shift

Toronto, Canada – When Diana Gallego listened to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s widely touted speech at the World Economic Forum at the start of this year, she couldn’t help but feel a disconnect.

Carney had made an impassioned plea to the world’s “middle powers” to break with a United States-led international order that he said was no longer working, and his words found receptive audiences around the world.

But for Gallego, co-executive director of FCJ Refugee Centre, an organisation that supports refugees and asylum seekers in Canada’s largest city, the prime minister’s statements rang hollow amid his government’s hardening approach to immigration.

“We saw the [prime] minister going to Davos [with] this beautiful discourse, saying we should not copy our neighbours … But internally, the policies are telling us another story,” Gallego told Al Jazeera. “Canada is closing the doors now.”

Gallego is among more than a dozen experts – from lawyers to professors, rights advocates and former government officials – who told Al Jazeera that Canada is at a “troubling” crossroads in its policies towards migrants and refugees.

As Canadians have grappled with rising economic and social pressures in recent years, a decades-old consensus on the benefits of immigration has frayed.

Hostile rhetoric blaming newcomers for Canada’s ills has intensified, and Carney’s government has slashed temporary visas and restricted access to asylum. Experts say a “generational shift” is under way.

“The general rhetoric is, ‘We don’t want you here’,” said Gallego.

Influx in temporary migration

A settler-colonial state, Canada has encouraged successive waves of immigration throughout its history, from largely European settlement in the early to mid-1900s to specialised programmes that brought refugees and high- and low-skilled workers to Canadian shores.

For decades, that influx of newcomers was widely viewed as a positive thing: immigration was fuelling the country’s economy, staffing key job sectors and counteracting a rapidly ageing population.

But over the past few years, Canada has seen one of the most dramatic shifts in how the public views immigration – and the government has tapped into increasingly negative sentiment to cut programmes and pass new, restrictive laws.

The policy changes began under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose Liberal Party government had dramatically increased temporary immigration during the COVID-19 pandemic to fill labour market gaps.

The figures shot up rapidly and, by October 2024, there were nearly 3.15 million non-permanent residents in Canada, accounting for roughly 8 percent of the population, according to official figures.

At the same time, systemic issues – from a shortage of affordable housing to high grocery costs and long hospital wait times – were putting the squeeze on many Canadian households.

Public attitudes quickly hardened, and a 2024 poll (PDF) found a majority of Canadians saying for the first time in decades that there was “too much immigration”.

Since then, several incidents of xenophobic violence have been reported, including in some of Canada’s largest cities, where the influx of migrants has been among the most visible.

Under pressure as angry discourse soared, the Trudeau government promised in 2024 to get immigration back to “sustainable” levels, and the cuts began, including most notably to international student visas.

“The reality is that not everyone who wants to come to Canada will be able to – just like not everyone who wants to stay in Canada will be able to,” Marc Miller, Canada’s former immigration minister, said in September that year.

‘Erroneous beliefs’

The numbers of arrivals dropped quickly as student and work visas were cancelled, forcing thousands of people to leave Canada or remain without legal status. By the start of this year, non-permanent residents totalled about 2.67 million, according to government figures, a 15 percent drop from the peak in October 2024.

“I don’t think you can blame the housing crisis in Canada on immigration, but there’s no doubt that the radically increased numbers under Justin Trudeau’s regime had a political effect,” Allan Rock, a former Canadian justice minister and Liberal lawmaker, told Al Jazeera.

The government, Rock explained, has been “reading the room and sensing that Canadians were connecting local economic and financial difficulties with migration”.

At the same time, right-wing politicians have seized on those public attitudes, with the opposition Conservative Party earlier this year pushing the governing Liberals to cut healthcare for people it described as “fake refugees”.

The Conservatives, also, have echoed US President Donald Trump in advocating for changes to “birthright citizenship”, claiming that the “outdated rule” that grants citizenship to anyone born in Canada “presents yet another strain on our immigration system that Canada can’t handle”.

“With over 7 per cent of Canada’s population here on temporary status – and arrivals massively outpacing the capacity of our housing, healthcare and jobs markets – something needs to change,” the party said.

Rights advocates have denounced that rhetoric while accusing policymakers of falsely linking migrants and refugees to social problems to absolve themselves of responsibility for a years-long failure to properly fund healthcare, education and other services.

On the housing issue, for instance, experts have found (PDF) that, while immigration increases demand for housing stock, its effect on prices is far less important than public discourse would have people believe.

