top news

May 19 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of the Treasury on Tuesday announced that it is imposing sanctions on four activists for their alleged involvement in a flotilla seeking to carry humanitarian aid to Gaza during the Israeli blockade.

In a press release, the department said the flotilla was “pro-terror” and “operating in support of Hamas.” Those organizing the Global Sumud Flotilla say that it is a “legal, non-violent humanitarian mission.”

The Israeli military began to intercept the boats of the flotilla and detain the people aboard Monday as they were off the coast of Cyprus. More than 50 vessels are involved in the group.

Its organizers said that they were trying to deliver humanitarian aid while showing solidarity with the Palestinian population. Israel has continued bombing Gaza despite a cease-fire brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump late last year, Al Jazeera reported, and Palestinians are facing shortages in food and medical supplies.

The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, however, said the flotilla was organized by Hamas-linked organizations.

“The pro-terror flotilla attempting to reach Gaza is a ludicrous attempt to undermine President Trump’s successful progress toward lasting peace in the area,” said Scott Bessent, secretary of the treasury. “Treasury will continue to sever Hamas’ global financial support networks, no matter where in the world they are.”

The sanctions targeted two people from the advocacy group Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad and two from Samidoun, a Palestinian prisoners solidarity network. The Treasury said both groups are fronts for Palestinian terror organizations.

Those sanctioned are Saif Hashim Kamel Abukishek, a member of PCPA; Hisham Abdallah Sulayman Abu Mahfuz, president of the PCPA; Mohammed Khatib, European coordinator for Samidoun; and Jaldia Abubakra Aueda, a Samidoun coordinator in Spain.

The sanctions freeze the U.S. assets of those targeted and generally prohibit working with them.

WASHINGTON, May 19 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s move to build a national missile defense system would leave millions of Americans vulnerable to nuclear attack despite the program’s exorbitant cost, the author of a new scientific report said at a press conference Tuesday outside the U.S. Capitol.

The report simulated a “best case scenario” in which the Golden Dome system shot down 80% of incoming missiles, said Ira Helfand, the report’s main author and a co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an anti-nuclear weapons organization.

Under those circumstances, more than 300 warheads still would reach the United States, the report found, and that Russia would have a 95% chance of being able to destroy any one of 132 major population centers in which a combined 75 million Americans live.

“Let’s be clear what Golden Dome is: a vanity project of one person, Donald Trump,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., using Trump’s chosen moniker for the missile defense system. McGovern was one of two Massachusetts lawmakers who led the press event.

“We must suffer the Trump arch, the Trump ballroom, the Trump battleship and now Trump’s Golden Dome. Each are the egotistical fantasies of an aging man who needs psychiatric care,” McGovern said.

Soon after taking office in 2025, Trump directed the Defense Department to develop a homeland air and missile defense system. The order called for protecting the U.S. “against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles and other next-generation aerial attacks from peer, near-peer and rogue adversaries.”

This initiative, later named Golden Dome for America, echoes earlier missile defense efforts, such as President Ronald Reagan‘s Strategic Defense Initiative, commonly known as Star Wars. It was never fully build or deployed.

“Building an effective and reliable shield against any realistic attack by nuclear-armed ICBMs is technologically infeasible for the foreseeable future,” said Laura Grego, a physicist who specializes in nuclear security at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“But also attempting to build one would be hugely expensive — wasting time and resources — and accelerate the nuclear arms race.”

The report was released by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Back from the Brink, all advocates for abolishing nuclear weapons.

The press conference came after a Congressional Budget Office report released last week found that a missile defense system designed to counter a small-scale nuclear attack would cost $1.2 trillion.

A more robust system in line with Trump’s aspirations of “ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” would come with a $3.6 trillion price tag, according to a 2025 estimate by the American Enterprise Institute, a right-of-center think tank. Trump initially offered a price tag of $175 billion for the project.

“The Golden Dome is fool’s gold,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “It’s a gold-plated boondoggle that will enrich defense contractors and ignite a new nuclear arms race.”

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told Medill News Service that he did not agree with the report’s conclusion that the Golden Dome would be too ineffective and costly to justify. On the contrary, Scott said, nuclear modernization efforts underway by U.S. rivals required a response.

“The weapons coming from China and Russia are faster and stronger,” Scott said. “And we have to be able to pick them up faster.”

