threat

Department reports raise concerns about increased espionage activity amid US-Israeli war with Iran, ceasefire talks.

The Pentagon’s intelligence arm has raised the assessed threat level on Israeli spying from “high” to “critical” in recent weeks, according to US media.

NBC News first broke news of the change on Friday, with The New York Times issuing its own report the following day.

The news outlets cited anonymous sources as saying the switch came in light of concerns over increasingly aggressive tactics related to the US-Israeli war with Iran.

They said the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had raised the alert level amid fears that Israel is increasingly attempting to surveil top US officials. The aim is allegedly to understand internal White House deliberations about ending the war.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have publicly diverged in their approach to the war, which the US and Israel started on February 28.

Trump, on one hand, has repeatedly said he wants to bring the war to a close, amid mounting political pressure at home.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has called for war to resume, despite an April 8 ceasefire. The fighting has been mostly paused since the temporary truce was announced, but efforts to reach a lasting agreement have repeatedly stalled.

The New York Times reported that, while Israel has been known to spy on the US, the DIA cited an uptick in activities beginning in late 2024, as the administration of US President Joe Biden increased pressure on Israel over its genocidal war in Gaza.

That increase continued into 2025, as Trump returned to the presidency and began deliberating about how to approach Iran.

The newspaper added that other recent intelligence assessments have also documented evidence that there are Israeli efforts to monitor Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff as well as Elbridge Colby, a top policy official at the Pentagon, and his deputy Michael DiMino IV.

Witkoff had been the lead negotiator in nuclear talks that preceded the initial US-Israeli attack on Iran in February.

Both NBC News and The New York Times cited unnamed US officials in their reports. The US Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Al Jazeera.

However, an unnamed spokesperson told both news organisations that the reports were “false”.

Still, the reported concerns are likely to raise questions over the close intelligence and military coordination between Israel and the US.

Washington has, for years, provided billions in military aid and weapons sales to Israel, including throughout the genocide in Gaza.

The US Congress is also currently debating a section of a new defence bill, which would integrate the two countries’ research and development for weaponry to an unprecedented degree.

While the US and its allies are known to regularly conduct intelligence operations on each other, officials told both NBC and The New York Times that Israel’s recent vigour was unique.

The New York Times reported that the increased DIA designation surpasses all current allies, as well as a handful of countries with more fraught relations.

Recent incidents included Israel’s military intelligence trying to plant listening devices at the DIA headquarters in 2021, according to the newspaper.

In 2025, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, Shin Bet, was found to have tried to plant a similar device in a Secret Service vehicle, the report said.

Russia has urged foreigners to leave in Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, and warned of more strikes on the city, suggesting a major escalation in its more-than-four-year-long war on Ukraine.

In a statement issued on Monday, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it planned to target “decision-making centres and command posts” and drone manufacturing facilities in the Ukrainian city in a series of strikes.

Due to these facilities being allegedly “scattered throughout Kyiv”, Moscow told “foreign citizens, including personnel of diplomatic missions and international organisations, to leave the city as soon as possible”, the statement read.

The ministry’s statement also urged Kyiv residents to avoid all military and administrative infrastructure facilities in the capital, which could be potential targets.

A later statement said that Russian Foreign Minister ⁠Sergey Lavrov had ⁠advised US Secretary of State Marco Rubio of the plan and urged him to evacuate his embassy staff from Kyiv.

Moscow said these planned strikes were in response to a drone strike on a student dormitory in Starobilsk, in the Russian-occupied Luhansk region of Ukraine, which killed at least 18 people.

The threats come just days after Russian drone and rocket strikes on Kyiv on Saturday night killed at least four people and injured about 100 others.

What is behind Russia’s latest threats, and how significant are the threats to foreigners in Kyiv?

Here’s what we know:

Why is Russia threatening to attack Kyiv?

Ukraine has greatly improved its drone warfare capabilities in recent months, leading to more successful targeting of Russian military and energy infrastructure.

Most of these drones are homegrown interceptors, which have been designed to pursue attack enemy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) before they hit their targets.

They can also carry a wider range of payloads and do not self-destruct, unlike one-way drones, so they can be used again in future missions.

On May 17, at least five people were killed after Ukraine launched what Russian officials described as one of the largest drone barrages of the war, with waves of UAVs dispatched to Moscow and several other regions overnight.  The Indian embassy in Russia said one Indian worker was killed and three others injured in drone strikes in the Moscow region.

Moscow region’s Governor Andrei Vorobyov added that a woman was killed after a drone slammed into a house in Khimki, north of Moscow. Vorobyov added that apartment buildings and infrastructure sites were damaged in the attacks.

The Russian foreign ministry statement on Monday labelled the Staroblisk attack as a “flagrant disregard for international humanitarian law”, and “yet another blatant demonstration of the Nazi and terrorist nature of the Kyiv regime”.

What has Ukraine said?

Ukraine’s ⁠military has denied responsibility for the strike on the student dorm, saying it had struck ‌an elite drone command unit.

Since then, Russia has also heavily targeted Kyiv and its surrounding areas with massive missile and drone attacks. resulting in at least four people killed and more than 60 injured overnight Tuesday and Wednesday.

On Monday, Ukrainian officials also reported that strikes killed several people in the eastern Kharkiv and Donetsk regions.

So how significant are Russia’s latest threats?

While both Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly launched attacks on one another’s cities, this was the first time Moscow had issued a direct warning to foreigners in Ukraine.

Commenting on this threat, Ukraine’s Foreign ⁠Minister Andrii Sybiha urged allies not to give in to “‌Russian blackmail”.

French Ambassador Gael Veyssiere noted that people in Kyiv were going about their daily lives on Monday, after the weekend’s strikes.

“It’s ⁠a way to demonstrate resilience, and I think it’s extremely important that we, around the world, we would ⁠support that,” Veyssiere told the Reuters news agency.

According to Philip Bednarczyk, the German Marshall Fund of the United States’ Warsaw office director, Russia’s latest threat comes after “its attempts to break Ukraine’s will to fight over the course of the coldest winter during this war failed”.

“It is becoming clear that their war aims are not being met on the front lines, and conversely, Ukraine has taken an upper hand. Russia needs to change tactics and the narrative somehow, and this warning is an attempt to do so,” he told Al Jazeera.

What is the status of diplomacy in peace talks?

Russia and Ukraine have been holding peace talks since the war began in February 2022, but with little or no concrete outcomes.

When Donald Trump became the president of the US for the second time in January 2025, he promised to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

He has since met both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy in separate meetings to discuss ending the war, but so far these efforts have not borne fruit.