“Leadership means not simply caving into public opinion when it’s based on erroneous beliefs,” Rock told Al Jazeera. “We’re buying into, and we’re supporting, a growing international trend to tighten borders and build walls and validate erroneous beliefs about refugees and migrants.”

“It’s a betrayal of values that this country has always stood for, and I find it troubling.”

Carney doubles down

Yet, since taking office in April 2025, Carney – the prime minister – has continued where his predecessor Trudeau left off on immigration.

In late March, Carney’s Liberal government passed a sweeping new law that grants Ottawa the power to cancel visas en masse, including for permanent residents, if it deems it in the “public interest” to do so.

The law, known as Bill C-12, also restricts access to Canada’s refugee status determination system in ways that lawyers told Al Jazeera are “arbitrary” and likely run counter to the country’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government has justified the measure – which is expected to face a constitutional challenge in court – as part of an effort to streamline a backlogged asylum system and prevent “fraud”.

At the end of last year, nearly 300,000 cases were pending at the independent tribunal that adjudicates refugee claims in the country, known as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

A spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the federal immigration department, told Al Jazeera that it had introduced Bill C-12 “as global migration pressures intensify”.

The law introduces “measures to address challenges such as sudden increases in asylum claims and situations where existing processes may be used to circumvent regular immigration pathways”, the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

“This means we can provide faster protection for those in need,” they said, adding that Bill C-12 also respects Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But experts say the law will do little to address the backlog at the IRB. They have also accused lawmakers of failing to dispel – and even of playing into – xenophobic rhetoric rather than addressing the real concerns of Canadians or structural problems in the asylum system.

The government is “creating this sense in the public that people are scamming us, they’re taking advantage of the system [and] there’s something broken that needs to be fixed”, said Julia Sande, a lawyer at Amnesty International Canada.

“People’s struggles are real. People are facing a housing crisis, inflation and unemployment, wage stagnation and widening inequality,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Then, instead of taking responsibility or making the changes needed to address these things, governments look for a group to blame – and who’s better to blame than people who don’t have the right to vote and can’t vote you out?”

Carney’s ‘honeymoon’ phase

Despite such concerns raised by rights advocates, Canada’s changing immigration policies do not appear to have drawn much attention – or pushback – from the wider public.

A wide-reaching effort by civil society groups earlier this year to get the government to make amendments to Bill C-12 failed to secure any meaningful changes.

In addition to that law, the Carney government also has rolled back a healthcare programme for refugees, extended a freeze on refugee resettlement applications, and announced significant funding cuts to several ministries, including the immigration department.

Planned cuts at the IRB – the board that adjudicates refugee claims – have also been reported, fuelling concerns that delays may get worse.

“The fact that there is no real plan in place to deal with this backlog [at the IRB] then contributes to negative opinion by the public about refugees,” said Maureen Silcoff, a refugee lawyer who previously served as a member of the tribunal.

“I think the government has a responsibility to proactively undo some of the myths that are circulating,” Silcoff told Al Jazeera. “This is especially important in times where we see in other countries that there’s a surge of anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric.”

Nevertheless, Carney continues to enjoy high approval ratings as he has justified government policies during his first year in office as part of an “elbows up” response to pressure from the Trump administration.

“The Carney government still seems to be [enjoying] a honeymoon of sorts,” said John Carlaw, an assistant professor at Toronto Metropolitan University who specialises in Canadian politics and immigration.

“We’re seeing a major withdrawal of social spending and then an investment in militarism and border enforcement,” Carlaw told Al Jazeera, describing it as a “troubling period” in Canada.

“I think C-12 really showed the government is not interested in hearing from communities that work with migrants and immigrants to make policies that are consistent with a human rights framework. They just don’t want to listen to dissent.”

‘Not immune’ to backsliding on human rights

Despite that, rights advocates say they will continue to push back against the direction Canada is heading on immigration.

“We can’t stop fighting,” Luisa Ortiz-Garza, a migrant rights organiser at Parkdale Community Legal Services, told a packed gymnasium at Trinity-St Paul’s United Church in downtown Toronto in late April.

Several dozen people joined the event, dubbed “No More Divide and Rule”, to denounce xenophobia and urge the government to grant legal immigration status for all migrants and refugees in Canada.

“What [the government is] doing is actually just putting people against each other,” Ortiz-Garza told Al Jazeera in an interview at her organisation’s office a few days before the gathering.

“It’s citizens against migrants [and] migrants against migrants because there is this idea that some migrants did things right and other migrants just jumped the queue or abused the system,” she said.

