security

The daughter of mosque security guard Amin Abdullah is remembering him as the “absolute best dad in the world.” Family and community members gathered Tuesday to honour Abdullah, who was killed while confronting gunmen during the attack on a San Diego mosque.

WASHINGTON — Shouting over the banging and clanging sounds from heavy construction equipment, President Trump on Tuesday gave a group of reporters a closer look at the construction for the White House ballroom he’s building on the site of the former East Wing to mount a defense for the project that has hit a speed bump in Congress.

The administration has asked for $1 billion from taxpayers for security additions on the White House campus, including for the ballroom. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled the proposal could not be included in a bill to fund immigrant enforcement agencies for three years, and several Republican lawmakers have balked at the price tag in an election year where voters are grappling with gasoline, grocery and other prices spurred to new heights by the Iran war and the disruption in oil supplies.

So Trump, ever the pitchman, surprised White House reporters by bringing them to a platform overlooking the construction site on a hot and breezy morning as workers in hard hats and fluorescent yellow vests milled about below.

Easels were set up to display renderings of the ballroom building and at least one of them blew off in the wind. “Give that to me, I’ll hold it,” Trump told an assistant.

“There will never be another building like this built, that I can tell you,” Trump told reporters.

He highlighted the security aspects of the building, notably its “dead flat” roof made of “very strong steel” and said it is “drone-proof” because “if a drone hits it, it bounces off, it won’t have any impact — but it’s also meant as a drone port, so it protects all of Washington, the roof of the building.”

He said the military will “stay on it” to keep watch over the city.

There’s no air conditioning or other equipment on the roof for safety reasons, Trump said, explaining that all duct work and equipment like it was hidden within the walls of the complex, which will serve as a “shield” for a military hospital, research facilities, offices for the first lady and her staff, and a full-service kitchen — in addition to a ballroom big enough for 1,000 people.

He said the ballroom building goes down six stories underground and is really “complex” because “everything is intertwined.”

“The roof goes with the ground floor, the ground floor goes with the roof. The roof also goes down into the basement,” the president said. “This is one well-knit building. One thing doesn’t work without the other.”

Trump says the ballroom is a ‘gift’ to the country

He reiterated that the $400-million ballroom cost will be covered by donors, including him, and that the work is being done “in strict coordination” with the military and U.S. Secret Service.

“This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer,” Trump said. “This is a gift to the United States of America.”

But it’s somewhat of an unwanted present as polling shows most Americans oppose the ballroom, which is embroiled in litigation in federal court. A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in April found that a majority, 56%, of U.S. adults oppose Trump’s decision to tear down the East Wing to make way for the ballroom, while only 28% are in support.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to halt construction until Congress approves plans for the building.

Trump insisted he will have “very little” time to use the ballroom. He recently announced that it will be ready in September 2028, less than six months before his term ends.

“This is really for other presidents,” he said.

Trump sidestepped a question about whether he’ll kick in any more of his own money if Congress rejects the $1-billion funding request.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said Trump’s tour was not in response to the difficulties brewing in Congress. “President Trump is the most transparent president of all time and was excited to showcase to the press and American people the amazing gift he is giving to the White House and generations of future presidents to come,” Ingle said.

Trump also touched on some of the other beautification projects he’s undertaking across the city, such as restarting dormant park fountains. He claimed to be spending much less to clean up the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool than did his immediate predecessors — both Democrats.

“I’m doing a job on the Reflecting Lake for a fraction of what they paid,” Trump said. He’s having the surface coated in a shade of blue and wants to reopen it by July 4. A separate nonprofit group, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, has sued to halt this project.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Iran has publicly outlined key elements of its latest peace proposal to the United States, demanding reparations for war damage, the withdrawal of United States forces from areas near Iran, and the lifting of economic sanctions as part of any broader agreement.

According to comments from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, the proposal also calls for the release of frozen Iranian assets, an end to restrictions affecting Iranian trade and shipping, and a halt to hostilities across regional conflict zones including Lebanon.

The proposal emerged after United States President Donald Trump announced that he had paused a planned military strike against Iran to allow additional time for negotiations regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme and regional security issues.

Iran Pushes for Broader Regional Settlement

Tehran’s proposal reflects an effort to expand negotiations beyond nuclear issues into wider geopolitical and security concerns across the Middle East.

Iran appears to be seeking a comprehensive arrangement that addresses not only sanctions and military pressure but also the broader regional balance of power involving Lebanon, the Gulf region, and United States military deployments.

The demand for reparations is particularly significant because it frames the recent conflict as an act requiring compensation for damage caused by joint United States and Israeli military operations.

Iranian officials also continue insisting that economic sanctions and frozen overseas assets remain central obstacles to any sustainable agreement.

United States Signals Openness but Maintains Pressure

Trump stated that there was a strong possibility of reaching a deal that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while avoiding renewed military escalation.

However, Washington has not publicly confirmed any major concessions in negotiations. Reports suggesting the United States may release a portion of frozen Iranian funds or allow limited peaceful nuclear activity under international supervision remain unverified by American officials.

At the same time, United States officials continue denying claims that sanctions on Iranian oil exports would be fully waived during negotiations.

The situation reflects a complex diplomatic balancing act in which Washington seeks to maintain leverage while preventing a wider regional conflict that could destabilise global energy markets and military alliances.

Regional Powers Push for De Escalation

Regional governments including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates reportedly urged Trump to delay military action in hopes that negotiations could succeed.

The involvement of regional mediators highlights growing concern across the Gulf about the economic and security consequences of another large scale conflict involving Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz remains especially important because it serves as one of the world’s most critical shipping routes for oil and energy exports. Any escalation threatening maritime trade could have severe consequences for global energy prices and economic stability.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has reportedly continued acting as a communication channel between Tehran and Washington after previously hosting peace talks between the two sides.

Ongoing Tensions Despite Ceasefire

Although a ceasefire has largely held since the suspension of major hostilities earlier this year, tensions remain extremely high across the region.

Iran and its regional allies continue facing accusations of supporting drone activity and proxy operations targeting Gulf states and Israeli interests. At the same time, Iran maintains that it has survived military pressure without abandoning its nuclear capabilities, missile programmes, or regional alliances.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump previously justified military operations as necessary to weaken Iran’s nuclear programme and reduce its influence through allied militias across the Middle East.

However, analysts note that Iran still retains significant strategic capabilities despite extensive military strikes and economic sanctions.

Analysis

Iran’s latest proposal demonstrates that Tehran is attempting to negotiate from a position of resilience rather than surrender.

By demanding reparations, sanctions relief, and troop withdrawals, Iran is signalling that it expects recognition of its regional influence and strategic endurance despite months of conflict and economic pressure. The proposal also reflects Tehran’s broader objective of reducing the long term military presence of the United States near its borders.

For Washington, the negotiations present a difficult challenge. The United States wants to prevent Iran from advancing toward nuclear weapons capability while avoiding another prolonged regional war that could damage global markets, strain military resources, and increase political pressure at home.