The truce talks have largely stalled due to Russia’s insistence on keeping territory it has seized from Ukraine.

On May 22, US State Secretary Marco Rubio said that while trilateral talks had been unsuccessful, the United States was ready to organise a new round of peace talks.

But Washington has also been occupied with its war on Iran, which broke out on February 28, and analysts say EU nations might have to play a bigger part in peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv.

“Unfortunately, US attention from this administration was not able to bring peace, and it looks that attention has gone towards other parts of the world, like Iran,” Bednarczyk said.

“Europe will have to take up that role, and I believe is capable of doing so, but it is extremely important to have American backing.”

But he was also sceptical about how serious Russia is right now about peace. “After all, this is their war of choice,” he said.

Ruben Chorlton-Owen says lots of people are being caught out and paying a heavy price for it

A British traveller is warning anyone heading to Tenerife this half-term to watch out for several “tourist traps” that ensnare visitors every year. Ruben Chorlton-Owen frequently posts his travel advice and tips with his 105,000 followers on Instagram (@rube).

The 24-year-old, from Abersoch, North Wales, has recently been to the popular Canary Island destination. However, while there, he noticed a few things that raised concerns. And now, he is alerting people to several common “tourist traps” that catch holidaymakers out annually, as detailed in a video amassing more than 8,000 views.

If you find yourself requiring a pharmacy, watch out for “fake” establishments selling the same product at inflated prices. He said: “They’re real shops, but they have the same LED signage (as a pharmacy) but in blue colour (rather than green).

“So it’s not entirely illegal and many tourists fall for it. People later find out the product hasn’t worked as it’s not an actual medical product.

“It’s important to find a proper ‘farmacia’ that sells actual drugs to help with any pains or issues. Fake ones also don’t really have a lot in there and also heavily charge way too much for things like sun cream or paracetamol. They’re just tourist shops really.” He also advised Brits to be careful about how they withdraw money once they arrive.

“Make sure you try and get your cash before you come here,” Ruben told creatorzine.com. “Because the local currency exchanges or these ATMs will charge you a high markup and you’ll be getting a very bad deal for your money.”

READ MORE: Brits told to not dry clothes outside during current hot spellREAD MORE: Teacher ‘miserable’ in UK now pays just £100 for flat with pool in ‘really wholesome’ country

While he praises the destination for being “affordable” and “friendly”, there are still risks to be mindful of. He said: “Make sure you use the licensed taxis.

“Not only are they genuine, but they’re also much more affordable than the Uber app. And you’ll also get charged four times the price that it should be.”

Ruben also issued a stark warning for anyone heading back to their accommodation late at night or after a day of drinking in the sun. He recommends giving a wide berth to any shabby-looking areas and narrow alleyways. He said: “It’s full of pickpockets.

“It can be quite dangerous, so just make sure you stay vigilant and you’re not having too much – or use the licensed taxi to get home when it’s late at night.”

And for those fancying a cold beer or cocktail on the beach, Ruben suggests thinking twice, as it could land you with a whopping fine. He said: “If you do like to drink, make sure you don’t do it down the beach. The fines are now a minimum of €750 to €3,000.

“Make sure you just stick to the bars, your hotel room, your Airbnb. Don’t be taking any glass bottles at all down the beach, it really isn’t worth the risk.”

Sometimes it seems as though the only thing that stands between a functioning democracy and a full-on Trump autocracy is a thin, black-robed line.

Although the Supreme Court, in general, and conservative appellate courts, in particular, have bowed and granted President Trump permission to do pretty much anything he wants, they haven’t thoroughly capitulated to his endless grasping for ever more power. (The way invertebrate congressional Republicans have.)

At the lower-court level, judges have repeatedly ruled in ways intended to check Trump, most notably when it comes to violating civil and constitutional rights in pursuit of his indiscriminate immigration dragnet.

The tendency to slow-walk his administration’s response to those rulings — and ignore others that Trump thinks he can safely snub — only contribute to the perception of presidential lawlessness and a sense that our judicial system is being strained to something approaching a breaking point.

Go ahead, if you’d like, and dismiss those concerns as just so much overwrought hand-wringing, or the mindless anti-Trump blathering of your friendly political columnist. A new survey of legal experts — including federal judges, top-tier lawyers and scores of professors from some of the country’s leading law schools — finds widespread concern about the brittle state of our legal system.

And it’s not just the fears of a lot of shaggy-thinking liberals.

“The nation is strong as is its commitment to the rule of law,” said one appellate judge, a Republican appointee. “The current president presents the greatest threat in decades.”

The survey was conducted by Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan academic group that monitors the health and resilience of American democracy, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law.

Conducted between mid-February and early March, the poll anonymously surveyed 21 federal judges, 113 lawyers, 193 law professors, 652 political scientists and a nationally representative sample of 2,750 Americans.

What leapt out to UCLA’s Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, was that “across the ideological spectrum and across judges, lawyers and law professors, there was considerable agreement that the rule of law in the U.S. is under tremendous stress.” That consensus, he said, suggests “a real risk to democracy.”

Most legal experts agreed that Trump is using executive power excessively, with a majority doubting the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would handle cases involving the Trump administration impartially. The experts also expressed concern about politicized law enforcement — Trump seeking to persecute his perceived enemies — executive branch overreach, and the failure of Congress or the Supreme Court to do more to rein in the rogue president.

Eight in 10 of those surveyed said federal officials fail to comply with court orders somewhat or very often, and nearly 9 in 10 said political appointees in Trump’s Justice Department mislead federal judges somewhat or very often.

Talk about contempt of court — not to mention our vital system of checks and balances.

There was, unsurprisingly, a split among conservatives and liberals who took part in the survey. (The study defined legal conservatives as those saying the Supreme Court should base rulings on its understanding of what the Constitution meant as originally written. Liberals, who made up most of the respondents, were defined as those saying the court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means in current times.)

Conservatives, for instance, were more likely than liberals to see former President Biden as a greater threat to the rule of law than Trump. Liberals were more likely than conservatives to see evidence of Trump politicizing the Justice Department.

There were also differences between legal experts — those most intimately involved in the judicial system — and the public at large. The experts were more concerned about Trump’s excesses and threats to the rule of law, which, Hasen said, stands to reason.

The legal system is not something most people encounter daily in the same way they do, say, gasoline prices or the cost of groceries. “Yet,” Hasen said, “it’s one of these background things that really matters.”

Why?

Hasen put it this way: “Imagine that a person had a dispute with their neighbor and it ended up in small claims court before a judge and the judge made the decision not based on the merits of the case but based on whether he was friends with one of the parties, or didn’t like people who were similar to one of the parties.”