“We’re trying to have these conversations and bring people together: allies, citizens, migrants … so that we can actually talk about this and remind people about unity.”

That was echoed by Sande at Amnesty International, who warned that Canada is “not immune” to a backsliding on human rights. “Things will just continue to get worse until governments feel they’re held to account,” she said. “Yes, scapegoating may start with migrants, but it never ends there.”

BEIJING — A conciliatory President Trump on Friday hailed success in his state visit to China, claiming a tonal reset with Xi Jinping despite departing Beijing with few concrete achievements.

The visual spectacle around Trump’s visit was itself considered a breakthrough by the two sides, who expressed an eagerness entering the talks to move on from a yearslong stretch of deteriorating relations.

But Trump’s homage and deference to Xi were a striking display of an often commanding president adapting to a new power dynamic, understanding China’s rise and its emerging role in the world.

Trump deployed a charm offensive throughout his stay here, confident in the impact of his personal touch on world leaders, often seen patting Xi on the back and repeatedly calling him his friend.

Yet in private, tensions gripped negotiations that touched nearly every major issue on Trump’s agenda, from trade relations to the U.S. war in Iran.

“He’s all business,” Trump said from Beijing in an interview with Fox.

China agreed to buy 200 Boeing jets and spend billions on American agricultural products, U.S. officials said — modest deals that fall short of restoring Chinese investment levels to their pre–2025 highs, before Trump launched a trade war that aggressively targeted Beijing.

Nevertheless, Trump referred to the trade agreements as “fantastic,” and said Xi had also pledged to purchase U.S. energy going forward. Beijing did not confirm any such agreement.

Nor did the Chinese Foreign Ministry comment on any commitment to help the United States reopen the Strait of Hormuz, effectively shuttered by Iran since the Trump administration launched a war against the Islamic Republic earlier this year.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Trump participate in a friendship walk through Zhongnanhai Garden Fridah in Beijing.

(Evan Vucci / Pool / Reuters via Associated Press)

“We feel very similar on Iran, we want that to end,” Trump said Friday. “We don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. We want the straits opened, and we want them to get it ended, because it’s a crazy thing — they’re a little bit crazy.”

At the beginning of the summit, Xi warned the Trump administration that the longstanding U.S. position of strategic ambiguity on Taiwan had set the two nations on a collision course, Chinese state media reported. But departing Beijing, Marco Rubio, the president’s national security advisor and secretary of state, said that Washington’s position on Taiwan remained “unchanged.”

Their second day of meetings was held at Zhongnanhai, an imperial garden and lake district that has served as the secretive seat of power for the Chinese Communist Party since the revolution of 1949.

The two men strolled quiet pathways dotted with Chinese roses and ornamental archways before taking tea and lunch in Xi’s private quarters. Trump was offered rose seeds to bring home for the White House Rose Garden, the Chinese said.

“This has been an incredible visit,” Trump told reporters at the compound. “A lot of good has come of it.”

It was not the first time that Xi has hosted a president at the historic compound. In 2014, the Chinese leader, still relatively new to the presidency, hosted President Obama overnight at Zhongnanhai, where the two met in private over dinner.

President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping tour Zhongnanhai Garden.

(Evan Vucci / Pool / Getty Images)

It was another smoggy day for Trump in the Chinese capital, although cooler than Thursday, when Xi greeted Trump at the footsteps of Tiananmen Square with a lavish state welcome. There, Xi hosted Trump and his delegation at the Great Hall of the People for a day of meetings and a banquet dinner of Peking duck and pan-fried pork buns.

The two men will have future opportunities to meet, with Trump inviting Xi to Washington for a state visit at the White House in September.

“He’s a man I respect greatly,” Trump said.

“We’ve been so used to thinking about politics in terms of left and right, yet what Reform are able to do is to win in areas that have always been Conservative, but equally, we’re proving in a big way that we could win in areas that Labour has dominated since the end of World War I.”

Despite efforts to rebuild ties with Western nations, Syria remains heavily dependent on Russia for its oil supply. Since the fall of Bashar al Assad in late 2024, shipments from Russia have surged, making Moscow the primary supplier of crude to Syria.

This shift comes even as the new government in Damascus seeks closer alignment with Europe and the United States. The contradiction highlights the economic constraints facing a country still recovering from years of war and isolation.

Rising Dependence on Russian Oil
Russian oil exports to Syria have increased significantly, now covering a large portion of the country’s energy needs. Domestic production remains far below demand, leaving Syria reliant on imports to sustain basic economic activity.

