sources

Chinese President Xi Jinping will likely visit North Korea as early as next week, sources said Wednesday.

“We have obtained intelligence indicating that President Xi Jinping will visit North Korea soon,” a high-ranking government official told Yonhap News Agency.

Another government official also said there is a high possibility of Xi visiting North Korea later this month or early next month, noting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi‘s visit to Pyongyang last month and the recent trips by Xi’s security guards and ceremonial staff to the North Korean capital.

During the meeting with Wang, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un expressed willingness to strengthen high-level exchanges and enhance strategic communication with Beijing, as he recalled his visit to China last year.

The two nations mark the 65th anniversary of signing a comprehensive treaty on cooperation this year.

Xi’s possible visit to the reclusive regime also follows summit talks with U.S President Donald Trump in Beijing last week. During the talks, the two leaders reaffirmed their shared goal of denuclearizing North Korea.

A separate government source said the Chinese leader could seek to mediate relations between North Korea and the United States.

During his state visit to China in January, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung asked Xi to help mediate inter-Korean relations, and the Chinese leader responded positively to the request, according to the source.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is drawing down thousands of troops in Europe by canceling deployments to Poland and Germany as opposed to yanking forces already stationed there, U.S. officials say, as President Trump has tussled with allies over the Iran war and called for changes.

Several U.S. officials confirmed that 4,000 troops from the Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division were no longer en route to Poland this week. The Trump administration had previously said it was cutting U.S. forces only in Germany, and the decision spurred questions and criticism in both Warsaw and Washington.

Two officials told the Associated Press that the deployments were canceled after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memo directing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to move a brigade combat team out of Europe. One of them said the choice of which unit was left to military leaders.

Besides the Army combat team based in Fort Hood, Texas, the memo also led to the cancellation of an upcoming deployment to Germany of a battalion trained in firing long-range rockets and missiles, according to the two officials, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

Three U.S. officials said the changes were part of an effort to comply with a presidential order issued at the beginning of May to reduce the number of troops in Europe by about 5,000. The reasoning does not appear to have been well communicated because others based in Europe said they did not know if the halted deployment to Poland was part of the previously announced reduction.

Trump and the Pentagon have said in recent weeks that they were cutting at least 5,000 troops to Germany after Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the U.S. was being “humiliated” by the Iranian leadership and criticized Washington’s lack of strategy in the war.

The drawdown reflects a growing rift between the administration and traditional European allies, with the U.S. leader repeatedly criticizing fellow NATO members for a lack of support for the Iran war.

Polish officials on Friday insisted that the U.S. withdrawal was not targeted directly at Poland but was a consequence of Trump’s decision to reduce the number of troops in Germany.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he “received assurances” that the decision was of a logistical nature and said it does not directly affect deterrence capabilities and Poland’s security.

Military officials say the decision to halt unit to Poland made recently

Joel Valdez, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “the decision to withdraw troops follows a comprehensive, multilayered process” and he argued that it was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

Speaking to Congress in a hearing Friday, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the Army’s chief of staff, told lawmakers that discussions around the halted deployment occurred over the last two weeks but noted the decision itself was made in the last couple days.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said he spoke with Polish officials on Thursday and they noted they were “blindsided.”

The move also left many U.S. military personnel in Europe in the dark about how the Trump administration was reducing forces. A U.S. official based in Europe said a meeting was called with 20 minutes’ notice on Monday to discuss the cancellation of the deployment to Poland.

At that time, troops had already been sent to Poland and some, still in the U.S., were told shortly before departure not to travel to the airport, that official said. Another official said most of the Army unit’s equipment had already made it to Europe and was sitting in ports.

Change to troop deployment to Poland draws bipartisan criticism

The reductions drew criticism from Democratic and Republican lawmakers about the move sending the wrong signal both to allies and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces this week have launched one of the deadliest attacks on the Ukrainian capital in the 4-year-old war.

At the House Armed Services Committee hearing Friday, LaNeve said he worked with U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, commander in Europe of both U.S. and NATO forces, after Grynkewich received the instructions for the force reduction.

“I’ve worked with him in close consultation of what that force unit would be, and it made the most sense for that brigade to not do its deployment in theater,” LaNeve said.

Bacon called the decision “reprehensible” and said it was “an embarrassment to our country what we just did to Poland.”

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, who chairs the committee, said the military is required to consult with lawmakers and that did not happen.