Now imagine that kind of corrupted, perverted system of justice writ large.

If, for instance, “people know that the government can successfully seek retribution from people who criticize it, people will be less likely to criticize the government,” Hasen said, leaving the country worse off by muzzling those who would hold their elected leaders to account.

Or if, say, rioters overran the U.S. Capitol and tried to steal an election and, instead of being punished, received cash payouts from the federal government, what incentive would there be to follow the law?

Happily — and who couldn’t use a bit of good cheer right about now — all is not lost.

People “can demand that their elected representatives take steps to assure that the rule of law will be followed,” Hasen said, and can insist “that the government [not] play favorites or seek retribution against perceived enemies.”

That’s the power people have, come election time. That’s why voting matters.

There are lots of things riding on the outcome in November, not least the sanctity and integrity of our legal system.

Bear that in mind when you cast your ballot.

The travel industry is on edge after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reiterated his threat to withdraw U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in so-called sanctuary cities in a move that could jeopardize international flights.

The U.S. Travel Assn. said that Mullin confirmed he is considering withdrawing the officers in a meeting where the trade group was pressing its concerns about other proposals the Trump administration is considering that could hamper travel. The travel association and major airlines quickly condemned the idea, and even Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said it doesn’t make sense to him.

“U.S. Travel believes such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation,” the industry group said Friday in a statement.

Details of the meeting were first reported by the Atlantic.

Duffy said at a congressional hearing this week that he wasn’t familiar with Mullin’s remarks, and he’d like to learn more about the context and maybe ask Mullin a question about what he meant. But Duffy said it would be a bad idea to start restricting travel based on political views. After all, he acknowledged, at some point Democrats will be in charge and “you will all switch spots at one point — hopefully not too soon, Mr. Chairman.”

“We have people from around the world and around the country that need to be able to fly into all different kinds of places. We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics,” Duffy said.

So it’s not clear how much support this idea has within the administration, though President Trump has previously threatened to withhold funding from sanctuary cities.

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally refer to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And courts have rejected the idea of pulling funding from them in the past.

In Trump’s first term in office, in 2017, courts struck down his effort to cut funding to the cities.

It’s not clear exactly which cities and airports Mullin might target, but the Justice Department last year published a list of three dozen states, cities and counties that it considers to be sanctuary jurisdictions. They include California, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego County.

The Airlines for America trade group was quick to say the idea would hurt the economy and disrupt travel.

“Reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries, causing a significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo.”

Funk and Yamat write for the Associated Press.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Cuba poses a national security threat to the US.

United States President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have issued new threats of military action against Cuba.

Rubio told reporters late on Thursday that Cuba has been a national security threat for years because of its ties to US adversaries Russia and China, while Trump said he is likely to be the president to finally take action.

The Trump administration, with Cuban-American Rubio at the forefront, has been raising the pressure on the communist-led island in an apparent bid to institute “regime change,” including a fuel blockade that has put the Cuban economy on the edge of collapse.

The push has accelerated in recent days, with the US indicting Cuba’s former President Raul Castro and gathering military forces in the Caribbean.

Rejecting suggestions of “nation building,” Rubio told reporters the issue is one of “national security”. He added that while a negotiated agreement is the US “preference”, the path of diplomacy with Cuba is “not high”.

“Their economic system doesn’t work. It’s broken, and you can’t fix it with the current political system that’s in place,” Rubio said.

Over the years, Cuba has gotten used to “buying time and waiting us out,” Rubio said. “They’re not going to be able to wait us out or buy time. We’re very serious, we’re very focused.”

Separately, President Donald Trump told reporters that US presidents have considered intervening in Cuba for decades, but that it looks like he will be “the one that does it”, adding that he would be “happy” to do so.

In response, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez lambasted Rubio for falsely labelling Cuba a threat.

“The US secretary of state lies once again to instigate a military aggression that would provoke the shedding of Cuban and American blood,” Rodriguez said.

Raised tension

Since returning to office, Trump has slapped Cuba with numerous sanctions, implemented a fuel blockade and overseen a military build-up in the region.

The renewed threats on Thursday came amid rising tensions between the countries.

The US indicted Cuba’s former President Raul Castro on Wednesday, in connection with the 1996 downing of a plane.

On Thursday, Adys Lastres Morera – sister of a high-ranking executive of the Grupo de Administracion Empresarial SA (GAESA) conglomerate, which is controlled by Cuba’s military and controls large swaths of the economy – was arrested.

More sanctions were imposed on the Cuban government in the past week. The US military announced that several navy ships, including an aircraft carrier, had arrived in the Caribbean on Wednesday to take part in maritime exercises with partners in Latin America.

Rubio has noted that Cuba had earlier tentatively accepted an offer of $100m in aid in return for reforms. But he said it was unclear if the US would accept Cuba’s terms, as Washington insists on circumventing the military-backed conglomerate GAESA.

Analysts caution that Trump and Rubio are eyeing a similar course of action in Cuba to the regime change manufactured in Venezuela. Left-wing President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were kidnapped in a military operation in January. They were taken to the US, where Maduro was charged with “narcoterrorism”.

Rubio insists that Cuba poses a serious national security threat to the US because of its security and intelligence ties with China and Russia.

Both countries have criticised the US pressure on the island.

China said on Friday it “firmly supports” Cuba and urged the US to de-escalate tensions and “stop threatening force”.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: “We believe that under no circumstances should such methods – which border on violence – be used against either former or current heads of state.”

Hotel operators avoid a ‘very real threat’ by signing a deal with 25,000 workers as the city hosts the 2026 tournament.

New York City hotel operators and ⁠unions have reached an eight-year labour deal covering about 25,000 workers, averting a strike over wages, workloads and staffing levels that had threatened to disrupt the city ⁠before the FIFA World Cup, said the head of the Hotel Association of New York City.

Vijay Dandapani, the association’s president and chief executive, said on Tuesday that the mood among owners was “overall positive” after weeks of negotiations, though the industry made significant concessions.

“We came ‌a long way from where things were,” Dandapani said.

The United States will cohost the tournament with Canada and Mexico from June 11 to July 19.

While FIFA, football’s global governing body and tournament organiser, was not involved in the talks, the prospect of an influx of fans raised the stakes.

A union campaign had warned of a possible strike and urged visitors to avoid affected hotels.

The potential walkout was a “very real threat”, Dandapani said, noting recent labour actions in US cities including Los Angeles and ⁠Boston.

Dandapani said a figure of about $200,000 reflected compensation at the end of the agreement, not at the outset.