Before 2025, Iran had been Syria’s main supplier, but that relationship ended following political changes in Damascus. Russia quickly stepped in, becoming the first to resume large scale shipments after the leadership transition.

Limited Alternatives and Structural Weakness
Syria’s options remain extremely limited. Years of conflict have weakened its economy, reduced purchasing power, and restricted access to global financial systems. Even after the easing of Western sanctions, integration into international markets remains slow and incomplete.

Efforts to secure alternative suppliers, including potential deals with regional partners such as Turkey, have so far failed. This leaves Russian supply networks as the most accessible and reliable option in the short term.

Sanctions Risk and Diplomatic Tension
Reliance on Russian oil poses significant risks for Syria’s foreign relations. Continued trade with Moscow could strain ties with Western governments and expose Syria to renewed sanctions, particularly if geopolitical tensions escalate.

The situation is further complicated by Russia’s ongoing military presence in Syria, including key naval and air bases. These assets give Moscow continued influence over the country’s strategic direction.

Opaque Supply Chains and Sanctioned Networks
Much of the oil trade is conducted through complex and opaque shipping networks. Tankers linked to sanctioned entities frequently deliver crude to Syrian ports, often using ship to ship transfers to obscure the origin of cargo.

These methods reflect both necessity and constraint. Syria’s exclusion from conventional shipping and financial systems has pushed it toward alternative networks that carry reputational and legal risks.

Supply Gap and Energy Reality
Syria’s domestic oil production remains a fraction of pre war levels, while demand continues to exceed supply. Russian shipments now fill a significant portion of this gap, alongside smaller volumes obtained through informal or regional channels.

This dependency underscores the difficulty of rebuilding an energy sector after prolonged conflict, particularly without strong international investment or infrastructure support.

Analysis
Syria’s reliance on Russian oil reveals the limits of political realignment when economic realities remain unchanged. While Damascus may seek closer ties with the West, its immediate survival depends on securing energy supplies, and Russia is currently the only actor able and willing to meet that need at scale.

For Moscow, the relationship offers continued leverage in Syria despite the fall of its former ally. Energy supply becomes a tool of influence, allowing Russia to maintain a strategic foothold even as political dynamics shift.

At the same time, the arrangement creates long term risks for Syria. Dependence on sanctioned networks could undermine efforts to rebuild credibility with international partners and attract investment. It also leaves the country vulnerable to external pressure, particularly if Western governments decide to enforce stricter controls on Russian energy flows.

Ultimately, Syria is caught between geopolitical ambition and economic necessity. Until it diversifies its energy sources and strengthens its economic foundations, its foreign policy choices will remain constrained by the basic need to keep fuel flowing.

With information from Reuters.

At the peak of the crackdown, carloads of masked immigration officers were a common sight in the streets of Minneapolis, while thousands of people were being arrested every week in Texas, Florida and California.

“Turn and burn,” top Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino called the strategy, with relentless displays of force and teams of agents descending on restaurant kitchens, bus stops and Home Depot parking lots.

In December, arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents peaked at nearly 40,000 nationwide and were nearly as high the next month, according to data provided to UC Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project and analyzed by the Associated Press.

In late January, the killings in Minneapolis of two American citizens by immigration officers and growing concerns over the government’s heavy-handed tactics led to a shake-up of top immigration officials. In the weeks that followed, ICE arrests across the country dropped on average by nearly 12%.

Polling has found the public felt the immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota went too far, a factor that may have contributed to the abrupt firing of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in early March.

The numbers don’t follow the same pattern everywhere

Bovino, who swaggered through raid scenes in tactical gear and was the public face of the Trump administration crackdown, was pushed aside following the killings in Minneapolis of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Border advisor Tom Homan was then sent to the Twin Cities to chart a new course for immigration enforcement, and he announced the drawdown of immigration agents in the state on Feb. 4.

An AP analysis of ICE arrest records show the department averaged 7,369 weekly arrests nationwide in the five weeks after Homan’s drawdown announcement, , the most recent period for which data is available, down from 8,347 per week in the previous five weeks. Those arrest numbers were still higher on average than during much of the first year of President Trump’s second term, and were dramatically higher than during the Biden administration.

The numbers were not, however, uniform across the country.

ICE arrests rose significantly in Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina and Florida during those five weeks, in some cases hitting their highest weekly count since the start of Trump’s second term.. In Kentucky alone, weekly arrests more than doubled, reaching 86 by early March.

Those increases were offset by steep drops in a handful of large states, including Minnesota and Texas.