The talks are also shaped by wider geopolitical realities. Gulf states increasingly prioritise regional stability and economic security, making them more supportive of diplomacy than direct military confrontation. Rising energy prices and fears of shipping disruptions further increase international pressure for a negotiated outcome.

At the same time, deep mistrust continues to define relations between both sides. The United States remains sceptical of Iran’s regional ambitions, while Tehran sees sanctions and military deployments as tools of long term containment.

Ultimately, the negotiations reveal a broader struggle over the future balance of power in the Middle East. Even if temporary agreements are reached, the underlying strategic rivalry between Iran, the United States, and Israel is unlikely to disappear in the near future.

With information from Reuters.

When the ancient Greek historian Thucydides chronicled the Peloponnesian War, he did not write only about the clash between Athens and Sparta. He documented the fate of the small city-states caught between them in 431BC. Corcyra and Potidaea, neutral territories with no grand strategy of their own, were crushed, annexed, or forced into allegiance as the two great powers dragged the entire Greek world into conflict.

Thucydides famously wrote that it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable. Yet for the smaller states, there was no trap to escape. There was only destruction when great powers fought. This forgotten truth frames the most dangerous bilateral relationship on earth today.

When President Xi Jinping invoked the Thucydides Trap during his May 2026 summit with President Donald Trump in Beijing, he framed it as a question between two great powers asking whether China and the US can rise above the so-called Thucydides Trap and create a new framework for major-power relations. The concept was popularized by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, who identified sixteen historical cases over the past five hundred years where a rising power challenged an established one, with twelve ending in war. Allison’s framework casts China as the rising Athens and the US as the established Sparta. It centers on whether these two great powers can avoid destroying each other, while leaving less examined what happens to the smaller states caught in between. At the summit, President Xi warned that if mishandled the two countries could clash or even enter into conflict, leading the entire China-US relationship into a highly dangerous scenario. He emphasized that the Taiwan issue is the most critical matter in their bilateral relation, implicitly acknowledging that miscalculation could materialize the very trap he warned against.

The competition between the US and China has grown far beyond trade into something that locks other countries into its orbit. What started as a tariff dispute has become overlapping conflicts across technology, finance, energy, and data governance, each one reinforcing the others and closing off neutral ground. This creates a situation close to a legal Catch-22 where China’s Ministry of Commerce used its blocking statute for the first time in May 2026 against US sanctions and put multinational companies in a position where following Washington’s extraterritorial rules meant breaking Beijing’s laws and following Beijing’s rules meant breaking Washington’s. This is not a byproduct of the competition but is becoming the competition itself.

US bans on advanced semiconductors and AI chips combined with Chinese limits on gallium, germanium, and rare earths along with rival payment systems like China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), which provides cross-border payment services to more than 5,000 banking institutions across 190 countries and regions as an alternative to Western banking rails and clashing visions of internet sovereignty have built up into a tightly connected system where doing business globally increasingly means either choosing a side or paying escalating costs for staying neutral, with the heaviest pressure in tech and finance while other domains retain more space for hedging. These costs hit hardest not the US or China but the countries and firms that have no power over either. China-US trade, technology, and regulatory pressures have repeatedly spilled over into third countries, and Southeast Asia has often been caught in the middle. Vietnam has faced US scrutiny over goods assembled with Chinese-linked inputs, Cambodia experienced significant trade diversion during the 2018 US-China trade war, Malaysia came under pressure to tighten controls on semiconductor shipments, and Singapore has had to navigate the compliance burdens created by competing US and Chinese rules.

More broadly, small states across the globe must navigate between two major powers, leaning toward China for economic reasons and toward the US for security reasons. ASEAN has long relied on non-alignment and hedging to preserve, and of course expand, room to maneuver if possible, but intensifying US-China competition is narrowing that room. Some states have turned rivalry into opportunity. Vietnam has attracted manufacturing shifts and foreign investment as companies diversify supply chains away from China. India, Gulf states, and others actively play both sides or carve strategic niches, extracting economic benefits while maintaining security partnerships. Yet these adaptive strategies have limits, and the space for maneuvering narrows as competition intensifies, leaving smaller states with growing pressure, higher compliance costs, and reduced autonomy.

The relationship between China and the US remains the world’s most dangerous bilateral relationship not because President Xi and President Trump might make war on each other but because small countries worldwide will be the first casualties when that war comes or even when competition intensifies. The real Thucydides Trap is not whether America and China can avoid war with each other but whether small states can survive the rivalry even if both of them somehow manage peaceful coexistence. As fence sitting becomes tense and the legal arms race traps countries in impossible dilemmas, more countries face choices that progressively erode the strategic autonomy they have long relied on. Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian War with eyes on all participants including the allies of Athens and Sparta who became victims of the trap. The lesson from ancient Greece is very clear that when great powers fight the weak do not survive, and the stories of Corcyra and Potidaea matter just as much as the struggle between Athens and Sparta.

When Athens and Sparta finally went to war, the first thing that died was the freedom of everyone caught between them. The US and China may or may not escape their trap but regional powers, developing nations, and many other small countries already know themselves to be inside it.

When you go abroad, there are all sorts of travel rules people need to follow but a certain guideline is considered crucial. It’s vital to know if you want to avoid delays at airport security

All travellers have been urged to take note of a crucial airport rule, as ignoring it could lead to significant hold-ups at security. It’s well worth bearing in mind as the travel season is already well under way, with scores of Brits eager to head off on their holidays for some hard-earned sunshine and relaxation.

The rule was recently highlighted on TikTok by a travel agent named Jake, who regularly shares straight-talking tips online, and it’s something you may never have previously considered. It’s well worth familiarising yourself with this particular rule, as it could have a real impact on how long you end up waiting in the security queue.

It’s not the first travel tip of this nature to do the rounds recently, either. Previously, holidaymakers were warned to brace themselves for “hell” owing to mounting queues at a popular airport.

Jake said: “This is the number one reason for delays at airport security in the UK right now, and almost everyone has one in their bag. But, there’s one thing that’s catching everybody out.

“It’s these. Reusable, stainless steel water bottles because, while the 100ml rule has been scrapped, and for some airports you can take up to two litres of liquids with you, these still need to be emptied.

“That’s purely because the machines can’t check the liquid that’s in these bottles. So, if you do have one in your bag and it’s got liquid in, then you’re going to have your bag pulled aside.

“You’re going to have that embarrassing moment on the belt where you see your bag go down a different aisle. So, as you’re heading to security, make sure you empty these.

“The good news is though, if you do forget and you have your water bottle in there with liquid in, they’re not going to make you throw your expensive water bottle away. They’re just going to pour out the liquid that’s in there.

“So this is just going to cause further delays for you getting through duty-free and being able to relax before you get on your flight.”

It might seem like a straightforward tip, but it’s certainly one worth bearing in mind. Sticking to the rule could help you sidestep a major headache that’s easily avoidable.

What you need to know

What you might not realise is that you must fully empty your reusable water bottle before passing through airport security. While the 100ml liquid limit may not apply to the container itself, any liquid left inside is banned and could lead to your bottle being seized.