Hotel owners entered the talks aiming to preserve profitability, arguing New York’s lodging market has not ⁠fully recovered from the pandemic. Occupancy remains below 2019 levels, and inflation-adjusted room rates have yet to catch up, he ⁠said.

He also cited broader pressures, including the US-Israel war on Iran, tariffs and visa issues.

The deal follows the withdrawal of a proposed city measure that operators said would have sharply raised labour costs by limiting room attendants’ workloads and requiring double pay beyond certain ‌thresholds. Owners estimated it could have lifted wage costs by about 40 percent.

The new pact will still add costs, though operators expect tourism demand and major events to ‌support ‌revenue.

United States President Donald Trump has reiterated his threats against Iran, as negotiations to end the conflict between the two countries continue to flounder.

In a Sunday morning post on his platform Truth Social, Trump warned that time was running short before a fresh wave of US military action might be launched.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote in the short, two-sentence message. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

The post was the latest example of Trump using violent rhetoric against Iran as his administration struggles to achieve its goals in the war.

Just a day earlier, Trump had posted an AI-generated image of himself atop a military ship, labelled, “It was the calm before the storm.”

The conflict began on February 28, when Israel and the US jointly attacked Iran.

Since then, Trump has put forward a range of objectives for the resulting war, including dismantling Iran’s missile arsenal, severing its relations with regional allies, and ending its nuclear enrichment programme.

On April 7, Trump coupled those demands with a social media post suggesting wholesale destruction in Iran. Critics have likened the post to a call for genocide.

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump wrote.

Within hours of the post, the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire that has been in place ever since, though both sides have accused each other of violations.

The US president had previously threatened to attack the country’s civilian infrastructure, including its power plants and bridges, which legal experts warn could amount to a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Separately, in a May interview with Fox News, Trump said Iranian officials will “be blown off the face of the earth” if they attack US vessels.

Iran has denounced such rhetoric and rejected Trump’s demands as excessive.

Mehr, a news agency sponsored by the Iranian government, issued a statement on Sunday saying that the US has offered “no tangible concessions” in its latest proposals.

It also accused the US of seeking to “obtain concessions that it failed to obtain during the war”, a strategy that “will lead to an impasse in the negotiations”.

Separately, a spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, Abolfazl Shakarchi, was quoted as warning the US against further threats.

“Repeating any folly to compensate for America’s disgrace in the Third Imposed War against Iran will result in nothing but receiving more crushing and severe blows,” he told Mehr.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera correspondent Almigdad Alruhaid said that the Iranian government has indicated that violent rhetoric from the US will not be tolerated.

“From what we understand, this kind of language is not acceptable here in Tehran. They are projecting defiance rather than [giving] an immediate response to this kind of rhetoric,” Alruhaid said.

He added that the increasingly hostile remarks from both sides signal that the ceasefire could be at imminent risk of shattering.

“Behind all of this rhetoric, there is awareness that the diplomatic window right now is narrowing,” Alruhaid said.

“We do know that there is hard language, hard messaging from both sides — that the finger’s on the trigger on both sides.”

But Adam Clements, a foreign policy analyst, told Al Jazeera there could be a “domestic element” to Trump’s hardline rhetoric, including his latest flurry of messages.

“Of course, Iran would have to take it seriously,” Clements said of Sunday’s post.

“At the same time as well, President Trump is known for his bombastic tweets, his bombastic statements, perhaps for domestic audiences.”

Clements added that it will be critical to watch whether Trump’s statements are echoed by his officials in the coming days, and whether they are also matched by increased military activity.

“ The White House press office has been known to post these type of strange memes, or AI-generated memes and cartoons in the past,” he explained.

“So I think it’s necessary here to sometimes look past some of the political noise, some of the things for show, and really try to pay attention to these clear signals.”

May 11 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged a bigger, bolder, more optimistic direction for Britain, with a much closer relationship with the European Union at its heart, as he fought to hold onto his job on Monday following a disastrous showing by his party in elections.

In a speech in London, Starmer acknowledged making mistakes, but said he would prove wrong those who doubt his ability to deliver solutions to the country’s problems, saying Labour needed to bring “a bigger response” than they had believed was necessary when they came into office.

“Incremental change won’t cut it on growth, defense, Europe, energy. We need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024 because these are not ordinary times, and this is a political challenge, just as much as it’s a party challenge,” he said.

While insisting his government had got “the big political choices right” on issues such as not getting involved in the Iran war and “investment in public services,” Starmer promised to do much more on apprenticeships, technical excellence colleges and special educational needs to guarantee a job, training or internship to every young unemployed Briton.

He also promised the most significant overhaul of ties with the EU since Britain officially left the bloc in 2021.

“This Labour government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe, by having Britain at the heart of Europe, standing shoulder to shoulder with the countries that most share our interests, our values and our enemies. That is the right choice for Britain,” he said.

Taking questions from reporters afterward, he kicked the question of rejoining the EU single market or customs union down the road to beyond the next election — but did not rule either out.

Starmer vowed he would see off any attempt to topple him after Nigel Farage’s Reform UK made historic gains in English council elections and parliamentary elections in Wales and Scotland, at Labour’s expense, and warned those who wanted him out that it could clear the way for Farage.

“We are not just facing dangerous times, but dangerous opponents, very dangerous opponents,” he said, saying Labour was the only thing preventing the country from going down a very dark path.”

“This is nothing less than a battle for the soul of our nation, and I want to be crystal clear about how we will win, because we cannot win as a weaker version of Reform or the Greens. We can only win as a stronger version of Labour, a mainstream party of power, not protest,” Starmer said.

Starmer had faced possible internal party challenges from senior party figures seeking to replace him and wider calls to set a timetable for his departure after the party’s disastrous performance.

However, the BBC said Starmer’s speech appeared to have defused the immediate threat to Starmer of a contest for the leadership of the party — and therefore the prime ministership — with backbench MP Catherine West criticizing his speech as “too little, too late” but backing down from her threat to force a leadership election today.

However, she said she still wanted him gone by September.

“The results last Thursday show that the PM has failed to inspire hope. What is best for the party and country now is for an orderly transition. I am hereby giving notice to No. 10 that I am collecting names of Labour MPs to call on the Prime Minister to set a timetable for the election of a new leader in September,” she wrote in a post on X.

West said she had the backing of 10 of the 81 MPs required under party rules to formally kick off a challenge by an MP. If and once a nomination receives sufficient backing, that would likely trigger a full-blown race for the leadership.

Assuming he does not resign, as sitting prime minister, Starmer is an automatic candidate in any leadership election if he so wishes. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn fought and won a contest to remove him in 2016, consolidating his authority, although he was leader of the opposition only and not prime minister.