Many arrested were not Trump’s ‘worst of the worst’

The Trump administration insists it is targeting the most vicious criminals living illegally in the U.S., and the president has referred to them as “ the worst of the worst.”

In some cases the description is accurate, but the reality is complicated.

Many of the toughest criminals taken into ICE custody were already in prison, but many others who were arrested have no criminal history.

Nationally, some 46% of the people ICE arrested in the five weeks before Feb. 4 had no criminal charges or convictions, dropping to 41% in the five weeks that followed.

Yet that’s still above the 35% weekly average for the time since Trump returned to office. And in a number of states, even after Feb. 4, the share of noncriminals being arrested went up, not down.

Has there been a change in approach?

Across the country, thousands of federal court filings offer an imperfect window into how the Trump administration’s deportation tactics remain in high gear, even if activity has waned.

Like the 21-year-old Honduran man with no criminal record who has filed a petition for release after being arrested Feb. 22 in a suburban San Diego traffic stop. The father of three U.S. citizen children — ages 5, 3 and 10 months — had been under ICE surveillance, the petition says, before officers in tactical gear pulled him over.

Or the 33-year-old Venezuelan woman, a well-known south Texas doctor who worked in a region designated as medically underserved, who was arrested earlier this month with her 5-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen, on her way to her husband’s asylum hearing.

She was arrested, officials said, for overstaying her visa.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the research and advocacy group the American Immigration Council, says he sees signs of change in lower arrest and detention numbers but warns it’s too early to know if those shifts are permanent.

“The Trump administration says: ‘We’re not slowing down,’ ‘Nothing has changed,’” in immigration enforcement, he said. “But it’s very clear that they have pulled back from some of the tactics of Operation Metro Surge,” the crackdown that swept Minneapolis.

Kessler and Sullivan write for the Associated Press. Kessler reported from Washington and Sullivan from Minneapolis. AP reporters Elliot Spagat in San Diego and Gisela Salomon in Miami contributed to this report.

Vernon, who has two daughters with former Strictly host Tess Daly, explained that “your babies will always be your babies” and highlighted a horrifying scenario for parents

Vernon Kay has opened up about a family change he and his wife “don’t want” as he confessed that their dynamic is changing. Vernon, who is married to former Strictly Come Dancing host Tess Daly, shared his thoughts while reflecting on his evolving relationship with their two daughters, Phoebe, 21, and Amber, 16.

The couple exchanged vows at St Mary’s Church in Horwich back in 2003 and now reside in Buckinghamshire with Amber, while Phoebe has headed to New York to pursue her studies. Vernon and Tess, like many parents, have spoken about their daughters spreading their wings and becoming “independent”, yet it appears that, deep down, neither parent is truly ready to let go.

Vernon revealed he has had to figure out how to “enter their world” — a world with certain “pitfalls” that he and Tess never encountered — including one particularly alarming modern-day concern. In a recent interview, he noted that “your babies will always be your babies”, while acknowledging that today’s world brings with it an issue of which they are “acutely aware”.

Vernon told The Times: “Now that Phoebe is 21 and Amber is nearly 17, our relationship with them is changing. We talk about encouraging them to leave the nest and be independent, but we don’t really want them to. You have to learn to enter their world and that world has pitfalls that just didn’t exist for us.

“When Phoebe started going out, we became acutely aware of drink spiking. I think that just didn’t happen in the Nineties.” Last month, Phoebe shared her relocation to the Big Apple via TikTok, posting a clip of herself dancing against the New York skyline, including views of the Empire State Building.

She wrote: “NYC has my hearttt! Lucky to call it home for a while.” Her parents travelled to the US earlier this year to visit her, with Tess documenting the trip on Instagram, featuring snaps of a pancake breakfast and visits to art galleries. Tess, who lived in New York during the 1990s, said: “I love NYC. Maximised every minute on a whirlwind half-term trip and fell in love with this magical city all over again.”

Meanwhile, Vernon’s BBC Radio 2 co-star recently issued an apology to Tess on air. Vernon has been suffering from a bad back and has been struggling to keep on top of household jobs. In the segment, he informed colleague Gary Davies about his intentions to visit a chiropractor and how he’d been “getting the garden ready”.

Vernon explained: “Chiropractor this afternoon… I think I’ll be a little bit better, but the thing is we’re pre-summer, aren’t we? So, at the moment, I’m getting the garden ready. Done a bit of lawn mowing and I’ve got a list as long as my arm of jobs to do, but I can’t do them with a bad back! I don’t want to get anyone in either.”

