following video shows Fire Point drones being used to attack Russian ships in the Sea of Azov:

Q: News reports state that you look to arm this drone with rockets to take on multiple ground targets at standoff ranges. Can you talk about this concept and how you aim to see it be used on the battlefield? 

A: Actually, the FP-1 and FP-2 are pretty universal platforms. There are so many versions of this that we didn’t announce it publicly yet, however these airplanes can make a lot of different side quests, and one of these side quests is of course carrying uncontrolled short-range missiles. We do have a huge stockpile of this missile in the Ukrainian army that is not largely used, and it is the way to utilize them with the most possible sense. It helps to counterattack the mobile interceptor groups, and when the aircraft is done with letting the missiles out, it can go further for the initial mission. So it’s really like a side quest. 

Q: What kind of rockets are you talking about?

A: Old Soviet 57mm S-5 rockets.

Soviet 57mm S-5KO High Explosive Anti-Tank FRAG Aircraft Rocket #military #coldwar #airforce #rocket

Q: How many S-5 rockets can it carry?

A: But it could be any, to be frank. But that does not matter much.

Q: But how many can the drone carry?

A: Eight.

You can see an FP-1 drone launching rockets in this video:

Q: How do you use AI in these drones and other weapons? Where is this headed in the future? 

A: Since we are using quite a big platform, our user experience with AI is slightly different from smaller FPV or reconnaissance drones. We use it for visual map-matching for final target corrections. But I do not say that it’s largely changing the narrative of how we’re using drones because I still believe there should be a person behind making a final decision. So we do use AI a lot in our daily work in software development, in technical consultancy, but in terms of directing the flight, it is still in the end a human who makes the final decision.

Q: Do you use man-in-the-loop or man-on-the-loop?

A: Both.

Q: Can you provide more details about how you use AI in the terminal phase of an attack?

A: There are multiple versions for this type of terminal work. At the moment, we are mostly at the point of collecting more precise data for more inertial platforms like ours. At the same time, it helps to correct and lead the aircraft if the connectivity is lost for quite some time because it has the target recognition possibility and the final targeting as well. But it should still be human-in-the-loop at this moment. 

Q: Where is this headed in the future? 

A: You know, AI companies are now hiring philosophers to decide on where it’s heading in the future. My perfect scenario would be that we will use AI for finding alternative deterrence options. What I mean is, instead of just relying on nukes as a deterrent, it could be that we will build some sort of drone walls, or we will operate the kill zones where the decision-making would be solely on AI. 

There are pros and cons to this as well. For example, we all knew of cases where Russians were infiltrating their agents in the governments of different countries, and when it came to making a fair response to barbarian actions, somebody sabotaged this fair response. So probably AI could be an instrument to provide an immediate response for aggressive actions in the future of whoever this could be, the aggressor. I don’t have a clear answer. Obviously, we are all thinking about this: to what point we can delegate the responsibility, and it’s still an open question.

Q: Satellite communications are also key to long-range strikes against dynamic targets like ships. How has the miniaturization of this technology changed how your products are used? 

A: Miniaturization is crucial, but that is all the detail I can share at this stage.

Q: Let’s talk about Project Freya and the FP-7.x interceptor missile you are developing. Who is providing the seeker to make this work? What is the timeline and what are the expected costs per interceptor? And how will it compare to PAC-3 Patriot?

A: We are working with two European and one Ukrainian company on secret development, and I don’t know which of the options would be the fastest out of this. The final goal is to make the whole interceptor cheaper than 1 million euros. I think with the expected price range of the seekers that we discussed with our partners, this is doable. Probably not from the first iterations, but definitely in serial production. 

Q: What seekers are you using, and from which companies?

A: It is [imaging infrared] seekers. One deal is public, so one option is from Diehl Defense that we are currently integrating. The other is – I don’t know if they’re comfortable with public disclosure yet, so I have to talk with them first.

Q: What’s the timeline for this?

A: Nobody can answer at this point. So the deep technical integration is happening right now. We expect, of course, it to be in the nearest months, because the seekers aside, we are on a good level of readiness. But nobody can answer this point. 

Q: What’s the major issue that still has to be overcome?

A: On technical integration?

Q: On being able to produce the interceptor at scale.

A: If we look at everything but the seeker, our production is already ready, even for mass production, and we finished all the tests on this matter. But the amount in which we will have seekers and their accuracy and the results of technical integration – it’s still something that we are cooking at the moment. Of course, we will be doing our best to maximize both the accuracy, the energy consumption, and the mass production in the future. But we have to understand that even the seeker manufacturers are doing this for the first time in such an integration. So it requires a lot of talent, a lot.

Q: How will it compare to PAC-3 Patriot interceptor?

A: The PAC-3 is a different missile designed for different consumption levels. I think FP-7.x is more comparable in the first iteration to the Patriot PAC-2 because we do not expect immediate success with hit-to-kill, and the first interception we expect to do with the blast interception. Hit-to-kill is the next iteration. So at the beginning we will have more the analog of the PAC-2, but more mass-produced and cheaper.

Q: How many do you think you will be able to make?

A: From our side, we are ready to make almost an infinite amount. So we are targeting to do at least 2,000 a year as a starter, and then develop the production. Right now, we are solving the bottlenecks again, especially on the seeker part of this. But everything that is dependent on Fire Point, we can scale these numbers up.

Q: What do you think about the Patriot interceptor licensing deal Presidents Trump and Zelensky discussed before the American leader backed away from that? Would this affect anything you are doing?

A: No, it could be a good addition to what we are already doing.

Q: Why?

A: Because, in my opinion, every industrial corporation is like the greatest university of all. And the more you cooperate with different companies – there are not that many companies in the world who can produce anti-ballistic capabilities, and we have to kind of stay together on solving massive threats.