While Labour leaders have resigned under pressure from the party, the cabinet or the public, none has been removed in a formal leadership challenge in post-war Britain.

West is not seeking to replace Starmer herself.

Emmerdale spoilers for next week have revealed danger for some characters, big scenes and Dr Todd is targeting a character again, while also romanticising another resident

There’s some big twists and turns on Emmerdale next week according to new spoilers.

It’s a big week for Cain Dingle as he prepares for his cancer surgery, but a bombshell leaves him reeling. Soon one favourite is attacked, but how far will it go?

Dr Todd is back up to her old tricks, still tormenting Jacob Gallagher while issuing a new threat to Charity Dingle too. When she turns her attentions towards Vanessa Woodfield, how will Charity react?

Then there’s the usual village drama too, with secrets under threat and Bea Wolf’s court fate appears to be confirmed too. Here’s all the big spoilers for next week’s epic episodes…

READ MORE: Coronation Street fans ‘rumble’ what happened to Maggie – and it wasn’t a heart attackREAD MORE: Coronation Street: Carl’s attack ‘will be life-changing’ as villain’s fate revealed

Cain undergoes his cancer surgery, and confronted with the reality of his catheter post-operation, he fakes pain to be kept in the hospital. When he does head home, with the operation going well, he picks up on tension with Aaron and Robert.

When Moira is forced to admit it was Robert who planted the identity documents that got her arrested, Cain wants revenge. Asking Sam for a favour, the pair attack Robert and tie him to a chair.

As Robert regains consciousness he sees Cain wielding a hammer, wanting Robert ‘to pay’, but what will he do to him? Elsewhere, Jacob fears his feud with Dr Todd has gone too far.

He feels guilty about how nasty things got, and in an attempt to move on he visits Todd. Offering her his condolences on the day of her father’s funeral, Todd accepts his apology.

Soon, Mary plays matchmaker and pushes Vanessa to ask out Dr. Todd, and the pair agree to a date. But Charity is left panicked that Todd will expose her baby lie, as Todd suggests to Jacob that she’s privy to a secret that could make his life hellish.

After some news about Todd’s father’s will, Vanessa decides they should just be friends. Todd needs money though, and a plan begins. Todd warns Charity she has definitive proof Charity and Ross are Leyla’s genetic parents and demands she pay her £10,000 to keep the secret.

Charity fears the worst, and panics further when she sees Todd and Vanessa kissing. Elsewhere, Bear and Mandy join the depot, but Jai’s words trigger Bear’s trauma from the farm.

Finally, Bob panics to discover he’s a player short for the men’s darts team. He’s soon relieved to hear Lewis has joined, claiming to have played a lot of darts in the past.

Emmerdale airs weeknights at 8pm on ITV1 and ITVX. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

The decision to move the start time of the race was made by commercial rights holder F1 and governing body the FIA on Saturday evening in Miami.

A statement from F1 and the FIA said the decision was made because “the weather forecast (predicts) heavier rainstorms later in the afternoon close to the original planned race start time”.

The statement added: “This decision has been taken to ensure the least amount of disruption to the race, and to ensure the maximum possible window to complete the grand prix in the best conditions and to prioritise the safety of drivers, fans, teams and staff.”

The aim is to try to finish the race before the worst of the weather arrives, which is forecast to be at about 15:00 local time (20:00 BST), one hour before the original start time.

That heavy rain, once it starts, is expected to stay for hours, so the fear was that sticking with the original start time would have meant the race could not be run.

Moving it forward, the race is still likely to be wet, but the hope is the conditions will be acceptable for running the cars.

F1 cars do run in the rain, but the limiting factor is always visibility from the vast amounts of spray thrown up by the cars, as well as aquaplaning if the amounts of standing water are significant enough to force the low-running cars to effectively float on top of water on the track.

Norris’ team-mate Oscar Piastri added: “It’s obviously going to be a voyage into the unknown for everybody. When it rains here, it normally is pretty torrential, so it could be an interesting day.

“It’s just going to be what happens with the power-unit, how you get power, where you get power is in a computer’s hands.

“Just making sure that that does roughly what we expect. Obviously, the margin for error when it’s wet is significantly smaller.”

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey appeared in court on Wednesday, kick-starting a criminal case against him that legal experts say presents significant hurdles for the prosecution and will likely be a challenge for the Justice Department to win.

Comey, who didn’t enter a plea, was indicted in North Carolina on Tuesday on charges of making threats against President Trump related to a photograph he posted on social media last year of seashells arranged in the numbers “86 47.” The Justice Department contends those numbers amounted to a threat against Trump, the 47th president. Comey has said he assumed the numbers reflected a political message, not a call to violence against the Republican president, and removed the post as soon as he saw some people were interpreting it that way.

The indictment is the second against Comey, a longtime adversary of Trump dating back to his time as FBI director, over the past year. The first one, on unrelated false-statement and obstruction charges, was tossed out by a judge last year. Now prosecutors pursuing the threats case face their own challenge of proving that Comey intended to communicate a true threat or at least recklessly discounted the possibility that the statement could be understood as a threat.

The indictment accuses Comey of acting “knowingly and willfully,” but its sparse language offers no support for that assertion. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche declined to elaborate at a news conference on what evidence of intent the government has. But broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, Supreme Court precedent and Comey’s public statements indicating that he did not intend to convey a threat will likely impose a tall burden for the government.

“Here, ‘86’ is ambiguous — it doesn’t necessarily threaten violence and the fact that it was the FBI Director posting this openly and notoriously on a public social media site suggests that he didn’t intend to convey a threat of violence,” John Keller, a former senior Justice Department official who led a task force to prosecute violent threats against election workers, wrote in a text message.

The case was charged in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the location of the beach where Comey has said he found the shells. He is set to make his first court appearance Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., the state where he lives.

What the law says on threats

The Supreme Court has held that statements are not protected by the 1st Amendment if they meet the legal threshold of a “true threat.”

That requires prosecutors to prove, at a minimum, that a defendant recklessly disregarded the risk that a statement could be perceived as threatening violence. In a 2023 Supreme Court case, the majority held that prosecutors have to show that the “defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has found that hyperbolic political speech is protected. In a 1969 case, the justices held that a Vietnam War protester did not make a knowing and willful threat against the president when he remarked that “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J,” referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The court noted that laughter in the crowd when the protester made the statement, among other things, showed it wasn’t a serious threat of violence.

Regarding the current case, Merriam-Webster, the dictionary used by the Associated Press, says 86 is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” It notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”

Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

What the government will try to prove

John Fishwick, a former U.S. attorney in the Western District of Virginia, said the government will likely try to prove that Comey should have known better as a former FBI director.