Gary joked that this was a convenient excuse, prompting Vernon to quip: “To keep my feet up… and do absolutely nothing!” Gary said: “Sorry, Tess, sorry!” Offering a further glimpse into his relationship with Tess, Vernon revealed: “She sent me a message this morning on the train, ‘Why is half the lawn done?’.”

When questioned whether he’d taught Tess how to tackle the mowing herself, Vernon stated: “That’s my job – no, that’s my job. That’s my job, I love it. Put my headphones in and away we go!”

Meanwhile, Vernon has shed light on a “horrendous” hidden struggle while presenting The One Show alongside regular host Alex Jones.

Speaking with Ellie Brennan on Radio 2 , Vernon disclosed how his stomach had begun rumbling, explaining: “Did you watch The One Show last night? Did you notice that Alex and I had the giggles? Just out after filming Watchdog. They take it very seriously at The One Show. It’s a consumer rights programme, so it’s very serious, and my tummy, because I hadn’t eaten lunch, decided to pop up and say hello.”

He continued: “I literally – and it’s the first time in, I’d say 25 years, since I was working with June Sarpong – that I’ve done a live television link biting my lip to try to stop myself laughing as I’m introducing something really, really serious. It was horrendous.”

The future of the National Science Foundation is in question after a slew of scientists who serve on the National Science Board, an independent body that promotes the progress of American science and provides advice to the U.S. president and Congress, were abruptly dismissed from their positions Friday by the White House.

All 22 current members of the board, which establishes policies for the National Science Foundation, were terminated, according to Yolanda Gil, a research professor of computer science and spatial sciences and principal scientist at USC Information Sciences Institute, who has served on the board since 2024.

Many of them received a curt email from President Trump’s presidential personnel office.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I’m writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately,” read an email reviewed by the L.A. Times. “Thank you for your service.”

After receiving an email Friday afternoon, Keivan Stassun, a professor of physics and astronomy at Vanderbilt University and director of the Vanderbilt Initiative in Data-intensive Astrophysics, said he reached out to fellow board members. Every member he heard back from — about a third of the board — reported receiving the same termination notice.

For Stassun, a board member since 2022, the termination represented “a wholesale evisceration of American leadership in science and technology globally.”

The White House has not given any reason for dismissing the board members or provided any information on when, or even whether, they will be replaced. A media representative for the NSF directed all questions to the White House. The White House did not respond to questions from The Times.

The National Science Foundation was created more than 75 years ago as an independent federal agency when President Truman signed the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to boost U.S. science for national security and international competition during the Cold War.

“The establishment of the National Science Foundation is a major landmark in the history of science in the United States,” Truman said back then. “We have come to know that our ability to survive and grow as a nation depends to a very large degree upon our scientific progress. Moreover, it is not enough simply to keep abreast of the rest of the world in scientific matters. We must maintain our leadership.”

The agency, which has a budget of over $9 billion, supports fundamental research and education across all non-medical fields of science and engineering.

“The genesis of it was to recognize that the world was increasingly being won or lost on the basis of scientific and technological capability,” Stassun said. “The National Science Foundation is the singular agency within our government that has as its focus making sure that we stay ahead in basic science, technological developments, training the next generation of scientists and engineers.“

After Trump’s dismissal of the board’s experts, Stassun said, the Trump administration could potentially run the agency directly through the Office of Management and Budget.

“What it means is that there won’t be any practical impediments to the administration essentially enacting their own budget and priorities and ignoring Congress’ directives or congressional law,” Stassun said.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San José, the ranking Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, dubbed the terminations just “the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation.”

The board, Lofgren noted in a statement, is apolitical and advises the president on the future of NSF.

“It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the foundation,” Lofgren added. “Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won’t stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries? A real bozo the clown move.”

The National Science Board is typically made up of 25 scientists and engineers from universities and industry across the nation. Appointed by the U.S. president, they traditionally serve six-year terms.

Some of the board positions were vacant. The key position of NSF director has been unfilled ever since Sethuraman Panchanathan, a computer scientist and academic administrator, resigned in April 2025.

“Given that the NSF director position has been vacant for a year, and that the NSB’s main role is governing NSF, the agency is left in a very precarious position,” Gil told The Times in an email. “I think this is one more indication of the sweeping changes that the administration is planning for the National Science Foundation.”

Over the last two years, Gil said, the White House has proposed drastic reductions in the NSF budget — a troubling sign, she argued, that basic research in science and engineering and training students are not high priorities for the current administration.

In the last few months, Gil added, the agency had significant reductions of personnel, which she said “jeopardizes the peer review process that the agency is best known for and gives more decision power to program directors.”