Q: On his last day as defense minister, Mykhalio Fedorov wrote that “a successful ballistics test was conducted, which was developed within the Ministry of Defense’s area of responsibility. We significantly changed the technical specifications and demonstrated maximum accuracy. We reduced the price by 30%. Ukraine will enter a new league.” Is this something you are working on or is it the government-run Sapsan program? What can you tell me about this?

A: I don’t know what exactly his words meant to be about because around the same time we were both testing our missiles and Pivdenne was testing theirs [the Sapsan], but from what I know, Sapsan also got a big improvement, and they had recently one of their first big successes with accuracy and technologically. So I think probably he meant both of us or just Sapsan. I don’t know.

🚀 Moscow has a new reason to worry. Ukraine has tested a new ballistic missile

In his farewell post, Mykhailo Fedorov revealed that successful tests of a Ukrainian ballistic missile took place on the very day the government stepped down. He did not specify which missile it was.… pic.twitter.com/PoprVjAUx8

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) July 16, 2026

Q: A little more than six months after naming the tech-savvy Fedorov defense minister, Zelensky fired him, ultimately replacing him with Major General Yevhen Khmara, who now serves as acting defense minister. How has the change in command in the Ministry of Defense affected Fire Point and Ukrainian domestic weapons development in general?

A: I think in general, our president has a big vision on why he’s doing specific things. The team of Mykhailo Fedorov helped a lot to develop Ukrainian industry, specifically with removing a lot of bureaucracy from the process. I think this initiative alone was the reason why Ukrainian industry is looking like this today. It was back in 2023. But the new minister is a war person. He is deep in the knowledge of asymmetric actions. So we expect a positive future.

Q: Fire Point has talked about the need for a Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) UAS armed with a 30mm cannon that can intercept glide bombs before they hit their targets. What details can you provide about that?

A: There is a version of this, like an interceptor. We have multiple versions for interceptors on the platform of FP-1. One is with a gun, the other with small interceptors, like the ones that are popular now, the [General Cherry] Bullet interceptors. And there are also a few other options. As I mentioned at the beginning, it’s a pretty universal platform that can do a side quest. 

Q: What kind of gun are you talking about?

A: Honestly, it was created to intercept Shaheds. I think for intercepting the glide bombs, it’s almost impossible to do so after the glide bomb has left the aircraft. It looks unrealistic to me, to be frank. Maybe, there would be a way, for example, to try and catch the aircraft before it launches. But the most effective way to fight glide bombs is to destroy Russian aviation, and I don’t know yet a more effective way to do this. 

⚡ Russia may have brought back UMPB-5R jet-powered glide bombs. Recent strikes suggest the weapons can reach targets about 150 km away.https://t.co/xiZ6Nf0H1X

— Militarnyi (@militarnyi) August 2, 2026

Q: What else is on the horizon for Fire Point? What new capabilities and platforms are you looking at developing and what battlefield realities are driving those developments?

A: Aside from everything that is well known, we are also focusing on creating our own satellite constellation, so we have an independent connectivity for the drones. So this is one of the focuses, and of course we are working on improving the autonomous flight for the drones, so there are many small and big developments, but the biggest one is probably satcom.

Q: Tell me about this. Are you actually going to launch your own satellites? Are you building satellites for someone else to launch?

A: We are working together with a company that produces satellites, and we are also starting to develop our future possibility to deliver satellites. We are far from that yet, but we already have the equipment, and we already are experimenting with the bigger rocket engines. So this development had already started. It’s not the main focus at the moment, of course, because at the moment we have to win the war first. But this is something we are preparing for the future. 

Q: What company are you working with?

A: Again, I have to talk with them whether or not they want to be public.

Q: Finally, what about Fire Point as a weapons exporter? Where do you see the company as a global arms provider in the near future and after the war hopefully ends?

A: We have a big interest from a majority of European countries to have Fire Point products in their armies, and we already started to work on that because they all saw the threat that may potentially come from Russia. Of course, we also have other negotiations, but now we have to be more careful how we ensure that our products do not wind up with the bad guys. So every export movement would be treated with the maximum cautiousness.

Q: How could your weapons land in the hands of the bad guys?

A: Ah, that’s a good question, how these deals could be possibly secured from being redirected to the wrong place? We have a huge level of trust with our partners, but those countries that are new to us, we do not yet have this relationship and this level of trust.

Q: Are you selling any weapons right now to either the U.S. or, say, some of the Gulf Arab nations, given what’s going on there? 

A: Not at the moment.

Q: Are you in negotiations with the U.S. and/or Gulf Arab nations?

A: Yeah, we have a lot of negotiations and discussions going on in parallel. I will comment once the negotiations are successful.

Q: Are there any weapons or products that you’re developing that I haven’t asked about?

A: I think it is important to understand that we will soon consider all the weapons more in terms of security subscription rather than actual hardware product.

Q: What do you mean?

A: I mean the amount of updates that we make, even on the software side, is huge and happens so often. It kinda reminds me of how you update your smartphone. This does not mean that you have to buy each new smartphone every month, but the software updates quite fast, and also could be that in a year or two you will need a new smartphone. So Ukraine is rethinking the weaponry more in the possibility of how the company can ensure that the army will always have a capability, and how this capability is provided is now a headache of the company. 

So in the old model, when a defense contractor delivers the contract, that’s it. Maybe after some time he will be called for maintenance. But our responsibility isn’t finished on the day that we deploy the weapon, but after I finally receive the post-flight analysis and I’m happy with this. So the whole logistic services, software updates, up-training, any changes that are happening on the way we do by ourselves. The end user can focus on launching and planning the missions, and of course we work shoulder to shoulder to ensure that we will use the battlefield data to a maximum level of usefulness.