Even if your local airport permits larger liquid containers or doesn’t require you to remove electronics from your bag, metal or insulated bottles (such as Hydro Flasks or Yetis) typically need to be drained. The sophisticated scanners are unable to “see” through double-wall insulation, so it pays to stay one step ahead.

As Jake highlighted, certain airports now permit passengers to carry containers holding up to two litres of liquid in their hand luggage. However, this is entirely dependent on the specific airport you’re departing from, as it requires state-of-the-art 3D scanning technology.

For this reason, it’s always wise to check the regulations for your particular airport ahead of your journey. At major hubs including London Heathrow, London Gatwick, Birmingham and Edinburgh, you’re allowed to take containers holding up to two litres each.

That said, this rule only applies at select airports. If you’re in any doubt, always confirm with your airport before you travel.

Taiwan has expressed openness to a direct conversation between US President Donald Trump and Taiwanese President Lai Ching te, following heightened diplomatic attention after Trump’s recent summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing.

The discussion comes amid renewed sensitivity over Taiwan’s political status and security, an issue that remains one of the most contested points in US China relations. During the summit, Taiwan was reportedly discussed, with Xi warning of potential conflict if the issue is not handled carefully.

Trump made several public comments on Taiwan following the meeting, including uncertainty over future arms sales and remarks interpreted as cautious on Taiwan independence.

Why the Issue Matters Now

A direct call between a US president and Taiwan’s leader would be highly significant, as no such conversation has taken place since Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.

Taiwan relies heavily on the United States for security support and arms supplies, making US political signaling on the issue highly consequential for regional stability.

Taiwanese officials said recent remarks had created some uncertainty domestically, even as the government maintains that its core policy position has not changed.

Taiwan Diplomatic Position

Taiwan’s foreign ministry indicated that it would welcome a direct conversation if the opportunity arises, while also seeking clarity on Washington’s intentions.

Officials emphasized that Taiwan continues to view its relationship with the United States as stable, even amid shifting rhetoric following high level US China engagement.

Taipei reiterated that its political future must be determined by its own population, rejecting Beijing’s sovereignty claims.

US China Taiwan Triangle

The situation reflects the broader strategic competition between United States and China, where Taiwan remains a central geopolitical flashpoint.

Beijing considers Taiwan part of its territory, while Washington maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity, supporting Taiwan’s defense capabilities without formally recognizing it as an independent state.

Analysis

The possibility of direct engagement between Trump and Lai would represent a notable diplomatic signal, even if symbolic in nature. It would likely be interpreted differently by Washington, Taipei, and Beijing, each of which assigns distinct strategic meaning to Taiwan related communication.

For Taiwan, such contact would reinforce political visibility and strengthen informal ties with its key security partner. For the United States, it could serve as a calibrated message of support while still avoiding formal diplomatic recognition.

However, it also carries escalation risks. Any perceived shift in US Taiwan engagement often triggers strong reactions from Beijing, increasing regional tension.

Overall, the development highlights how Taiwan remains a central pressure point in US China relations, where even limited diplomatic gestures can have outsized geopolitical impact.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — A proposal to fund $1 billion in security additions for the White House campus and President Trump’s new ballroom fails to meet procedural rules, according to the Senate parliamentarian, dealing a blow to Republican plans to include it as part of a bill to fund immigration enforcement agencies for the next three years.

The parliamentarian’s ruling, described late Saturday by Senate Democrats, said that funding for a project as large and complex as Trump’s massive East Wing renovation is too broad to be included in the narrow GOP budget bill, which cannot be filibustered and needs only a simple majority to pass.

It’s unclear whether Republicans will be able to immediately salvage any part of the billion-dollar Secret Service proposal, which would fund security for Trump’s ballroom along with other parts of the White House, including a new visitor screening center, additional training for agents and extra reinforcements for large events. Republicans said Saturday night that they are revising the legislation based on the parliamentarian’s advice.

Ryan Wrasse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), wrote in a post on X that “none of this is abnormal” during the complicated budget process that Republicans are using to try to pass the immigration enforcement and White House security money on a partisan basis.

“Redraft. Refine. Resubmit,” Wrasse said in the post.

Democrats say they’re ‘ready to stop them again’

Democrats have seized on the security request, accusing Republicans of dedicating federal resources to the ballroom project instead of focusing on helping Americans with rising costs. Republicans have insisted that private donations will be used to build the ballroom and that the federal dollars are focused just on much-needed security enhancements.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took credit for the ruling after Democrats argued to the parliamentarian that the security money doesn’t belong in the bill.

“Republicans tried to make taxpayers foot the bill for Trump’s billion-dollar ballroom,” Schumer said Saturday evening. “Senate Democrats fought back — and blew up their first attempt.”

Schumer added that Democrats “will be ready to stop them again” as Republicans say they will revise the bill.

The ruling from the Senate parliamentarian is advisory, but such rulings are rarely if ever ignored when lawmakers put together legislation that can pass with a simple majority. Most bills are subject to a filibuster and thus need 60 votes for passage — meaning Republicans must find some Democratic support in the 53-47 Senate.

Part of immigration bill

Republicans are looking to approve a roughly $72-billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection until the end of Trump’s term after Democrats have blocked the money for months.

As part of that package, Republicans included $1 billion for White House security enhancements, part of it connected to Trump’s ballroom. The Secret Service had requested the money after a man was charged with trying to assassinate Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last month.

The overall budget package is providing another boost of funding for Trump’s immigration and deportation agenda, fueling operations through September 2029. It comes on top of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funds Congress provided last year in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed into law.

The parliamentarian kept most of the immigration portion of the legislation intact, though some minor provisions were blocked, including Customs and Border Patrol funds to hire, train and pay Border Patrol agents. Republicans said those were only technical fixes.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said Saturday evening that “Democrats are prepared to challenge any change to this bill.”

Americans shouldn’t spend “a single dime” on Trump’s “Louis XIV-style ballroom and throw tens of billions more at two lawless agencies,” Merkley said.

Jalonick and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

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

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

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

Iran Pushes for Stronger Condemnation

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

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

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

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

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

India’s Carefully Balanced Position

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

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

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

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

Gaza and Palestine Also Cause Disagreement

Divisions were not limited to the Iran conflict.

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

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

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

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

BRICS and the Global South Narrative

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

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

The expanded BRICS bloc now includes:

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

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

The Economic Impact on India

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With information from Reuters.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy strongly condemned Russia after a missile strike on a residential apartment building in Kyiv killed at least 24 people, including three children.

The attack occurred during one of the heaviest aerial bombardments on the Ukrainian capital this year and further intensified international concern over the continuing war between Russia and Ukraine. Rescue operations continued for more than a full day before emergency workers completed searches through the destroyed structure in Kyiv’s Darnytskyi district.

The strike formed part of a broader wave of Russian drone and missile attacks across Ukraine that officials say targeted multiple regions over consecutive days.