“I think they’re going to try to circumstantially say that you were head of the FBI, you knew what these terms meant and you said them out to the whole world as a threat to the president,” Fishwick said, though he noted that such an argument would be challenging in light of Comey’s obvious 1st Amendment defenses.

Comey was voluntarily interviewed by the Secret Service last year, and the fact that he was not charged with making a false statement suggests that prosecutors do not have evidence that he lied to agents, Fishwick said.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday that “despite being one of Comey’s longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not Comey, that drives the analysis and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

“If it did,” he added, “it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”

Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Kunzelman reported from Alexandria, Va.

Since the Straight of Hormuz was closed during the Iran War, the price of jet fuel has doubled. As a consequence, many airlines have cancelled flights. Regional airports are feeling the most strain

Europe’s smaller airports face an “existential threat”, according to the boss of the Airports Council of Europe.

Olivier Jankovec, the director general of ACI Europe, has warned that some of the continent’s smaller airports may not survive if jet fuel shortages triggered by the Middle East crisis lead to widespread route cancellations.

Since the Straight of Hormuz was closed during the Iran War, the price of jet fuel has doubled. As a consequence, many airlines have cancelled flights.

Regional airports are most exposed to airlines cutting capacity and raising fares, as demand on their routes is generally more price-sensitive than with bigger airports. This comes in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, which has left some regional airports 30% below 2019 levels, according to Mr Jankovec.

“The current levels of jet fuel prices and the prospect of a new cost of living crisis mean that many regional airports across our continent are likely to face both a supply and demand shock. For them, this is nothing short of an existential threat,” the aviation boss told the Guardian.

READ MORE: Brits may be banned from sitting outside in the sun next month under new Spanish lawREAD MORE: Major Ryanair luggage, boarding pass and check-in rule changes

Conversely, the biggest airports in Europe have a different problem.

Heathrow, the UK’s busiest airport, delivered a stark warning about its capacity on Wednesday, as conflict in the Middle East triggered a surge in demand for connecting flights.

“Heathrow is full”, declared its chief financial officer, Sally Ding. Her comments came alongside the publication of first-quarter figures showing 18.9 million passengers passed through the airport in the opening three months of the year. That represents a 3.7% increase year-on-year.

Airspace closures stemming from the conflict in Iran led to a rise in transfer passengers. This pattern is expected to persist as geopolitical uncertainty continues, impacting one of the UK airport’s chief international competitors for worldwide connections, Dubai.

Heathrow’s trading update noted it had “temporarily absorbed demand from elsewhere”. It also warned “passenger numbers for the rest of the year are likely to be impacted whilst there is significant uncertainty in the Middle East”, as reported by City AM.

Yet as the long-running domestic saga surrounding planning permission for a third runway continues, Ding warned that Heathrow’s operating capacity meant “fewer choices and higher fares for passengers and missed opportunities for the UK economy”.

Heathrow’s £50bn proposal to increase capacity has been mired in political wrangling for years. Its blueprint for a new, 3.5-kilometre runway would elevate passenger capacity to 150m annually from 84m. With it, the airport could accommodate 756,000 flights per year, up from 480,000 currently.

“Our plan is privately financed, rigorously assessed and focused on value. With the right regulatory framework and government policy in place, we are ready to invest, grow and keep the UK connected to the world,” a statement from Heathrow said on Wednesday.

The project involves redesigning part of the M25, London’s ring road which passes close to Heathrow, by diverting it into a tunnel. For the first time in Heathrow’s history, the government examined a competing expansion proposal from another firm.

The more economical bid – costing £25bn, and put forward by the Arora Group, which runs hotels and is involved in property asset management as well as construction – would have avoided the M25 altogether. It was turned down last autumn by Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander. She selected Heathrow’s proposal, but it has faced further delays following a government decision to reassess its overarching strategy in its Airports National Policy Statement, now anticipated this summer.

WASHINGTON — Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted Tuesday in an investigation over a social media photo of seashells arranged on a beach that officials said constituted a threat against President Trump, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The person was not authorized to publicly discuss the matter and confirmed the indictment to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. The charge or charges against Comey were not immediately known.

It’s the second criminal case the Justice Department has brought against the longtime Trump foe, who said he assumed the arrangement of shells he saw on a walk, reading “86 47,” was a political message, not a call to violence. Comey is among multiple foes of the Republican president to come under scrutiny by the Justice Department over the last year, as acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche aims to position himself as the right person to hold the job permanently.

Comey was interviewed by the Secret Service in May after Trump administration officials asserted that he was advocating the assassination of Trump, the 47th president. Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

His lawyer did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment Tuesday.

Merriam-Webster, the dictionary used by the Associated Press, says 86 is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” It notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”

Trump, in a Fox News Channel interview in May, accused Comey of knowing “exactly what that meant.”

“A child knows what that meant,” Trump said. “If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear.”

The fact that the Justice Department pursued a new case against the ex-FBI director months after a separate and unrelated indictment was dismissed will likely spark defense claims that the Trump administration is going out of its way to target Comey, who had overseen the early months of an investigation into whether the Republican president’s 2016 campaign had coordinated with Russia to sway the outcome of that year’s election.

The former FBI director was indicted in September on charges that he lied to and obstructed Congress related to testimony he gave in 2020 about whether he had authorized inside information about an investigation to be provided to a journalist. He denied any wrongdoing, and the case was subsequently dismissed after a judge concluded that the prosecutor who brought the indictment was illegally appointed.

Comey was the FBI director when Trump took office in 2017, having been appointed by then-President Obama, a Democrat, and serving before that as a senior Justice Department official in President George W. Bush’s Republican administration.

But the relationship was strained from the start, including after Comey resisted a request by Trump at a private dinner to pledge his personal loyalty to the president — an overture that so unnerved the FBI director that he documented it in a contemporaneous memorandum.

Trump fired Comey in May 2017 amid an FBI investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign. That inquiry, later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller, would ultimately find that while Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the Trump team welcomed the help, there was insufficient evidence to prove a criminal collaboration.

The department, for instance, is also pursuing a criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, another key figure in the Russia investigation — one of Trump’s chief grievances and a saga for which he and his supporters have long sought retaliation.

CNN was the first to report the second indictment against Comey.

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Air Force is continuing to expand on the capabilities of the Angry Kitten electronic warfare pod, which just recently made its combat debut on the F-16 fighter in the latest conflict with Iran.