The post-Cold War order was built on assumptions russia never shared.

Today’s queues at the Fire Point stand suggest Europe has understood the assignment.

Exceptional second day at Eurosatory. pic.twitter.com/hwMLEMcZXN

— terekh (@iraterekh) June 16, 2026

Q: What can the U.S. learn from Fire Point?

A: Make the market more transparent and attractive to younger startups. Remove bureaucracy as much as possible, share the risks with the contractors to make everybody more flexible, and probably that’s it. 

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Israelis head to the polls in October for the country’s first election since the war on Gaza began. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces mounting pressure over the October 7 attacks, corruption charges, international isolation, and divisions within his coalition.

The Department of War is challenging the U.S. defense industrial base to transform the way it builds and supplies weapons for the military – stimulating manufacturers to find new ways to enable faster and more efficient procurement. It’s a necessary move, particularly when it comes to weapons stockpiles, as some have been placed on red alert due to high consumption in crisis abroad. Efforts to create a so-called “Arsenal of Freedom” involve shoring-up critical supply chains, injecting predictable long-lead funding, lowering costs, and increasing competition.

Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control (MFC) division is reacting by investing in production capacity to accelerate some of its most important munitions facilities – a reflection of how many of its missiles are in high demand. Speaking at a groundbreaking event at the company’s Troy, Alabama, site in May 2026, at which TWZ was present, Lockheed Martin chairman, president and CEO Jim Taiclet addressed employees about a “first landmark framework agreement” that will dramatically accelerate production of PAC-3 MSE (Missile Segment Enhancement) air defense interceptors, which are designed to destroy adversary tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones and aircraft.

Taiclet said the “agreement represented a new model for how government and industry could work together with greater speed, accountability and shared commitment to the mission’s execution.” In addition to PAC-3 MSE, Lockheed Martin is also boosting production of its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) lines to meet the urgent demand for more missiles. 

Both PAC-3 and THAAD have been integrated together in Joint All-Domain Operations, including with the U.S. Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) and during exercises with the F-35 stealth fighter.

The company says it’s planning an $8-9-billion investment through 2030 to expand this munitions footprint across the U.S.. Lockheed Martin has invested more than $7 billion since President Donald Trump’s first term to expand capacity for priority systems, including approximately $2 billion dedicated to accelerating munitions

production. Investment is being channeled into MFC facilities, tooling, suppliers, as well as its workforce. “This effort reflects the power of a commercially-inspired partnership between government and industry,” Taiclet said, endorsing this approach as an obvious method to expand capacity for priority systems.

Paving the way for acceleration

The Department of War’s Acquisition Transformation Strategy is designed to create long-term stability that gives industry the confidence to make necessary investments to change the way it produces equipment. Lockheed Martin was the first in the defense industry to announce a framework agreement like this for munitions acceleration under the new government initiative – initially committing to the tripling of production capacity of the PAC-3 MSE interceptor and then quadrupling the production capacity of THAAD interceptors.

The U.S. government awarded Lockheed Martin a $4.7-billion undefinitized contract action (UCA) in April 2026 for the accelerated production of PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE), which built on a framework agreement signed in January 2026 to ramp up production of the missiles. Production of the PrSM short-range ballistic missile will also quadruple. PrSM, which succeeds the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), received Milestone C approval from the U.S. Army in July 2025, which led to a $4.94 billion contract award. PrSM then made its operational debut earlier this year in operations against Iran. 

“We’re rapidly ramping up a number of munitions. It’ll probably [expand to] include all the munitions that we build here at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control,” explained Tim Cahill, president of the company division. “We are working in partnership with the Department of War to identify go-quick contract actions that we can put in place, the suppliers we need and what investment is needed, and then determine what we call the enablers to make that happen.”

“It’s not just a case of let’s just go faster, it’s about what we fundamentally have to change across the entire business and in the technical process to go quickly to replenish stocks at a higher level than we ever have before,” Cahill added. “Ultimately, I would expect that we’re going to see all the munitions that we build in some sort of heads of agreement, some sort of a contract to increase the level of production.”

Lockheed Martin’s Master Plan For Accelerating Munitions Production

In addition to PAC-3 MSE, THAAD, and PrSM, the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) programs are also ramping up, and Cahill added that the AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile JAGM and Javelin shoulder-launched anti-armor weapon are expected to follow suit. “We have been ramping some of these munitions for several years already. Javelin production has increased, as has GMLRS [Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System] and GMLRS Extended-Range, but I would expect they’re going to ramp up beyond those numbers in the next few years.”

The manufacturing process for these advanced weapons is a complex business. It has typically taken as long as three years from contract signature to the delivery of a PAC-3 MSE. Lockheed Martin aims to dramatically cut timelines like this. “Lockheed Martin is not waiting – we have been taking proactive steps to ramp up production and secure materials well in advance,” explained Jason Reynolds, vice president and general manager for integrated air and missile defense. “It takes time for each of those suppliers to actually create those individual subcomponents and ship them to places like our plants in Troy, Alabama, or Camden, Arkansas. Then we do the final assembly. Once we’ve completed that, we have to go through testing and qualification, packaging and signing off, then delivering them to the U.S. government or to our partners and allies that have placed that order. It’s a time consuming process, but we’re doing everything possible to shorten that in the near term.”

One of the critical keys to the change lies in contracting. Cahill says companies have become used to annual contracts, with incremental follow-on options. He says this drove industry to commit to a year’s worth of production at a time, with no real certainty over what the ensuing years would bring. The new government approach presents a commitment of between five and seven years, which provides far greater confidence and predictability for manufacturers to invest in long-lead items to help prevent bottlenecks in the complex production cycle, and ultimately streamlines and expedites the production process.