Zelenskiy Visits the Site of the Attack

Zelenskiy visited the destroyed apartment building on Friday, laying red roses at the site and meeting rescue workers who had spent more than twenty eight hours searching for survivors beneath the rubble.

In remarks shared through social media, the Ukrainian president praised emergency responders for their continuous efforts and accused Russia of deliberately destroying civilian lives.

According to Zelenskiy, the missile strike effectively destroyed an entire section of the residential building. Ukrainian officials stated that initial analysis suggested the attack involved a recently manufactured Russian Kh 101 cruise missile.

The Ukrainian leader once again appealed to international allies for stronger air defence support and increased pressure on Moscow.

Heavy Civilian Casualties

Kyiv authorities declared Friday a day of mourning in memory of the victims. Flags across the capital were lowered to half mast, and public entertainment events were cancelled or postponed.

The Interior Ministry reported that rescue teams removed approximately 3,000 cubic meters of rubble during the operation. Hundreds of emergency personnel participated in the search efforts.

Officials confirmed that 24 bodies were recovered from the site, while approximately 30 people were rescued alive. Nearly 50 individuals were injured, and hundreds required psychological support following the attack.

The deaths of children among the victims further intensified public grief and anger across Ukraine.

Russia Intensifies Air Campaign

Ukrainian authorities stated that Russia launched more than 1,500 drones along with dozens of missiles during attacks carried out over two consecutive days this week.

The strikes extended beyond Kyiv and affected western regions of Ukraine located far from active frontline combat zones. Officials reported that six people were killed during attacks in western Ukraine on Wednesday.

The scale of the aerial assault highlights Russia’s continuing ability to conduct large coordinated attacks despite prolonged international sanctions and battlefield losses.

Moscow did not immediately comment specifically on the apartment building strike. Russia consistently denies deliberately targeting civilians, although residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure have repeatedly been damaged throughout the conflict.

Ukraine Also Conducts Cross Border Attacks

The conflict has increasingly involved reciprocal long range attacks by both sides.

Russian regional officials stated that Ukrainian drone strikes killed four people, including a child, in the Russian city of Ryazan. Authorities reported damage to apartment buildings and an industrial facility during the incident.

Ukraine has expanded drone operations against targets inside Russia over the course of the war, aiming to disrupt military infrastructure, industrial production, and logistical operations linked to Moscow’s military campaign.

These developments reflect the increasingly transnational nature of the conflict, with civilian populations on both sides facing growing security risks.

The Continuing Humanitarian Crisis

The attack on Kyiv underscores the severe humanitarian consequences of the war, which began with Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced since the start of the conflict, while repeated strikes on civilian infrastructure have damaged homes, hospitals, schools, transportation systems, and energy networks across the country.

International organizations and human rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns about civilian casualties and the destruction of non military targets during the war.

At the same time, the prolonged conflict has placed enormous economic and psychological pressure on Ukrainian society as cities continue to face the threat of missile and drone attacks.

Analysis

The deadly strike on Kyiv demonstrates how the war between Russia and Ukraine continues to evolve into a prolonged campaign involving large scale aerial warfare and attacks far beyond frontline battle zones.

For Ukraine, the attack reinforces the urgent need for stronger air defence systems capable of intercepting missiles and drones before they reach urban areas. Zelenskiy’s renewed appeals to allies reflect growing concerns that Ukraine’s defensive capabilities remain under intense strain as Russia increases the scale and frequency of aerial assaults.

For Russia, sustained missile and drone attacks appear aimed at weakening Ukrainian morale, exhausting defence systems, and increasing pressure on the government through continued civilian disruption.

However, such attacks also carry significant international consequences. Civilian casualties, especially involving children and residential buildings, strengthen global criticism of Moscow and may encourage additional military and financial support for Ukraine from Western allies.

The conflict additionally illustrates the changing character of modern warfare, where advanced missiles, drones, and long range strikes allow both sides to target infrastructure and urban centers far from traditional battlefields.

Despite ongoing diplomatic discussions in various international forums, there remains little indication of a near term political settlement. Instead, the war increasingly appears locked in a prolonged phase of escalation, attrition, and humanitarian suffering.

The strike on Kyiv therefore stands not only as a tragic individual event but also as a broader symbol of the continuing devastation caused by one of the most consequential conflicts in modern Europe.

With information from Reuters.

United States President Donald Trump concluded his final round of discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing while attempting to present the visit as a major economic success. The summit came at a sensitive moment for both countries as tensions over trade, Taiwan, artificial intelligence technology, and the Iran conflict continue to shape relations between the world’s two largest economies.

Trump emphasized trade agreements and commercial cooperation during the visit, hoping to strengthen his political standing ahead of important midterm elections in the United States. China, however, used the occasion to deliver clear warnings regarding Taiwan and to criticize the ongoing Iran conflict, signaling that major strategic disagreements remain unresolved despite the positive diplomatic atmosphere.

Trump Highlights Economic Progress

During meetings at the Zhongnanhai leadership compound in Beijing, Trump promoted what he described as successful trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing. He stated that both sides had reached agreements that would benefit their economies and help stabilize commercial relations after years of tariff disputes and economic uncertainty.

The United States announced several proposed agreements involving agricultural exports, beef, and energy sales to China. Officials also discussed mechanisms to manage future trade disputes and identified billions of dollars in potential goods trade between the two countries.

One of the most closely watched announcements involved aircraft manufacturer Boeing. Trump claimed China had agreed to purchase 200 Boeing aircraft, marking China’s first major order of American commercial planes in nearly ten years. However, investors reacted negatively because markets had anticipated a significantly larger agreement. Boeing shares declined after the announcement, reflecting disappointment over the scale of the deal.

The summit also failed to produce a breakthrough regarding advanced artificial intelligence technology exports. Expectations had been growing that restrictions on the sale of advanced AI chips from NVIDIA to China might ease, especially after company chief executive Jensen Huang joined the trip. No major agreement emerged on that issue.

China Pushes Back on Iran Conflict

While Trump focused publicly on economic achievements, China used the summit to voice frustration over the war involving Iran. Beijing stated that the conflict should never have started and called for diplomatic efforts to restore peace.

The Iran crisis has become a major international concern because of its impact on global energy markets. Rising instability in the Middle East has pushed oil prices upward and increased fears about disruptions to energy supplies traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical shipping routes.

China’s position reflects both economic and strategic interests. Beijing relies heavily on stable energy imports and also views Iran as an important geopolitical partner that can balance American influence in the Middle East. Analysts believe China is unlikely to pressure Tehran aggressively because maintaining strong relations with Iran supports Beijing’s broader strategic goals.

Although Trump stated that he and Xi shared similar views on Iran, Chinese officials avoided publicly endorsing Washington’s approach. This difference highlighted the continuing gap between the two powers on international security issues.

Taiwan Remains the Most Sensitive Issue

Despite the friendly diplomatic setting, Taiwan emerged as one of the summit’s most serious areas of tension. Xi warned that mishandling the Taiwan issue could lead to conflict, reinforcing Beijing’s longstanding position that the island is part of China.