New testing has focused on improving the ability of HC-130J Combat King II combat search and rescue aircraft carrying the pods to receive reprogramming updates in near-real-time via satellite. HC-130Js just recently flew extremely high-risk and high-profile sorties over Iran as part of the effort to rescue the crew of a downed F-15E Strike Eagle. Being able to rapidly refine and optimize Angry Kitten’s capabilities will help the system remain as effective as possible, even in a very quickly evolving threat environment, and could be a stepping stone to more advanced functionality.

The Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Center (AATC) recently shared details about new testing of Angry Kitten on the HC-130J during an iteration of the Bamboo Eagle exercise. Bamboo Eagle is a large-scale air combat exercise series focused on preparedness for a high-end fight in the Pacific. AATC has already been test flying Angry Kitten on the HC-130J for more than a year now.

The pods have also been test flown on Air Force A-10 Warthog ground attack jets and Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters. As noted, it is now being employed operationally on Air Force F-16s, as well. Angry Kitten was originally developed to replicate hostile electronic warfare threats during testing and training, as part of a cooperative effort between the Air Force and the Navy, and worked so well that it was adapted to operational use. We will come back to this later on.

During Bamboo Eagle, “AATC’s primary evaluation centered on the Angry Kitten electronic warfare pod integrated aboard a HC-130J Combat King II. The force development evaluation built directly on an operational assessment completed the previous year, which found the system potentially effective and suitable on the platform,” according to a press release that the center put out last week. “Testers incorporated recommendations from that assessment while the 130th Rescue Squadron flew the pod against simulated ship-based and ground-based threats during exercise vulnerability periods, evaluating both survivability and the system’s broader electronic attack capability.”

The 130th Rescue Squadron is part of the California Air National Guard’s 129th Rescue Wing.

“Running alongside that effort, AATC continued maturing the Ka/Ku-band communications suite, which enables over-the-horizon communications and near-real-time electronic warfare reprogramming via satellite link,” the release adds. “The suite compresses what was previously a multi-day technique development and distribution process to near-real-time between sorties.”

AATC has previously disclosed that it has been working on this capability, which looks to be unique to the integration of Angry Kitten on the HC-130J, at least currently. The Combat King II has the benefit of a wide-band satellite communication system, which is also found on U.S. special operations C-130 variants and other aircraft. The HC-130J carries the pod using a Special Airborne Mission Installation and Response (SABIR) system installed in place of its left rear paratrooper door.

“The C-130 testing features innovative real-time updates to electronic warfare techniques,” AATC said in a previous press release in March 2025. “Unlike the F-16 tests, where pre-programmed mission data files were used, the C-130 testing includes development engineers aboard the aircraft who can modify jamming techniques mid-mission based on feedback from range control.”

As can be seen above, to date, AATC has largely framed the benefits of this reprogramming capability within the context of accelerating continuing test and evaluation of Angry Kitten. At that same time, this would also be extremely valuable in an operational context.

In general, electronic warfare systems use built-in threat libraries to accurately detect, categorize, and respond to waveforms. In turn, their effectiveness is inherently determined by the breadth of data in that library. Specialists, often working in purpose-built reprogramming laboratories far from the front lines, have to work tirelessly to keep these systems up to date. Historically, this has been a very lengthy process, and one that has increasingly had trouble keeping pace with the rate at which threats are evolving.

As noted, Angry Kitten was developed first as a training and testing tool. It is a direct outgrowth of the AN/ALQ-167 electronic warfare pod, variants of which have been used in those contexts for decades to mimic hostile electronic warfare threats. However, Angry Kitten was designed from the start to be more readily updatable and modifiable in order to make it easier to adapt it to new and evolving threats.

“At the core of that technology is Angry Kitten’s Technique Description Language architecture. Georgia Tech designed TDL as a hybrid that pairs dedicated hardware modules for speed and bandwidth with software for complex decision-making,” according to a press release Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) put out last month. “The practical result: government programmers can reprogram the jammer to counter new threats without sending it back to the contractor for expensive, time-consuming code changes. When an adversary adapts its radar tactics, NAWCWD’s team can update the jammer’s response in days instead of waiting months for a contract modification.”

Angry Kitten is also known to make use of advanced Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology. Using DRFM, radio frequency (RF) signals can be detected and ‘captured.’ Those same signals can then be manipulated and retransmitted. As an example of what this means in practice, signals from enemy air defense radars or radar seekers on incoming missiles can be recorded and pumped back in a way that creates false or otherwise confusing tracks. That same data can also be used as part of the reprogramming process to improve the stability capabilities, as well as be further exploited for general intelligence-gathering purposes.

This all already contributed to the evolution of Angry Kitten into an operational system.

“We had a jammer called ‘Angry Kitten.’ It was built to be an adversary air jamming tool,” now-retired Air Force Gen. Mark Kelly, then commander of Air Combat Command (ACC), told TWZ and other outlets back in 2022. “And all of a sudden, the blue team said, ‘you know, hey, we kind of need that, can we have that for us?’ And so I see this iterating and testing our way into this.”

When it comes to near-real-time updates for Angry Kitten, even if the communications suite used on the HC-130J won’t fit on smaller tactical jets, it could potentially be ported over into a capability that is readily deployable to forward locations. Another possibility is that an aircraft with a wide-band satellite communications system could then pass updates for Angry Kitten to other aircraft within line of sight using other datalink capabilities.

The underlying developments have further implications when it comes to developing so-called cognitive electronic warfare capabilities. Cognitive electronic warfare is a broad area of development focused on new technologies to further automate or otherwise accelerate the reprogramming process. The absolute ‘holy grail’ of the overall concept is an electronic warfare system that can adapt autonomously in real time to new threat waveforms, or known ones being modulated in unexpected ways, even right in the middle of a mission. You can read more about all of this here.

Ongoing work to expand and improve Angry Kitten’s capabilities will also now benefit from lessons learned from the employment of the pods in combat sorties over and around Iran.

The multi-day effort to recover the crew of an F-15E Strike Eagle downed in that country earlier this month also highlighted the immense risks involved in combat search and rescue (CSAR) operations, and the importance of adding new self-protection capabilities to the HC-130J, specifically. Air Force Combat King IIs can expect to face far greater threats while conducting CSAR missions during a conflict with a near-peer adversary like China. This has prompted questions about the utility of HC-130Js and other traditional CSAR assets in the context of any future high-end fight.

In the meantime, Angry Kitten continues to evolve in significant ways, including its growing ability to receive key updated data remotely in near-real-time when paired with the HC-130J.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

WASHINGTON — NASA recaptured the world’s attention with Artemis II, which took astronauts to the moon and back for the first time in half a century. But the agency’s scientific projects could again be under threat as the Trump administration makes a renewed push to drastically cut their funding — including at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

The cuts, proposed in the Trump administration’s 2027 budget request to Congress, would pose further challenges to the already weakened Caltech-managed lab and could be broadly damaging to American efforts to bring back new discoveries from space. They echo last year’s attempt by the administration to slash NASA funding, which Congress rejected.