The long-term approach to procurement has an additional benefit of being able to secure lower prices for components and materials, enabling the prime contractor to invest in a supplier’s capacity with greater confidence. Keeping a production line moving and not having to pause to wait for components to arrive is a significant factor. Securing larger quantities of parts with plenty of lead time enables cost savings and production acceleration.

“For all of us, there’s also economic value there,” explains Cahill. “There is real money in being able to drive efficiencies, knowing what the next seven years will be like. We can take those efficiencies and effectively apply them into self-investment up front, so the U.S. government gets better value in the price of the munitions. They’re ordering more and business gets the opportunity for increased revenue and increased capability.”

“We have thousands of suppliers, particularly underneath our key suppliers all across this nation and in many cases across the world. It’s about what they need all the way down to raw materials. For example, one thing that’s held us up over the years is titanium. Titanium goes into a lot of things, including golf club shafts! So you’re out there competing on the commercial market for materials. Being able to get ahead of that curve and aggregate demand, first of all, increases our priority and allows us to deal with the lead times and plan for that so those don’t become bottlenecks. What we are doing with our suppliers is in effect addressing all those elements.”

It’s not just the contracting that is being overhauled, changing the way these complex systems are actually built is equally important. Lockheed Martin is now increasing both its workforce and the use of robotics, plus it’s bringing in additive manufacturing techniques such as 3D printing to reduce reliance on costly and time-consuming traditional tooling.

“Building missiles faster is a key priority for us, and we can do that a couple of different ways,” added Jason Reynolds. “You can shorten the span time and the lead times of all the different components, and you can actually increase the factory floor [footprint] to increase throughput. We’re doing all of that. We’re working with suppliers to reduce the individual span times, whether it be a rocket motor, a seeker, or a section that we make internally like the guidance section, so that we can build these things faster using automation and advanced manufacturing technologies at the same time. We’re increasing the actual capacity. We’re making additional tooling and test equipment, hiring additional people both here at Lockheed Martin and at our suppliers around the world.”

License production is another means to share the load and unlock expanded production capacity. Lockheed Martin has already licensed PAC-3 MSE production to Japan, which operates a final assembly and checkout facility. “That’s something we’re going to be looking at, because if we can expand our supply base in Europe, for example, where we have potential co-production in Europe, there are some great possibilities there,” says Tim Cahill. “We’re looking at all the elements, everything that might be a methodology to bring those numbers up and make sure that our nation and our allies have the capacity they need. Licensed production could very well be part of that.”

Rapid prototyping and speed to field

New start-up companies and industry “disruptors” are playing a fundamental role in changing the government’s expectations when it comes to driving down costs and rapidly developing and then producing new capabilities. Tim Cahill pulls no punches when acknowledging this and emphasizing how Lockheed Martin is similarly evolving its approach. 

MFC has set-up a Rapid Fielding Center at its Grand Prairie facility in Dallas, Texas, designed to promote the use of latest in production and prototyping technologies. “We are looking at how we can apply some of the emerging technologies to do things quickly, like using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to make our production more adaptive and able to build in mass quantities that we couldn’t build before. We are competing in that space.”

The use of commercial off the shelf products is a recognized means to accelerate, but Cahill cautions that it’s not always a suitable solution. “You’re looking for the most capable parts to meet the requirements and get you there fast. That’s always been part of the dynamic for Lockheed Martin. We always look at commercial parts. Some systems are more conducive to it than others. If you’re building a low-cost drone or a counter-drone system, you’re looking for something that’s treatable – it’s great for those kinds of systems. But as these become more complex – when they have to operate in environments that range from the Arctic to the high desert in the Middle East in the middle of summer – or if they have to go through extreme launch environments or whether they have to survive in the presence of our adversaries trying to counter them. As the requirements get harder and harder, commercial off-the-shelf parts just don’t meet those requirements. They fail because they’re not designed for that.”

“You can’t take an automotive guidance system and run it at Mach 5, run it through the atmosphere at high temperature and have somebody try and disrupt it. In most cases we have to make them more robust and capable, or build parts that are unique to those particular products. We always start with the questions of how we accomplish the mission? How do we give our warfighters what they need to prevail, and we will use commercial off-the-shelf if that fits what is necessary for that mission – sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. Any technology that you can imagine, we are looking for, how might we apply that just like all the new entrants and frankly all the traditional companies are doing much the same. We get the sense of urgency and that’s what we intend to do.”

Lockheed Martin is also involved in deep research around low cost weapons. “There’s a lot of people competing in that space,” Cahill acknowledges. “Sometimes for us when we’re applying our investment, our expertise, it’s more effective to focus on some of the other capability areas. For example, we have introduced a counter-UAS [unmanned aircraft system] called MORFIUS™ X-Rotor, a newly-released airborne high power microwave system that can neutralize more than 50 enemy drones in a single flight.”

MORFIUS is designed for field recovery and reuse and Lockheed Martin says it offers a very low cost-per-kill ratio.

Lockheed Martin is also ready to move ahead with a lower-cost Patriot missile interceptor. “Our PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or PAC-3 ACE, answers the call,” Cahill told TWZ, adding that it will probably be less than half as expensive as the current PAC-3 MSE, but that it would still retain a lot of the capability. “They’re never going to have that full capability because you’ve got to fundamentally remove parts, some of the things that are most expensive.” 

Cahill says that PAC-3 ACE is built on the PAC-3 fire-control system and will be fully linked to the Patriot weapon system and the Integrated Battle Command System. “There isn’t magic here and when you take some of those things off, they become less capable, but that’s absolutely part of the dynamic. This rapidly fielded, complementary PAC-3, will be deployed quickly and enhance the resilience of the U.S. defense industrial base worldwide.”