Taiwan remains one of the most dangerous flashpoints in global politics. China has repeatedly stated that it does not rule out the use of military force to bring Taiwan under its control, while the United States continues to support Taiwan’s defensive capabilities under American law.

American officials maintained that United States policy toward Taiwan had not changed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that Washington continues to support regional stability while maintaining its established position on Taiwan.

The issue remains highly sensitive because any military escalation involving Taiwan could severely disrupt global trade, semiconductor production, and international security across the Indo Pacific region.

A Fragile Trade Truce Continues

One of the summit’s most important outcomes may simply be the continuation of the fragile trade truce reached during earlier talks between the two leaders. Previous negotiations had temporarily paused extremely high tariffs and reduced tensions over rare earth mineral exports that are essential for modern technology manufacturing.

However, uncertainty remains about whether the current trade arrangements will continue beyond the end of the year. American officials indicated that no final decision had been made regarding the future of tariff suspensions and broader economic cooperation.

This uncertainty reflects the deeper structural rivalry between the United States and China. While both countries benefit economically from stable trade relations, they remain competitors in technology, military influence, and geopolitical leadership.

Human Rights Concerns Surface

Human rights issues also appeared during the summit. Trump reportedly raised the case of Hong Kong media businessman and democracy advocate Jimmy Lai, who was sentenced to prison under Hong Kong’s national security law.

American officials expressed hope that Lai could eventually be released, while China maintained that Hong Kong affairs are internal matters and rejected foreign criticism.

The discussion demonstrated that human rights disputes continue to complicate relations between Washington and Beijing even during periods of economic cooperation.

Analysis

The Trump Xi summit demonstrated the increasingly complex nature of United States China relations. Both sides attempted to project stability and cooperation, particularly on trade and economic matters, yet major disagreements remained visible beneath the surface.

Trump sought to frame the visit as proof of economic leadership and diplomatic success. However, the relatively modest scale of announced agreements and the lack of major breakthroughs on technology exports limited market enthusiasm.

China, meanwhile, used the summit to reinforce its strategic priorities. Beijing signaled that Taiwan remains a non negotiable issue, defended its relationship with Iran, and resisted external pressure on human rights matters.

The summit ultimately reflected a broader reality in global politics. The United States and China are deeply interconnected economically, but they are also strategic rivals competing for influence across multiple regions and industries. Cooperation may continue in trade and commerce, but tensions over security, technology, and global power are unlikely to disappear soon.

With information from Reuters.

China renewed its strong opposition to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan ahead of the high profile summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

Taiwan is expected to be one of the most sensitive issues discussed during the two day meeting, alongside trade disputes, regional security, and the ongoing Iran conflict.

Beijing considers Taiwan part of its territory, while the United States maintains unofficial relations with Taipei and remains legally committed to helping the island defend itself.

China Repeats Opposition to Arms Sales

China’s Taiwan Affairs Office warned Washington against expanding military cooperation with Taiwan and criticized U.S. weapons sales to the island.

Spokesperson Zhang Han described Taiwan as a core Chinese national interest and called on the United States to honor previous commitments under the One China framework.

Beijing argues that Taiwan is an internal Chinese matter and strongly opposes any foreign military involvement with the island.

Record US Weapons Package Raises Tensions

The Trump administration approved an $11 billion weapons package for Taiwan in December, marking the largest U.S. arms sale to the island to date.

Reports have also suggested that another arms package worth around $14 billion could be approved after Trump’s visit to China, though its current status remains unclear.

The United States says such sales are necessary to ensure Taiwan can defend itself against possible military pressure from China.

Taiwan Defence Budget Faces Scrutiny

The issue gained further attention after Taiwan’s opposition controlled parliament approved only part of a proposed $40 billion defense budget requested by President Lai Ching-te.

The approved funding prioritizes purchases of U.S. weapons while reducing spending on some domestic defense programs, including drones.

American officials reportedly expressed disappointment that the budget fell short of what Washington believes Taiwan needs for adequate defense preparedness.

Taiwanese officials fear Beijing could use the reduced spending as leverage during talks with Trump to argue against further U.S. military support for the island.

Taiwan Rejects Beijing Sovereignty Claims

Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit, Lai described Taiwan as a sovereign and independent nation that would not yield to external pressure.

China quickly rejected those remarks, reiterating that Taiwan has never been and will never become an independent country.

Beijing also repeated warnings that it retains the option of using force to bring Taiwan under its control, although it continues to publicly favor peaceful reunification.

Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party responded by emphasizing the island’s democratic system, independent government, and military institutions.

Taiwan Remains Central to US China Rivalry

Taiwan has become one of the most dangerous flashpoints in U.S. China relations, with both powers viewing the issue as tied directly to national credibility and regional influence.

For China, Taiwan represents sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national unity. For the United States, support for Taiwan is linked to maintaining regional stability and reassuring allies in the Indo Pacific.

Analysts warn that increasing military activity, arms sales, and political tensions surrounding Taiwan continue to raise the risk of miscalculation between Washington and Beijing.

Analysis

China’s warning ahead of the Trump Xi summit highlights how deeply the Taiwan issue shapes the broader strategic rivalry between the United States and China.

Despite ongoing diplomatic engagement and trade negotiations, Taiwan remains the most sensitive and potentially explosive issue in the bilateral relationship. Both sides see compromise on Taiwan as politically risky and strategically costly.

The large U.S. arms packages demonstrate Washington’s determination to strengthen Taiwan’s defense capabilities, especially as China rapidly expands its military presence around the island.

At the same time, Taiwan’s internal political debates over defense spending reveal concerns within the island about balancing military preparedness with economic and domestic priorities.

For Beijing, any increase in U.S. military support for Taiwan is viewed as interference in China’s internal affairs and a challenge to its sovereignty claims.

The summit between Trump and Xi may help reduce immediate tensions, but the fundamental disagreement over Taiwan is unlikely to ease. As military capabilities expand and political rhetoric hardens on all sides, Taiwan will remain a central test of whether the United States and China can manage strategic competition without drifting toward confrontation.

With information from Reuters.

Global currency markets remained broadly stable on Monday despite escalating geopolitical tensions linked to the ongoing conflict involving the United States and Iran. The limited movement in the US dollar came after President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s response to a United States peace proposal, reinforcing concerns that the conflict in the Middle East may persist for an extended period.

At the center of global financial attention is the interaction between geopolitical risk, energy prices, and monetary policy expectations. Rising oil prices, driven by uncertainty in the Strait of Hormuz and broader regional instability, continue to shape inflation expectations across major economies. However, currency markets have shown relative restraint, suggesting that investors are balancing immediate geopolitical risks against expectations of eventual diplomatic stabilization.

The US dollar index, which measures the currency against a basket of major global currencies, remained largely unchanged. At the same time, oil prices rose sharply, reflecting renewed concerns about supply disruptions and prolonged conflict conditions.

Geopolitical Risk and Market Equilibrium

Financial markets are currently operating in a state of tension between short term geopolitical shocks and longer term expectations of resolution. The stability of the US dollar suggests that investors are not fully pricing in a sustained breakdown in global energy flows, despite elevated uncertainty in the Middle East.