In March, Trump nominated James O’Neill, a venture capitalist and biotech investor who served as former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, to lead the foundation. O’Neill has yet to appear before Congress for a hearing, but Trump’s nomination received a storm of criticism from scientists.

“O’Neill would be the first head of NSF who wasn’t a scientist or engineer,” Dr. Julian Reyes, chief of staff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in a blog post. “If O’Neill is confirmed as NSF’s director, the Trump administration will further tighten its control over an agency created by Congress to be independent in its work to advance science.”

Traditionally, Gil said, NSF directors have had a solid research career and strong familiarity with NSF processes. O’Neill’s background in finance and investments, she suggested, “may be an indication that the administration has a different idea of how to run a science agency like NSF.”

Already, the Trump administration has purged a raft of scientific advisory boards that provided the federal government with expert guidance. Last year, dozens of experts who provided independent evaluations for biomedical research were dismissed from National Institute of Health science review boards. All 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which provides federal recommendation on vaccines, were also removed.

In that context, Stassun said he was not surprised when he got the termination letter Friday. “At some point,” he figured, “they would come for the National Science Board, too.”

Going forward, Stassun said he expected the Trump administration to pursue a narrower agenda, from investments in artificial intelligence to building a fleet of Antarctic vessels.

“What we’re likely to see is a collapse of what has historically been a broad investment in American science and technology capabilities,” he said. “The most transformative discoveries are transformative because you can’t predict them in advance, so we invest foundationally in scientists and engineers to do basic science and engineering research.”

One of the board’s chief priorities since he joined in 2022, Stassun said, had been the idea of “talent being the treasure” — developing the best and brightest future leaders and discoverers to ensure a future for American leadership in scientific and technological innovation.

For the board, that meant investing in early science education and strong training for scientists and engineers at all educational levels and in all sectors.

“Discoveries and inventions don’t make themselves, Stassun said. “People do those things. I think there’s a kind of attitude in the current administration that such a worldview is sort of too soft or meek.”

The Trump administration’s interests and priorities, Stassun said, seemed quite different.

“They see the future in, or at least their interest is in, big data centers … not in addition to, but in place of, training human minds to be leading the way,” Stassun said. “It’s a dead end or a bridge to nowhere.”

Even the pioneers of AI will tell you, Stassun said, in many cases, what AI does very well is rapidly synthesizing, consolidating or repackaging existing information. A large language model can only tell you, perhaps very quickly and effectively, what’s already been said.

“Discovery and invention remain the purview of the human mind and creative human genius,” Stassun said. “So, yeah, I think it really does say something pretty foundational to choose to invest only in the one and not the other.”

Japan could soon sell weapons overseas, including fighter jets, in major shift from pacifist policies introduced after World War II.

The cabinet of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has lifted a ban on exporting lethal weapons, including fighter jets, in a major shift to Japan’s pacifist post-World War II constitution.

In a post on X announcing the changes on Tuesday, Takaichi did not specify which weapons Japan would now sell overseas. However, Japanese newspapers said the changes would encompass fighter jets, missiles and warships, which Japan has recently agreed to build for Australia.

“With this amendment, transfers of all defence equipment will in principle become possible,” Takaichi said, adding that “recipients will be limited to countries that commit to use in accordance with the UN Charter”.

“In an increasingly severe security environment, no single country can now protect its own peace and security alone.”

At least 17 countries will be eligible to buy weapons manufactured in Japan under the changes, Japan’s Chunichi newspaper reported, adding that this list may be expanded if more countries enter into bilateral agreements with Japan.

Previous rules, introduced in 1967 and enacted in 1976, had limited Japanese military exports to non-lethal arms, such as those used for surveillance and mine sweeping, Japan’s Asahi newspaper reported.

Asahi also reported that Japan will still restrict exporting weapons to countries where fighting is currently taking place, but exemptions are allowed under “special circumstances” where Japan’s national security needs are taken into account.

Countries interested in buying Japanese-made weapons include Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Indonesia, which recently signed a major defence pact with the United States, Chunichi reported, citing Japan’s Ministry of Defence.

Tokyo’s change in policy comes soon after Japan and Australia signed a $7bn deal that will see Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries build the first three of 11 warships for the Australian navy.

Takaichi sends offering to controversial war shrine

The changes announced by Takaichi on Tuesday come amid reports that the Japanese prime minister had sent a ritual offering to the notorious Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo on the occasion of its spring festival.