Barzani meets Syria’s al-Sharaa in Damascus to discuss Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) integration and Kurdish rights in post-Assad Syria.

Nechirvan Barzani, president of Iraq’s semiautonomous Kurdish region, has held talks with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, in the first visit by a Kurdish leader to Syria since the fall of ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

On Monday, Barzani led a high-level delegation to Damascus, where he was received at the People’s Palace. According to Syria’s state news agency SANA, the two sides discussed bilateral relations between Erbil and Damascus, as well as several key regional issues of mutual concern to strengthen cooperation and coordination across various fields.

The visit to Syria’s capital comes after months of diplomatic engagement between the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq and Syria’s new administration. Barzani and al-Sharaa previously met twice on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, first on April 11, 2025, and again on April 17, 2026. According to a statement from the Kurdistan Region Presidency, the second meeting covered the development of economic ties and the agreement between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The integration of the SDF into Syrian state institutions is a central focus of the talks. The SDF, a Kurdish-led force that controls much of northeastern Syria, has been in negotiations with Damascus over its future status. The Syrian government has sought to integrate the force into its military structures, while Kurdish representatives have pressed for guarantees of political and cultural rights.

According to news reports from Al Hadath, Barzani and al-Sharaa discussed mechanisms for entrenching the constitutional rights of Kurds in Syria, particularly language rights and administrative autonomy. Implementation of Decree No. 13, which pertains to Kurdish language rights, was also on the agenda. Syrian officials have expressed interest in benefitting from the Kurdistan Regional Government’s experience in Kurdish-language education, curriculum development and teacher training.

Barzani’s itinerary also includes meetings with Kurdish officials in Syria, including SDF commanders and Kurdish members of the Syrian parliament, according to Kurdish media reports.

The visit follows a series of diplomatic exchanges, including a trip by Syria’s education minister to Erbil and efforts to reopen the Syrian consulate in Iraq’s semiautonomous Kurdish region. Barzani has previously hosted SDF commander Mazloum Abdi and delegations from northeastern Syria in Erbil.

For the Kurdistan Regional Government in Erbil, which shares a 1,100km (684-mile) border with Syria and hosts tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, the engagement carries vital security imperatives. Ensuring a stable, inclusive Syria reduces the risk of the resurgence of ISIL (ISIS), limits future refugee flows, and enhances Erbil’s diplomatic leverage with both Baghdad and Ankara.

The talks come at a sensitive time, during ongoing clashes between Syrian forces and Kurdish fighters in the northeast.

A new study by Australia’s internet regulator has revealed that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens are continuing to use social media platforms despite the government’s prohibition for children under 16.

The ban came into effect in December last year.

Here is what we know about how it’s going.

What did the latest report find?

Australia’s internet regulator, eSafety, said it had found that more than eight in 10 Australian under-16s are continuing to use social media despite being banned from doing so.

The report also found that most of those children aged 10 to 15 were using social media just as frequently in March as they had been before the ban came into force on December 10 last year.

“Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones at the three-month ⁠mark, with social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures cited as the main reason,” eSafety said in a statement.

About half the children who retained their accounts said platforms had not checked their age, the most common reason they were able to stay on the services. Others said that their accounts listed them as aged 16 or older or ‌that age-checking ⁠systems had incorrectly determined they were older.

Prior to the ban, nearly 86 percent of children surveyed reported using at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, that figure remained above 81 percent, the eSafety report said.

Around 58 percent of teenagers reported using social media daily, the report found. Before the ban, the number was roughly 60 percent.

The report showed minimal change in “sports and physical activity, arts and music, spending time with friends and family, and attendance at community events”.

At the time the new rule was introduced, experts warned that enforcing it would be extremely difficult.

Joanna Orlando, a researcher in digital wellbeing and the author of Generation Connected: How to Parent in a Digital World, told Al Jazeera in December last year: “Tech-savvy teens simply use VPNs, fake birth photos for face scans, or migrate to less regulated platforms like Lemon8, or to platforms not part of the ban like video games. Enforcement is proving to be difficult in the days leading up to the ban.”

In December 2025, Australia prohibited children under 16 from using social media platforms, becoming the world’s first country to do so. Video game platforms are not included in the ban.

The government said this was prompted by increasing concerns about the effects of cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and self-harm content on the mental and physical health of children and young people.

Research commissioned by the Australian government in 2023 found four out of five children aged eight to 16 use social media, often beginning between the ages of 10 and 12. That report was led by former National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Thorburn, who recommended age restrictions.

Under the law, 10 of the biggest social media platforms face $33m in fines if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to block Australian-based users younger than 16. Such steps include using age-verification tools to determine how old users are.

As of January 16, social media companies had revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children in Australia, according to officials.

“We stared down everybody who said it couldn’t be done, some of the most powerful and rich companies in the world and their supporters,” Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells told reporters in January.

However, several months later, it now appears that youngsters have been able to open new accounts with relative ease.

Days after Australia’s ban took effect, Reddit, one of the 10 platforms required to block minors, lodged a challenge to the ban in the High Court, while still complying with it. The case is still ongoing.

How has the Australian government responded to the latest findings?

On Saturday, Andrew Leigh, Australia’s assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury, defended the new law, arguing that the social media ban has already reshaped the “national debate” about the use of social media by children.

The ban has been “an important game changer in the conversation among parents”, Leigh said in televised remarks.

“We’ve had millions of accounts shut down,” he said.

“We never expected that this would have 100 percent compliance. We don’t get 100 percent compliance out of minimum drinking age laws, but it’s still appropriate that we have that law on the books.”

While social media has long provided easy access to unregulated and often harmful content, misinformation and hate speech, the recent explosion of AI‑generated material poses new risks to the wellbeing of children and young people, experts say.