“So we don’t know what’s going on here,” Rogers said. “But I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about.”

A State Department official said Friday at a security conference in Tallinn, Estonia, that the U.S. reductions in Europe were “right there in black and white” but also noted that “the U.S. isn’t going anywhere.”

“We’ll continue to work with the Pentagon and work with our partners to make sure we get the right fit and right mix of what’s happening here on the ground,” said Thomas G. DiNanno, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

NATO says the change in Poland won’t affect defense

With the halted deployments, the U.S. military presence in Europe will now be at pre-2022 levels, before Russia commenced its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, one U.S. official said.

European countries have been bracing for a U.S. reduction since Trump returned to the White House, with the administration warning that Europe would have to look after its own security, including Ukraine’s, in the future.

A NATO official said the U.S. decision to cancel its rotational deployment to Poland would not impact NATO’s deterrence and defense plans. Canada and Germany have increased their presence on the alliance’s eastern flank, which contributes to NATO’s overall strength, the official said, insisting on anonymity in line with NATO regulations.

Ben Hodges, former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, said the move “reinforces the perception that the United States just does things without consultation with allies,” which ultimately “damages cohesion inside the alliance.” The decision would in the long run harm the U.S. defense industry as it reduces the trust of partners, he said.

Around 10,000 U.S. troops are typically stationed in Poland, the majority of them present in the country on a rotational basis. Only about 300 troops are permanently stationed in the country, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

Polish officials had hoped they would be spared from any cuts as Poland spends the most in NATO on defense as a proportion of its economy — around 4.7% in 2025. Hegseth has called it a “model ally” in NATO for spending so much on defense.

When Poland’s conservative president, Karol Nawrocki, visited the White House in September, Trump said he didn’t intend to pull U.S. troops out of Poland. “We’ll put more there if they want,” Trump said at the time.

Toropin, Burrows, Finley and Ciobanu write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from Tallinn, Estonia, and Ciobanu from Warsaw.

HumAngle Media, a Pan-African publication covering conflict, humanitarian, and development issues, held an X Spaces on Saturday, May 9, to discuss ethical dilemmas surrounding financial assistance to vulnerable sources, especially for journalists reporting from conflict zones and areas affected by humanitarian crises. 

The conversation was inspired by a recent HumAngle analysis examining the issue. Ahmad Salkida, HumAngle’s Editor-in-Chief and a veteran journalist who authored the article, argued that “in theory, [journalism] is expected to observe some emotional distance from its sources and the stories they tell. However, that model is inoperable in conflict-affected regions of northern Nigeria and the Sahel.” 

The article sparked widespread debate, particularly among journalists and media educators. While some argued that reporters should remain strictly bound by professional ethics, others contended that it is difficult not to extend a helping hand, especially when the source is struggling with basic needs like food and water. 

Hauwa Shaffii Nuhu, HumAngle’s Managing Editor, who moderated the X Spaces, opened the conversation with the story of Kevin Carter, a South African journalist who died by suicide three and a half months after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. The award-winning image showed a visibly malnourished child in Sudan who collapsed to the ground while a vulture lurked in the background. 

In his suicide note, Kevin said, “I am haunted by the vivid memories … of starving or wounded children”. Hauwa noted that Kevin’s experience shows that the conversation about offering support to vulnerable sources in conflict-affected or humanitarian crisis-hit regions has serious emotional and ethical real-world consequences. 

The conversation was enriched with insights from other speakers, including Lami Sadiq, a data and investigative journalist; Daniel Ojukwu, an investigative journalist with Foundation for Investigative Journalism; and Ibrahim Adeyemi, HumAngle’s Investigations Editor. 

The speakers shared instances in which they felt compelled to offer bags of water, food, and sometimes money to people who were evidently struggling. They agreed that being a journalist does not excuse one from basic human decency and empathy.

Lami stressed that it is important to distinguish between support offered out of humanity and responsibilities carried out in a professional journalistic capacity. She emphasised that when the source outrightly demands payment at the start of an interview, journalists should not only not pay the source but also seek other sources to replace them, to maintain credibility.

“It makes everything transactional, and that affects the credibility of the journalists and the report in question,” she said. 

While it is sometimes difficult to deal with sources who are used to getting humanitarian aid in exchange for information, Lami said journalists must stand their ground and use other sources, especially if the issues to be reported are not exclusive.