Though the Artemis project is billed as laying a foundation for a crewed NASA mission to Mars, exploration of the Red Planet is among the endeavors that could be slashed. The rover currently exploring Mars’ ancient river delta and a mission to orbit Venus are among projects with JPL involvement targeted for spending cuts, according to an analysis of the NASA budget proposal by the nonprofit Planetary Society.

“This isn’t [because] they’re not producing good science anymore. There’s no rhyme or reason to it,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, which led opposition to the administration’s similar effort to cut NASA funding last year.

Storm clouds hang over the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on Feb. 7, 2024.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

This time, the administration is asking Congress to cut NASA funding by 23% — including a 46% cut to its science programs, which are responsible for developing spacecraft, sending them into outer space to observe and analyzing the data they send back.

The proposal would cancel 53 science missions and reduce funding for others, according to the Planetary Society analysis. The effort to pare down NASA Science comes amid the Trump administration’s broader effort to cut scientific research across federal agencies.

The plan swiftly drew bipartisan criticism from members of Congress, who rejected the administration’s similar 2026 proposal in January. Republican Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, who chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA, indicated last week that he would work to fund NASA similarly for 2027, saying it would be “a mistake” not to fund science missions.

Moran plans to hold a hearing with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman before the end of April to review the budget request, a spokesperson for his office said. The president’s budget request is an ask to Congress, which ultimately holds the power to allocate funding.

But until Congress creates its own budget, NASA will use the plan as its road map, which could slow grants and contracts. The proposal “still creates enormous chaos and uncertainty in the meantime for critical missions, the scientific workforce, and long-term research planning,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), whose district includes JPL.

A NASA spokesperson declined to comment Friday. In the budget request, Isaacman wrote that NASA was “pursuing a focused and right-sized portfolio” for its space science missions in order to align with Trump’s federal cost-cutting goals.

The budget “reinforces U.S. leadership in space science through groundbreaking missions, completed research, and next-generation observatories,” Isaacman wrote.

Jared Isaacman testifies during his confirmation hearing to be the NASA administrator in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Dec. 3, 2025.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

At JPL — which has for decades led innovation in space science and technology from its La Cañada Flintridge campus — questions had already swirled about the lab’s role in the future of NASA work.

Multiple rounds of layoffs over the last two years, the defunding of its embattled Mars Sample Return mission and a shift by the Trump administration toward lunar exploration and away from the type of scientific work that JPL executes had pushed the lab into a challenging stretch.

It has had a steady stream of employee departures in recent months, and those left have been scrambling to court outside funding from private investors, sell JPL technology to companies and increase productivity in hopes of keeping the lab afloat, according to two former staffers, who requested anonymity to describe the mood inside the lab.

“If we’re not doing science, then what are we doing?” asked one former employee, who recently left JPL after more than a decade there.

A spokesperson for the lab declined to comment, referring The Times to the budget proposal.

The NASA programs marked for cancellation or cutbacks support thousands of jobs at JPL and other centers, said Chu, who has led a push for increased funding for NASA Science. After last year’s layoffs, JPL “cannot afford to lose more of this expertise,” she said in a statement.

Among the JPL projects that appear to be slated for cancellation are two involving Venus, Dreier said. One, Veritas, is early in development and would give work to the lab for the next several years, he said.

The project would be the first U.S. mission to Venus in more than 30 years, Dreier said, and aims to make a high-resolution mapping of the planet’s surface and observe its atmosphere.

The Perseverance rover, which is on Mars collecting rock and soil samples, could face spending reductions. The budget request proposes pulling some funding from Perseverance to fund other planetary science missions and reducing “the pace of operations” for the rover.

Though how the Mars samples might get back to Earth is uncertain, the rover is still being used to explore the planet and search for evidence of whether it could have ever been habitable to life.

Researchers hope the tubes of Martian rock, soil and sediment can eventually be brought back to Earth for study. The team has about a half a dozen more sample tubes to fill and the rover is in good shape, said Jim Bell, a planetary scientist and Arizona State University professor who leads the camera team on Perseverance, which works daily with JPL.

He said NASA’s spending proposal put forth “no plan” for the future of the agency’s work.

“Are people just supposed to walk away from their consoles,” Bell asked, “and let these orbiters around other planets or rovers on other worlds — just let them die?”

The NASA document did not clearly show which programs were targeted for cuts and did not list which projects were targeted for cancellation. The Planetary Society and the American Astronomical Society each analyzed the proposal and found that dozens of projects appeared to be canceled without being named in the document.

Across NASA, other projects slated for cancellation according to the Planetary Society’s analysis include New Horizons, a spacecraft exploring the outer edge of the solar system; the Atmosphere Observing System, a planned project to collect weather, air quality and climate data; and Juno, a spacecraft studying Jupiter.

The administration’s plan also doesn’t prioritize new scientific projects, Bell said, which further jeopardizes long-term job stability and space discovery at centers like JPL.

“We’re going through this long stretch now with very few opportunities to build these spacecrafts,” Bell said. “All of the NASA centers are suffering from the lack of opportunities.”

Last year, the Trump administration proposed to slash NASA’s 2026 funding by nearly half. Instead, Congress approved funding in January that provided $24.4 billion for the agency — a cut of about 29% rather than the proposed 46%. The 2027 budget request asks for $18.8 billion.

Congress kept funding for science missions nearly steady, allocating $7.25 billion for science missions, about a 1% decrease from 2025. The administration had proposed cutting the science investment down to $3.91 billion. This time, the budget requests $3.89 billion.

Under the Trump administration, NASA has put an emphasis on moon exploration, including this month’s successful Artemis II mission. Isaacman, who defended the proposed cuts on CNN last week, touted the agency’s lunar plans, including a project to build a base on the moon.

The agency has indicated commitment to some existing science missions, including the James Webb Space Telescope, the to-be-launched Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the Dragonfly spacecraft set to launch for Saturn’s moon in 2028, and other projects.

“NASA doesn’t have a topline problem, we just need to focus on executing and delivering world-changing outcomes,” Isaacman said on CNN.

Scientists have urged the government not to choose between funding science and exploration but to keep up investment in both.

“It’s ultimately kind of confusing, especially on the heels of the Artemis II mission,” said Roohi Dalal, deputy director for public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “The scientific community … is providing critical services to ensure that the astronauts are able to carry out their mission safely, and yet at the same time, they’re facing this significant cut.”