The American Psychological Association published an advisory last year warning that generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems can amplify harmful content such as violent or sexual videos.

It also added that adolescents are less likely than adults to question the accuracy of AI-generated content. “They may also be unaware of the persuasive intent underlying an AI system’s advice or bias,” the advisory stated.

AI can also amplify pre-existing societal prejudices, according to Ayo Tometi, co-creator of the US-based antiracist movement Black Lives Matter.

Children worldwide are also worried about the misuse of AI for online child sexual exploitation and “deepfakes”, according to research by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on children’s perspectives and AI, which it published in October 2025.

Following the introduction of Australia’s landmark law, some other countries are contemplating similar bans.

In the United Kingdom, the government has announced that it also plans to introduce a ban on social media platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram from spring 2027 onward. 

Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal, educational tools, and e-commerce and music streaming will be excluded.

The government will announce the new regulations by the end of this year.

In November 2025, Denmark’s government said it also plans to prohibit social media platforms for children under 15, saying it had secured majority support in parliament. The ban is due to come into effect later this year.

Around the same time, Malaysia said it would ban social media accounts for people under 16 from this year.

In April, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis formally announced plans to prohibit social media access for children under 15 from January 1, 2027, subject to parliamentary approval.

Spain’s two tiny enclaves on the north coast of Africa have long been a flashpoint in its relationship with Morocco, which the territories border.

The only such European territories on African soil, they include the autonomous city enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, as well as Plazas de Soberanía – a group of rocky islands off the Moroccan coast, which include the Chafarinas Islands, Alhucemas Islands and Penon de Velez de la Gomera.

While Spain says it owns these enclaves, Morocco does not recognise Spain’s sovereignty over them and has been demanding their return since independence from France in 1956.

The territorial dispute has resulted in long-standing political tensions between Spain and Morocco.

Last week, after more than 50,000 migrants surged over the border into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, those tensions between Madrid and Rabat intensified. While most have since returned to Morocco, several thousand remain in Ceuta this week.

So why does Spain have these territories at all and what does their future hold?

Here’s what we know:

Why does Spain have enclaves in North Africa?

The enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, along with a few islets off the coast of Morocco, constitute the last vestiges of the Spanish colonial empire.

Ceuta first came under Portuguese rule in 1415 before becoming part of Spain in 1580, while Melilla was conquered by a Spanish nobleman in 1497. Ceuta remained under Spanish control after Portugal regained independence in 1640 following a long war.

“Spain reached its greatest extent in Latin America, and with the loss of Cuba, Costa Rica and the Philippines in 1898, it shifted its influence to Africa, although most European colonial powers had already divided it among themselves,” explained Yolanda Aixelà Cabré, an anthropologist at IMF-CSIC in Barcelona.

After the decolonisation of Africa in the last century, Ceuta and Melilla remained the only European-held territories on the African mainland. Although geographically in Africa, the enclaves are considered Spanish territory and form part of the EU’s external border.

“For Spain, maintaining these enclaves [on the northern coast of Africa] is fundamental on a symbolic level because they reinforce Spanish grandeur, its imperial past which the State continues to consider a bearer of civilisation in contrast to barbarism, a notion perfectly encapsulated by the repetitive discourse that [Christopher] Columbus, representing the Catholic Monarchs, ‘discovered’ America,” she said.

Why didn’t the enclaves pass to Morocco on independence?

Selim Balouati Lakhloufi is a historian and researcher specialising in the history of North Africa and the Rif mountainous region in northern Morocco, which stretches along the Mediterranean coast from Tangier to the border with Algeria. He said Ceuta and Melilla continue to exist as separate territories because their origins “predate modern Morocco”.

“They are enclaves that have been occupied for centuries,” he told Al Jazeera.

But since gaining independence from France in 1956 – which Spain recognised while retaining its enclaves – Morocco has consistently maintained that the territories of Ceuta and Melilla, which it calls “Sebtah and Melilah”, and the Plazas de Soberanía, are part of its territory and has been demanding their return.

“This has always been used by the Moroccan political class as a point of criticism against Spain,” Lakhloufi said.

Samir Bennis, a Washington, DC-based senior political adviser who is also the co-founder of Morocco World News and an expert on Morocco’s foreign policy, said since independence, Morocco’s territorial claims over Ceuta and Melilla have frequently been at the centre of tricky relations between Spain and Morocco.

“Perhaps this issue would not have had the same detrimental effect on bilateral relations had Moroccan leaders shown greater determination in the early 1960s, during the height of the decolonisation period, to bring the matter before the United Nations and seek recognition of these two cities as colonial territories that should be liberated from any foreign presence,” he said.

He explained that there are, however, two important factors which led the Moroccan authorities to refrain from pursuing this course in their efforts to restore the country’s territorial integrity.

“The first was the sheer scale of the territorial disputes between Spain and Morocco. Given the difficulty Morocco faced in simultaneously contesting Spanish control over several territories, the Moroccan government decided to proceed gradually in its efforts to recover the parts of Moroccan territory that remained under Spanish rule.”

“The second factor that led the Moroccan leadership to postpone addressing the question of Ceuta and Melilla was the willingness shown by the Spanish authorities to resolve their territorial disputes with Morocco progressively. In the end, this strategy proved highly beneficial for safeguarding Spain’s interests in the two cities,” Bennis added.

How strong is Morocco’s claim to these enclaves?

Morocco’s claim to the territories is relatively weak, Bennis said. But “the country can invoke a range of historical, geographical and human arguments that cast doubt on Spain’s position”.

Jamie Trinidad, a fellow and director of studies in law at Wolfson College, Cambridge University, also said that Morocco’s claim to the territories is weak under international law. “It is a political, rather than a legal, claim, similar to Spain’s claim to Gibraltar, which lies across the strait from Ceuta,” he said. Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory.