Hauwa emphasised that helping vulnerable sources to understand that telling their story is in their best interest will help address issues such as financial compensation, especially when dealing with sources who can be very demanding. 

While speaking on the risks of financially supporting sources, Daniel urged journalists to be mindful of directly supporting sources, as doing so might incriminate them if the sources are later engaged or are linked to criminal networks. 

“If a source you once offered money to is later linked with criminal activity, it could look really bad on you. In Nigeria, you might even be dubbed a terrorist financier when all you are doing is your job as a journalist. We have seen this happen many times in Nigeria,” he said. 

Daniel added, “When I interact with sources or with fixers, I have to profile everyone I’m interacting with. Sometimes, I have to withdraw from sources or fixers because of the manner in which they approach matters.”

While paying for information remains unethical in principle, there are distinct instances in which journalists say they must step in to provide financial aid. 

Drawing on his field experience, Ibrahim recounted a time when he had to assist a source in taking her child to the hospital due to a medical emergency. He paid for the medical bills, and when the doctor said the child might have died if they had shown up an hour later, Ibrahim said he was glad he had helped. 

“Acting first as a human is at the core of humanitarian journalism,” Ibrahim stated. 

However, he stressed that moments requiring urgent humanitarian intervention should not blur ethical boundaries in reporting. Ibrahim further called on editors to educate reporters on the challenges they might face when dealing with sources who require monetary compensation for information. 

“They [reporters] should always look for ethical alternatives rather than compromising their standards just to get the stories,” he said. 

The speakers also urged journalists to be mindful when dealing with displaced persons or vulnerable communities, as they may exaggerate their situation to generate sympathy, believing it might lead to aid. For journalists, this makes verification especially important, even in highly emotional reporting environments.

That same need to maintain professional boundaries also came up in discussions about interviewing experts. Daniel, when asked whether experts should be paid for granting interviews, stated: “Never do so.” Instead, he stressed that building rapport with experts before they are needed helps address such issues. 

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has subpoenaed several witnesses to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington as part of its investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, three people familiar with the matter said Monday.

The subpoenas were issued in recent days and represent an effort by the Justice Department to press forward with the investigation even as a Florida-based career prosecutor who’d been helping lead the inquiry left the case after expressing doubts about the legal viability of a potential prosecution.

A former Justice Department lawyer who served as a top prosecutor in the 1980s and later supported legal efforts by President Trump to overturn his 2020 election loss has since been sworn in to serve as a special counselor to the attorney general, and is expected to work on the investigation.

The months-old Brennan investigation is one of several criminal probes the Justice Department has opened over the last year against Trump’s perceived adversaries. It centers on one of the Republican president’s chief grievances — a U.S. intelligence community finding that Russia interfered on his behalf during his successful 2016 presidential campaign.

The subpoenas were described by people with knowledge of them who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation. At least three were said to have been issued, said two of the people. CBS News earlier reported the issuance of subpoenas.

Brennan served as CIA director under President Obama and was in that role when the intelligence community in January 2017 published an assessment detailing Russian interference aimed at helping Trump defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. An investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that Russia meddled on Trump’s behalf and that his campaign welcomed the assistance, but it did not find sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy.

The Justice Department last year received a criminal referral from Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, alleging that Brennan made false statements before the panel in 2023 about the preparation of the intelligence community assessment. Brennan and his lawyers have vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

The investigation has been unfolding for months in Florida, with investigators having lined up interviews and issued subpoenas for records. The latest subpoenas seek grand jury testimony in Washington, an indication that prosecutors expect they would have to bring any criminal case in Washington since that is where Brennan’s testimony took place.

On Friday, it was revealed that a key national security prosecutor in Florida who’d been handling the investigation, Maria Medetis Long, left the case. She expressed doubts about the case and was removed, another person familiar with the matter said.

The Justice Department since then has tapped Joseph diGenova, 81, a Trump loyalist who served as the U.S. attorney in Washington for part of the 1980s, to serve as a special counselor to the attorney general. He was sworn in Monday in Florida and is expected to work on the Brennan investigation.

DiGenova supported Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. He made headlines that year when he said Chris Krebs, a top Trump administration cybersecurity official who said the election was not tainted by fraud, should be killed. DiGenova later apologized and a lawsuit filed against him by Krebs was withdrawn.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.