Built in the 1800s to honour Japan’s war dead, the shrine includes the names of more than 1,000 convicted Japanese war criminals from World War II, including 14 who were found guilty of “Class A” crimes.

Visits by Japanese officials to the shrine have long been considered insensitive to the people of China, South Korea, and other countries that Japanese soldiers brutalised during the war.

After the defeat of Axis countries, including the bombing of Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, Japan introduced a new constitution renouncing participation in war.

However, Takaichi, considered a China “hawk” and sometimes referred to as Japan’s “Iron Lady”, is among a number of recent Japanese leaders to have pushed back against the country’s pacifist stance.

The election victory of Hungary’s Tisza party on April 12 marks the end of the 16 year rule of Viktor Orbán, a figure who has long defined Hungary’s contentious relationship with the European Union. His tenure reshaped Hungary’s domestic institutions and repeatedly placed the country at odds with EU norms, laws, and political consensus.

The incoming leadership under Péter Magyar now inherits not only a domestic mandate for change but also the complex task of rebuilding trust with the EU after years of institutional confrontation.

A fractured relationship with Brussels

Under Orbán, Hungary frequently clashed with EU institutions over rule of law, judicial independence, media freedom, and migration policy. One of the most controversial measures was the lowering of the retirement age for judges and prosecutors, which critics argued enabled political reshaping of the judiciary.

Tensions escalated further after 2022, when Hungary’s stance on sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine created repeated deadlocks within EU decision making processes.

Financial pressure also became a key tool of EU leverage. The European Commission suspended billions of euros in funding to Hungary, citing concerns over corruption and democratic backsliding, deepening the political divide.

Allegations and escalating mistrust

Relations deteriorated further following leaked reports alleging that senior Hungarian officials coordinated with Russian counterparts during sensitive EU discussions. These claims intensified accusations within parts of the EU that Hungary had undermined collective decision making during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

While Budapest has rejected many of these allegations, they contributed to a climate of mistrust that severely weakened Hungary’s position within the bloc.

A new government with a reform mandate

The Tisza party’s victory signals a clear domestic demand for change, particularly around governance and corruption. The new administration has strong incentives to restore relations with the EU, not least because of the approximately 17 billion euros in suspended funding that could be unlocked if conditions are met.

EU leaders, however, have made it clear that financial normalization will depend on compliance with a wide set of governance and legal reforms. These include anti corruption measures, judicial independence safeguards, and adjustments to policies affecting migration and minority rights.

Structural constraints on reform

Despite political momentum for rapprochement, significant obstacles remain. Hungarian society remains more socially conservative and more sceptical of the EU than many of its Western counterparts. This limits the political space for rapid liberal reforms, particularly in sensitive areas such as LGBTQ+ rights and asylum policy.

Economic pressures further complicate the situation. The new government will inherit fiscal strain linked to years of disputed EU funding and broader geopolitical uncertainty, including the economic effects of the ongoing war involving Iran, which has disrupted global energy markets and increased financial volatility.

Ukraine and the Russia question

One of the most sensitive areas in Hungary’s future EU relationship will be its position on Ukraine. While Péter Magyar has signaled a willingness to improve relations with Ukraine and align more closely with NATO and EU policy, key ambiguities remain.

His stated openness to continuing Russian energy imports for the foreseeable future, combined with proposals for a referendum on Ukrainian EU membership, suggests that strategic continuity with aspects of the previous government may persist.

Given public scepticism toward Ukraine within Hungary, any referendum could significantly complicate EU enlargement plans.

Analysis

The end of Orbán’s long tenure represents a clear political inflection point in EU Hungary relations. It removes a persistent source of institutional confrontation and opens the possibility of renewed cooperation with Brussels.

However, the assumption that relations will automatically normalize is overly optimistic. The structural sources of tension between Hungary and the EU extend beyond one leader. They include divergent political cultures, competing interpretations of sovereignty, and deep disagreements over migration, rule of law, and foreign policy alignment.

The new government’s dependence on EU funds gives Brussels significant leverage, but also creates domestic political risk if reforms are perceived as externally imposed. This creates a delicate balancing act between compliance and legitimacy.

On foreign policy, Hungary’s position on Russia and Ukraine will remain the most consequential test. Even partial continuity with previous policies could reintroduce friction at a time when EU unity is under pressure from multiple geopolitical crises.

Ultimately, Orbán’s departure may mark the end of one chapter, but it does not resolve the underlying tensions that have defined Hungary’s relationship with the European project. The reset, while possible, will be gradual, conditional, and politically contested.

With information from Reuters.