“In the 1970s, Morocco asked the UN to include the territories on the list of ‘Non-Self-Governing Territories’ overseen by the UN’s Special Committee on Decolonisation, but the Moroccan request was ignored by the UN,” he added.

What do people living in these enclaves want?

Around 84,000 people live in Ceuta and 86,000 in Melilla.

In Spanish possession since 1580, Ceuta is home to a mixed population of Christian and Muslim, Spanish and Moroccan residents and day workers who live and work in relative harmony.

But after more than 50,000 migrants entered Ceuta illegally last week, divisions and tensions in the enclave have risen.

Hundreds of residents rallied on Sunday – two days after the surge of migrants to Ceuta – to oppose a planned far-right anti-migrant rally, forcing organisers to cancel the event.

“I am half Christian, half Muslim, as many in Ceuta are. We live peacefully together. But the numbers this time were scary,” Ceuta resident Isabel told Al Jazeera over the weekend.

Melilla, which has been in Spanish possession since 1497, is also home to Spanish and Moroccan residents, as well as small Jewish and Sindhi communities, the latter a diaspora of Hindu merchants who arrived following the 1947 partition of India.

The Plazas de Soberania is mainly populated by Spanish military personnel.

Lakhloufi noted that polling shows an overwhelming majority of people living in Ceuta and Melilla wish to remain part of Spain.

“This has been reflected consistently in public opinion and in the absence of any significant political movement advocating a change in sovereignty,” he said. “Even the population with Moroccan origin want to stay as Spanish and European. This is because the social welfare difference between Morocco and the cities it’s really high,” he said.

“At the same time, both cities maintain strong historical, cultural and economic ties with Morocco, making cooperation across the border an important aspect of daily life,” he added.

According to the Spanish government, Ceuta and Melilla are part of the Schengen area, which guarantees freedom of movement within the EU, but are subject to a special Schengen regime. People travelling between the enclaves and mainland Spain undergo separate border checks.

“Schengen checks are carried out on exit by sea or air, the only two routes available. Therefore, no one can travel from Ceuta or Melilla to mainland Spain without being identified by the National Police at the port or the airport. In addition, ferry operators and airlines are required to verify travel documents,” a Spanish government document states.

Will Spain give up these enclaves?

Analysts are divided.

In March 2022, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote to the Moroccan king, confirming Spanish support for Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara, which Spain gave up control of in 1975. Sanchez said this was “the most serious, realistic and credible” initiative for resolving the decades-long dispute over the vast African territory and declared “a new stage” in Spain’s strained relations with Morocco.

Cabre said, therefore, that after last week’s overwhelming migrant influx into Ceuta, Spain could ultimately cede sovereignty to Morocco.

“Their [the enclaves] mere presence is an unsustainable historical anomaly at a time when the decolonisation of European states is being promoted at all levels, like European countries returning of items stolen during colonialism and recognising the citizenship rights of their former colonies,” she said.

But Lakhloufi does not expect a fundamental change in Spain’s policy on the enclaves.

“What may change is the way Spain manages its relationship with Morocco, particularly regarding border management, migration and security cooperation. However, tactical adjustments should not be confused with a shift in Spain’s long-standing position on sovereignty. It’s usually Morocco that puts pressure on the borders, not Spain,” he said.

Iran on Monday denied that any negotiations were taking place with the United States, directly contradicting U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that talks were scheduled later in the day and exposing fresh uncertainty over Washington’s strategy after months of military confrontation.

The conflicting statements came after Trump once again backed away from threatened military action against Iran, saying he preferred diplomacy over escalation. Tehran, however, insisted that no negotiations were planned and that no meetings with American officials had been arranged.

Iran Rejects Trump’s Claims

Speaking aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said the United States would begin negotiations with Iran on Monday afternoon, describing diplomacy as preferable to launching another round of attacks.

Iran swiftly dismissed the claim.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there were no negotiations under way with Washington and no plans to host American officials or dispatch Iranian negotiators abroad. He added that, apart from Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, who is currently on a religious pilgrimage in Iraq, all Iranian negotiators remain inside the country.

A senior Iranian source also told Reuters that no talks had been scheduled and that Araqchi would remain unavailable until at least the end of the week.

According to Tehran, the only ongoing discussions involve Oman and focus exclusively on managing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

A Familiar Cycle of Escalation and Retreat

The latest episode mirrors a pattern that has defined the five month conflict between Washington and Tehran.

Since launching Operation Epic Fury alongside Israel, Trump has repeatedly threatened major military action before stepping back at the last moment, often citing diplomatic efforts as justification.

Iran has consistently rejected direct negotiations since the collapse of a U.S. backed memorandum of understanding in early July, arguing that Washington has failed to uphold previous commitments while continuing military pressure.

The repeated cycle of escalation followed by de escalation has left uncertainty hanging over regional security and global energy markets.

Hormuz Remains the Central Dispute

At the heart of the dispute remains the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most strategically important oil shipping route.

Washington argues that the failed June agreement required Iran to reopen the waterway to unrestricted international shipping. Tehran maintains that the document explicitly preserved its authority over traffic through the strait, allowing it to retain significant leverage.

The inability of the United States to secure unrestricted access has become one of the most significant unresolved issues of the conflict.

For the Trump administration, failure to reduce Iran’s influence over Hormuz would represent a strategic setback after months of military operations aimed at weakening Tehran’s regional position.

Strategic Goals Remain Unfulfilled

Five months into the conflict, many of Washington’s stated objectives remain largely unmet.

The United States has sought to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, reduce its capacity to strike regional rivals, protect commercial shipping, and increase pressure on Iran’s leadership.