The oil market, by contrast, continues to respond rapidly to political developments. The rise in crude prices reflects concerns that prolonged instability could restrict supply routes and tighten global energy availability. This divergence between currency stability and commodity volatility highlights the uneven transmission of geopolitical risk across financial systems.

Market analysts note that expectations of diplomatic engagement between the United States and China remain a key stabilizing factor. Investors increasingly view high level diplomatic meetings as potential mechanisms for de escalation, particularly given the influence both countries exert over global energy and trade systems.

The Role of the United States and China in Market Sentiment

A major factor influencing market behavior is the anticipated summit between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The meeting is expected to cover a wide range of strategic issues including energy security, artificial intelligence, nuclear policy, and regional conflicts.

Markets are closely monitoring this engagement because both the United States and China possess significant leverage over geopolitical and economic developments in the Middle East. China’s role as a major energy importer and diplomatic stakeholder in the region gives it potential influence over Iranian policy, while the United States remains the dominant military and financial actor in global markets.

This dual influence creates expectations that broader geopolitical tensions may eventually be moderated through strategic dialogue. As a result, investors are partially pricing in the possibility of containment rather than escalation, which helps explain the relative stability of major currencies.

Inflation Expectations and Central Bank Positioning

Energy price movements remain central to global inflation dynamics. Rising oil prices directly influence transportation costs, production expenses, and consumer prices, creating upward pressure on inflation across both advanced and emerging economies.

In the United States, recent economic data has reinforced expectations that the Federal Reserve will maintain a cautious monetary stance. Strong employment figures combined with persistent inflation risks have reduced expectations of near term interest rate cuts. This has contributed to support for the US dollar, as higher interest rate expectations typically attract capital inflows into dollar denominated assets.

The interaction between monetary policy and geopolitical risk is becoming increasingly complex. Central banks are now required to respond not only to domestic economic indicators but also to external shocks originating from energy markets and international conflicts.

In this environment, currency movements reflect not just economic fundamentals but also expectations regarding central bank behavior under conditions of sustained uncertainty.

Diverging Currency Movements and Global Economic Signals

While the US dollar remained stable, other major currencies exhibited modest weakness. The euro, yen, and British pound all recorded slight declines, reflecting broader caution in global markets.

The movement of the Chinese yuan, which briefly strengthened to its highest level in several years, adds another dimension to the global currency landscape. This reflects both domestic economic data and broader expectations regarding China’s role in global trade and energy markets.

China’s economic performance, particularly in exports and industrial activity, continues to be closely linked to global energy prices and supply chain dynamics. Strong export growth suggests resilience in external demand, even amid geopolitical uncertainty and rising production costs.

These currency movements collectively indicate that global markets are navigating a period of uneven economic signals, where regional conditions and geopolitical developments interact in complex ways.

The Interplay Between Markets and Political Uncertainty

One of the defining characteristics of the current financial environment is the speed at which geopolitical developments translate into market expectations. Currency traders and investors are increasingly sensitive to political signals, particularly those involving energy producing regions and major global powers.

However, despite heightened volatility in oil markets, the US dollar’s stability suggests that investors still view the global financial system as structurally resilient. Rather than anticipating systemic disruption, markets appear to be pricing in cyclical instability followed by eventual stabilization.

This reflects a broader pattern in which financial markets absorb geopolitical shocks through short term volatility without fully abandoning long term confidence in global economic integration.

Analysis

The stability of the US dollar amid escalating geopolitical tensions highlights a critical feature of contemporary global markets. While energy prices and regional conflicts generate significant short term volatility, currency markets remain anchored by expectations of monetary policy stability and eventual diplomatic resolution.

The current environment is characterized by three overlapping dynamics. First, geopolitical risk is elevated due to sustained conflict in the Middle East and uncertainty surrounding diplomatic negotiations. Second, energy markets are highly sensitive to supply disruptions, producing rapid price fluctuations. Third, central bank policy expectations continue to play a stabilizing role in currency valuation.

The anticipated meeting between the United States and China represents a key focal point for market sentiment, as investors look for signals of broader strategic coordination or de escalation. However, the underlying structural tensions in the global system remain unresolved.

Ultimately, the current stability of the dollar should not be interpreted as a sign of reduced risk, but rather as evidence that markets are temporarily balancing competing expectations of conflict, diplomacy, and monetary policy. In such an environment, volatility in commodities and geopolitical headlines may continue, even as major currencies appear relatively stable on the surface.

With information from Reuters.

TV bosses of Celebrity Traitors are in fear of leaks of the line-up being exposed they have no taken extra steps to avoid this happening ahead of the upcoming series

TV bosses of Celebrity Traitors are taking no chances when it comes to keeping secrets of the show for the upcoming series under wraps.

According to reports, bosses at Studio Lambert have now put locks on the doors of the editing suite. But that’s not all. Bosses have also “banned” staff from talking about the nature of the BBC programme outside of the studio building.

A TV insider reportedly said: “They’re saying it’s become like The Masked Singer set-up, which is shrouded in secrecy with sealed production rooms.”

The source added to The Sun: “Only a few people are allowed in and out.”

This comes after it was reported that Hollywood actor Tom Hiddleston had signed up for the show but was forced to pull out at the last minute.

Earlier this month, a few names were confirmed for the second series. This included Love Island host Maya Jama, Hollywood actor Richard E. Grant, Jerry Hall, presenter and comedian Romesh Ranganathan and EastEnders star Ross Kemp.

The stars were spotted heading to the Scottish castle.

The celebrities will donate their winnings of £100,000 to their chosen charities. Filming is underway but the show will not air until later this year.

Tom, who is best known for his roles in Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, has been vocal about his love for the show. According to The Sun, his film commitments did not allow him to commit to the reality TV game show.

He recently said in an interview on BBC Radio 2: “I mean the celebrity one would be amazing. I think the whole show, the format is just the most ingenious thing, isn’t it? It’s completely compulsive. Maybe the best television I’ve ever seen.”

He added: “I’d like to be a faithful because then you can play detective, right? And you know that your conscience is clean and your heart is pure, and you’re just watching and trying to figure people out.”

Host Claudia Winkleman recently revealed that she has been told on how to spot a traitor in the mix. In an exclusive chat with The Mirror she said: “Stephen said at the last round table ‘Shall we just look at who is tired?’ because if you are a Traitor you go to bed later than everyone else.”

She added: “At that point, Jonathan’s face was slumped, Alan was yawning and Cat was asleep. And someone went: ‘No, no. You have to come at it from a different way.’ I was like ‘He has just said it’.”

The Mirror contacted the BBC for a comment.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads. .

May 8 (Asia Today) — South Korean President Lee Jae-myung spoke by phone Friday with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to discuss ways to strengthen cooperation between the two countries, the presidential office said.

The two leaders agreed that South Korea and Canada should work more closely with the international community to support a peaceful resolution to tensions in the Middle East, secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and maintain stable energy supplies.