Instead, Iran has continued to demonstrate its ability to disrupt regional energy infrastructure and maritime trade while maintaining leverage over one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

Each round of military escalation has been followed by Iranian retaliatory actions targeting shipping, Gulf energy infrastructure, or U.S. interests in the region, complicating Washington’s efforts to establish deterrence.

Despite the diplomatic confusion, financial markets welcomed Trump’s decision not to proceed with further attacks.

Brent crude prices fell more than 4 percent to around 84 dollars per barrel as traders anticipated a reduced immediate risk of supply disruptions in the Gulf.

Nevertheless, tensions remain elevated.

The British maritime security organisation UKMTO reported that a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz detected an explosion in nearby waters overnight, although no injuries or damage were reported.

Diplomatic Uncertainty Persists

The contradictory messages from Washington and Tehran highlight the absence of a clear diplomatic pathway toward ending the crisis.

While Trump continues to present negotiations as an alternative to military action, Iran’s categorical denial suggests that no formal channel currently exists between the two governments.

With the Strait of Hormuz still contested and military incidents continuing across the Gulf, the conflict remains caught between diplomacy and confrontation, leaving regional stability and global energy markets vulnerable to further shocks.

With information from Reuters.

Do we still call it a “heat wave” if it never ends?

Maybe my Texas and Arizona friends can help me out here on proper nomenclature because, while everybody loves the sunshine, I’m starting to dream of the time when autumn leaves start to fall.

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. My birthday’s still a few months away. Is it OK if I have a slice of this cake, anyway? Maybe the Television Academy can send it to the Emmy nominees who are no longer invited to the ceremony this year.

Read on for more …

Awards show adaptation or mere party foul?

What if you were invited to a party and then nine days later that invitation is rescinded? A party in your honor, no less, or at least one where you are among the honorees. How would you feel? Would you be tempted to take that birthday cake I just mentioned and smash it into the face of your host?

Maybe I’ve watched the pie fight in “Blazing Saddles” one too many times. (Happy 100th birthday, Mel Brooks!) Still, if I were among the Emmy nominees in the five categories that the Television Academy shuttled off the Primetime Emmy Awards to the untelevised Creative Arts Emmy Awards, I might be reaching for some baked goods and taking aim.

The five categories excised from the show include four from the limited series/movie group — supporting actor and actress, writing and directing. (Variety series writing was also cut.) When I wrote a few weeks ago that the limited series boom had gone bust, it wasn’t my intention that the TV Academy remove more than half of the categories from the show. It could have just been a down year, people! Television was pretty meh across the board the last 12 months. Why pick on one division?

In doing so, the Television Academy effectively disenfranchised HBO’s “DTF St. Louis,” the best limited series of the season, from the ceremony. Steven Conrad’s dark comedy about suburban loneliness earned 13 nominations, including supporting acting nods for each member of its stellar ensemble — Jason Bateman, David Harbour, Linda Cardellini, Richard Jenkins and Joy Sunday. Conrad was nominated for three — writing, directing and producing the series.

But now only Harbour, Bateman and Conrad will receive tickets to the show as executive producers of the nominated series. The other actors can attend the Creative Arts Emmys, held the weekend before the Primetime Emmys. And of course, HBO will be happy to buy them tickets if they want to go to the televised ceremony too.

The question is: Will they and other nominees, which include the likes of Nick Offerman (“Death by Lightning”), Charles Melton (“Beef”) and Dakota Fanning (“All Her Fault”), want to get dressed up two weekends in a row? (First-world problems, I know.)

“It really did manifest as a disinvite for all these people,” says one awards consultant who, like other sources for this story, requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about the move. “Had the Television Academy done it before nominations came out, then at least people’s expectations would have been managed. But now it’s sort of like you got invited to the party and now you can’t come. It’s not a very nice feeling.”

“Beef” star Charles Melton’s category, supporting actor in a limited series or TV movie, will be presented at the untelevised Creative Arts Emmys the weekend before the Primetime Emmys ceremony.

(Netflix)

Why did the TV Academy wait to shift the categories until after the nominations were announced? Why focus on limited series and not, say, spread the cuts across drama and comedy categories too? Are these changes permanent?

I asked these questions to the Television Academy and the answers were, basically: We announced as soon as possible. We’re going to sidestep that second query. And we’ll see how it goes!

What this comes down to is a desire to create a show that, in the words of a TV Academy spokesperson, is “driven by the need to innovate while delivering a three-hour broadcast, keeping audience expectations and the creative structure of the ceremony in mind.”

Translation: fewer awards, fewer speeches, more throwback segments that have a chance to go viral and get people talking.

The Oscars tried this in 2022, moving eight categories off the telecast, handing them out before the broadcast began. Members hated the idea and order was restored the following year with all 23 awards being presented during the live telecast. (In 2019, when the motion picture academy announced a similar move, saying that four categories would be handed out during commercial breaks, the blowback was so fierce that the decision was almost immediately reversed.)

Emmy ratings were up 8% last year, the highest since 2021. An average of 7.42 million viewers watched. Not NFL numbers, but a continued indication that the audience level for major awards ceremonies has stabilized after steep declines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there is a feeling among some that awards shows need to adapt and pick up the pace in a time when viewers’ attention spans have shortened. Is there an appetite for a three-hour ceremony when you can simply watch the highlights the next day on social media platforms?

“If people don’t want to see actors winning awards, then the days of televised awards shows should just be over,” gripes another Emmy consultant.

One thing that might be over — or at least greatly diminished — will be submissions for the supporting acting categories for limited series/movie next year if the academy makes this revision permanent.

“I think everyone will be going lead,” one network executive joked, “even if they have just five minutes an episode.”