Kang Yu-jung, senior presidential spokesperson, announced the details in a written briefing.

Lee and Carney also reviewed follow-up measures from their bilateral summit held on the sidelines of last year’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Gyeongju, South Korea, and assessed that the efforts were proceeding smoothly.

The leaders agreed that bilateral relations are expanding beyond security cooperation into the economy, energy, advanced industries and culture. They pledged to deepen strategic cooperation based on that momentum.

“For South Korea, Canada is a key partner,” Lee said. “At a time when the international order is increasingly complex and global energy supply chains remain unstable, I hope South Korea and Canada will further strengthen cooperation in security, the economy, energy, critical minerals and advanced industries.”

Carney expressed agreement and said it was important for middle powers such as Canada and South Korea to strengthen solidarity through a more practical approach.

The two leaders agreed to maintain frequent communication and direct officials at various levels to pursue concrete results across multiple areas of cooperation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260508010001895

Pope Leo has called on global leaders to reduce international tensions and turn away from violence, delivering an emotional appeal during a visit to Pompei, Italy, on Friday. His remarks came just one day after he met U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Vatican, where both sides discussed efforts to improve strained relations between Washington and the Holy See.

The meeting took place against a politically sensitive backdrop, with U.S. President Donald Trump having recently criticized the Pope over his comments on the Iran conflict. Pope Leo, the first U.S.-born pontiff and former Cardinal Robert Prevost, has increasingly spoken out on global conflicts in recent weeks after initially maintaining a relatively low public profile following his election in May 2025.

Speaking to worshippers in Pompei, the Pope urged prayers that world leaders would be inspired to “calm rancour and fratricidal hatreds” and to take responsibility for reducing global violence. He also warned against becoming desensitized to images of war, and criticized what he described as an international system that often prioritizes the arms trade over human life.

Why It Matters

The Pope’s intervention highlights the growing moral and diplomatic role of the Vatican at a time of heightened global instability, particularly amid ongoing tensions involving Iran, the United States, and wider geopolitical rivalries. His criticism of the global arms economy directly challenges dominant security-driven foreign policy approaches, especially in Western capitals.

As the spiritual leader of more than 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, Pope Leo’s statements carry significant symbolic and diplomatic weight. His increasingly vocal stance on war and governance also places him in a rare position of open tension with major political actors, including the U.S. administration.

What’s Next

The Vatican is expected to continue engaging diplomatically with U.S. officials despite emerging tensions, particularly following the Rubio meeting. Pope Leo is likely to maintain his public messaging on peace, conflict prevention, and criticism of the global arms trade, reinforcing the Holy See’s traditional role as a moral voice in international affairs. At the same time, reactions from Washington and other governments may further shape the evolving tone of Vatican–state relations in the coming months.

With information from Reuters.

A Palestinian boy mourns his father, one of three people killed in an Israeli strike on a security post in Gaza. The attack is part of ongoing Israeli violence, despite a fragile ceasefire, which has killed at least 846 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

Jedward star John Grimes has revealed that the Celebrity Ex On the Beach was put under security lockdown after the building was stormed by curious fans wondering what was going on

Jedward star John Grimes has revealed that the Celebrity Ex On the Beach villa was put under security lockdown. The former X Factor contestant, who shot to fame alongside his twin brother Edward on the ITV talent show in 2009, can currently be seen taking part in the fourth series of the Paramount+ hit, which began airing in March.

The former Celebrity Big Brother star, 34, filmed the show alongside Coronation Street actress Helen Flanagan as well Toby Aromolaran and Curtis Pritchard, both of Love Island fame, and Towie’s Dani Imbert amongst a host of others, but this is one of the very rare times he has appeared on-screen alongside his twin.

The programme, which sees famous faces staying abroad and beginning relationships only for their former flames to get involved, is all filmed in Tenerife and John has now explained all about the fan intrusion that all took place in the sunny location. He said: “People knew the location of the villa.

READ MORE: Helen Flanagan axed from Celeb Ex On The Beach after just four episodesREAD MORE: Curtis Pritchard spills on villa ‘sex’ and ‘compulsive liar’ claims

Speaking to The Sun, he continued: “Fans and people in the local area were trying to come into the grounds. Things kept happening. It was the only lit up place in a desolate area, so people were like, ‘What’s that? Let’s try to get in…’ Producers were like, ‘We’re trying to film a show.’ Security stopped anyone from getting in!”

John, who alongside his twin, enjoyed hits with tracks like Under Pressure (Ice Ice Baby) and Lipstick after finding fame on The X Factor, recently explained what it was like going solo for the reality show.

He said: “Every now and again there are some pre-judged opinions about me out there, but I think going on this show marks a new chapter because I did it on my own, away from Edward. It’s a different situation.

“I was just talking to [Edward] there on the phone. He was a huge supporter of me doing the show, as was Gemma [Collins]. She was very excited. At first, I was a bit kind of touch-and-go. I thought, “Oh, will I do this?”

The star, who was greeted by his ex-girlfriend Sarah Carragher during his time filming the series, also spoke of how he asked his brother for advice when he was approached to to the show.

“But obviously, I always confide in Edward and he was like, “Oh yeah, you should do it,” because you always end things on a neutral note with your exes. If they wash up on the beach, you possibly rekindle something, maybe start cleaning slates,” he added.

“I think it’s like, obviously, you take that risk going on the show. You don’t know who’s going to pull up, but the one that does pull up may say, “You know what, maybe I’ll give them another chance.” John recently revealed via social media that he and Sarah are back together, but the move was said to have angered bosses behind the scenes.

A source said: “John posting that he’s back with his ex was terrible timing as it makes his whole storyline on the show pointless. Cast were asked to keep a bit of mystery around who got back with their ex and who hooked up with who so people tuned in, but clearly John was so thrilled he just went ahead and posted without thinking.

“Bosses are fuming but it’s not like he did it on purpose. Sarah has been quietly telling her pals, as well as John, that she’s really nervous to be thrust into the spotlight and so John wanted to throw his support behind her all the way.”

* Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads

Iran has said it will only accept a fair and comprehensive agreement in ongoing negotiations with the United States, as talks continue alongside a fragile ceasefire in the Middle East conflict. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi made the remarks following discussions with Wang Yi in Beijing.

At the same time, Donald Trump has pointed to what he described as significant progress, announcing a temporary pause in US naval operations linked to the Strait of Hormuz to support negotiations. The strait remains largely restricted, disrupting global oil flows and contributing to an ongoing energy crisis.

What does Iran mean by a comprehensive agreement
The key question is what Iran is asking for. A comprehensive agreement suggests Tehran wants more than a temporary ceasefire. It likely includes guarantees on sovereignty, relief from military pressure, and recognition of its rights under international agreements such as nuclear development for peaceful purposes.

This position indicates Iran is negotiating for long term security and political legitimacy rather than short term concessions.

What is the United States offering in response
The United States appears to be using a mix of pressure and incentives. Military actions and blockades continue, but the pause in naval escort operations signals willingness to de escalate if progress is made.

Statements from US officials show a firm stance on preventing Iran from controlling key shipping routes, while still leaving room for diplomacy. This creates a dual track approach of negotiation backed by force.

Why is the Strait of Hormuz central to the talks
The Strait of Hormuz is critical because it carries a significant share of global oil supply. Its disruption has already triggered sharp movements in energy markets and raised concerns about global economic stability.

Control over this route gives Iran strategic leverage, while reopening it safely is a priority for the United States and global markets. This makes the strait a core bargaining point in negotiations.

Implications for global markets and politics
The negotiations are directly influencing oil prices, currency markets, and investor sentiment. Even signals of progress have led to falling oil prices and improved market confidence.

Politically, the situation affects domestic dynamics in the United States, where rising energy costs are a concern ahead of elections. It also shapes regional power balances across the Middle East.

Analysis what are the possible outcomes
There are three main paths forward. First, a comprehensive agreement could stabilise the region, reopen energy routes, and reduce global economic pressure. Second, prolonged negotiations without resolution could keep markets volatile and maintain the current fragile ceasefire. Third, a breakdown in talks could lead to renewed escalation, further disrupting oil supply and increasing geopolitical risk.

The most realistic short term outcome appears to be continued negotiations with limited de escalation steps. A full agreement will likely require compromises on both security concerns and economic demands.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans have added $1 billion in White House security upgrades to legislation that would fund immigration enforcement agencies, a proposed boost for President Trump’s ballroom project after a man was charged with trying to assassinate him at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last week.

The GOP bill released late Monday would designate the money for the U.S. Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades” related to the ballroom project, which Trump and Republicans have been pushing since Cole Tomas Allen allegedly stormed the April 25 media dinner at the Washington Hilton with guns and knives. The legislation says the money would support enhancements to the ballroom project, “including above-ground and below-ground security features,” but also specifies that the money may not be used for non-security elements.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle praised Republicans for including the money for the “long overdue” project, saying it would “provide the United States Secret Service with the resources they need to fully and completely harden the White House complex, in addition to the many other critical missions for the USSS.”

The money is part of a larger bill to pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, as Democrats have been blocking funds for both agencies since mid-February. Congress passed bipartisan legislation to fund the rest of the Homeland Security Department on April 30 after a record-long shutdown, but Republicans are using a partisan budget maneuver to push through the ICE and Border Patrol dollars on their own. The House has not released its bill yet, but the Senate is expected to start voting on its version of the legislation next week.

It is unclear exactly how the $1 billion would be used, and the amount far exceeds the proposed $400 million for construction of the ballroom. The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. Trump has said it should include bulletproof glass and be able to repel drone attacks.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to block construction of the project, but a federal appeals court said last month that it can continue in the meantime.

The White House has said that private money would pay for the construction but public money would be used for security measures. Some Republicans have suggested that public money pay for all of it, arguing the security breach at the dinner shows the president needs a secure place to host events.

“It would be insane” to hold the dinner at a hotel again, said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who introduced a bill to pay for the ballroom’s construction with Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala.

Democrats have said they will oppose any efforts to pay for the ballroom.

“While Americans are struggling to make ends meet as a result of President Trump’s failed policies, Republicans are focused on providing tens of billions of dollars for the President’s vanity ballroom project and cruel mass deportation campaign,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the U.S. Secret Service.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

Thailand has formally scrapped a 25 year old agreement with Cambodia aimed at jointly exploring offshore energy resources in disputed waters. The decision, announced by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, marks a significant shift in bilateral relations and raises fresh uncertainty over the future of energy cooperation in the region.

The agreement, known as Memorandum of Understanding 44, was signed in 2001 to create a framework for joint exploration of oil and gas reserves in overlapping maritime claims within the Gulf of Thailand. Despite its ambitious goals, the pact has seen little tangible progress over the past two and a half decades.

A Long Stalled Framework

Memorandum of Understanding 44 was designed as a dual track mechanism. It sought to enable joint resource exploration while allowing both countries to continue negotiations over maritime boundary demarcation. However, repeated political disruptions, competing national interests, and periodic tensions prevented meaningful advancement.

Thai officials have increasingly argued that the agreement failed to deliver results, with no concrete development of hydrocarbon resources despite years of dialogue.

Domestic Politics and Strategic Timing

The cancellation also reflects domestic political dynamics in Thailand. Anutin, who secured reelection following a surge in nationalist sentiment, had pledged to withdraw from the agreement as part of his campaign platform.

Although he has stated that the decision is not directly linked to recent border conflicts, the broader context suggests otherwise. Nationalist pressures and public opinion have played a role in shaping policy, particularly after violent clashes between the two countries last year.

Cambodia’s Response and Regional Implications

Cambodia has previously expressed strong opposition to Thailand’s plan to withdraw, describing it as deeply regrettable and reaffirming its commitment to the agreement. The lack of immediate response following the announcement leaves open questions about Phnom Penh’s next steps.

The termination of the pact could complicate future negotiations, especially in resource rich areas where both nations maintain overlapping claims. It may also delay potential energy development projects that could have benefited both economies.

From Cooperation to Legal Frameworks

Thailand has indicated that it will now rely on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the basis for any future discussions. This shift signals a move away from cooperative frameworks toward a more formal and potentially contentious legal approach to resolving maritime disputes.

While UNCLOS provides established mechanisms for dispute resolution, negotiations under its framework can be lengthy and politically sensitive.

Conflict and Fragile Stability

The backdrop to this decision includes two recent rounds of armed conflict along the Thailand Cambodia border, which resulted in significant casualties and large scale displacement. Although a ceasefire has been in place since late December, tensions remain high, and mutual distrust persists.

Each side continues to blame the other for initiating the clashes, underscoring the fragile nature of the current peace.

Analysis

Thailand’s withdrawal from the joint energy agreement reflects a broader shift from cooperative engagement to assertive unilateralism. While the official rationale centers on lack of progress, the timing and political context suggest that strategic and domestic considerations are equally influential.

For Thailand, the move reinforces national sovereignty and responds to domestic expectations. However, it also risks escalating tensions with Cambodia and undermining long term opportunities for shared economic gains.

For Cambodia, the collapse of the agreement represents both a diplomatic setback and a potential loss of access to jointly developed energy resources. It may now seek alternative avenues, including international arbitration or renewed bilateral negotiations under different terms.

At a regional level, the decision highlights the challenges of managing overlapping territorial claims in resource rich areas. Without effective cooperation mechanisms, such disputes are more likely to shift toward legal confrontation or political escalation.

Ultimately, the end of this long standing pact underscores a key reality in international relations. Agreements that lack sustained political commitment and mutual trust are unlikely to endure, particularly in environments shaped by nationalism and unresolved territorial disputes.

With information from Reuters.

Security forces have intensified their presence across parts of Mexico’s Sinaloa, setting up checkpoints as rival factions of the Sinaloa Cartel battle for control. Despite the visible military deployment, more than 3,000 people have been killed in nearly two years. The conflict has deepened amid political instability following investigations and indictments linked to former officials.