Between 2014 and 2024, the estimated number of Chinese nuclear warheads doubled, from 250 to roughly 500, according to the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

China, however, has maintained a no-first-use policy since it first detonated a nuclear weapon in 1964, which commits Beijing to only employ its nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by another country.

When asked about claims made by Helfand and others at the press conference that the Golden Dome would spur a new global nuclear arms race, Scott disagreed again.

“It’s a defensive system,” he said, “not an offensive system.”

The planned outlays for the Golden Dome come in tandem with other Trump administration priorities that have raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill, including a $1.5 trillion defense spending package for 2027, $400 million for a new White House ballroom that will sit atop a bunker and $29 billion so far for the war in Iran.

At the same time, in its proposed budget, the White House moved to cut non-defense discretionary spending by 10%. The spending category comprises public health, scientific research and scores of other domestic programs.

At Tuesday’s press conference, Markey said the United States doesn’t have trillions of dollars to waste on a system that “is not going to protect the American people,” and he decried funding cuts to social programs that “actually do provide security for families in their own homes.”

There appears to be a shift in the years-long conflict in Ukraine.

Last weekend, Ukrainian forces struck deeper into Russian territory, piercing its air defences in a large strike on the Moscow region.

This came a week after fears of a Ukrainian attack forced Russia to scale down its annual Victory Day parade.

Kyiv’s also been relentlessly striking Russia’s oil facilities and military logistics, as it tries to disrupt supplies to the front lines.

All this as Russian missiles and drones continue to target sites across Ukraine.

So, where does the war stand in its fifth year? Does any one side have the upper hand?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Peter Zalmayev – Director of the Eurasia Democracy Initiative

Pavel Felgenhauer – Russian foreign policy analyst

Mark Episkopos – Research fellow at the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia Program

May 19 (UPI) — Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived Tuesday in Beijing for a state visit after U.S. President Donald Trump made a similar visit last week.

It’s Putin’s 25th trip to the country and marks his most recent meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping with a “quite packed” schedule, Russian news agency TASS reported. The two leaders have met more than 40 times over their respective tenures.

“Hosting two of the most powerful leaders in the world in a matter of days shows China’s growing confidence in its place and standing in the world,” said William Yang, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, The Guardian reported. He said the Chinese leader “likely wants to remind Trump that Beijing has other solid and robust relationships that it can count on, so Washington can’t easily isolate or harm Beijing if it tries to.”

TASS said that Xi will host Putin for tea and the two leaders will discuss “pressing international issues.” The visit will also include talks involving delegations, a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang, a tour of an exhibit on the relationship between the two countries and other events, the news agency said.

In a video address to China on Monday, Putin said the relationship between the two countries had reached an “unprecedented level,” The Guardian reported. Meanwhile, Guo Jiakun, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, said, “The friendship between China and Russia will be further deepened and will be more deeply rooted in people’s hearts.”

In Putin’s video address, the Russian leader mentioned that transactions and financial considerations between the countries have taken place mainly in Russian and Chinese currencies rather than the U.S. dollar.

In this way, the countries have been building resistance against sanctions from Western nations; China does not acknowledge sanctions against Russia and has purchased billions in Russian fossil fuels since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There have also been sanctions against China since that war began.

May 19 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice announced it will drop criminal fraud charges against billionaire Indian businessman Gautam Adani.

The Justice Department submitted a motion Monday asking a federal judge to drop the indictment from 2024 brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn, N.Y. The request said the department “reviewed this case and has decided, in its prosecutorial discretion, not to devote further resources to these criminal charges against individual defendants,” NBC News reported the court filing said.

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella signed the filing. Prosecutors assigned to the case were not included.

Separately, the President Donald Trump administration announced it had reached a $275 million settlement with a company founded by Adani over “egregious” apparent violations of U.S. sanctions against Iran, Politico reported.

According to the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, Adani Enterprises Limited bought $191 million worth of shipments of liquefied petroleum gas from a Dubai-based trader. OFAC alleged the company overlooked indications that the gas originated from Iran, Politico said.

Adani is the founder and chair of the Adani Group, a conglomerate based in Ahmedabad, India. Brooklyn prosecutors charged him and others in a fraud and bribery scheme in November 2024, while President Joe Biden was in office.

Adani’s lawyers from Sullivan & Cromwell included two of Trump’s personal attorneys: Robert Giuffra Jr. and James McDonald, Politico reported.

Adani’s worth is estimated at more than $100 billion. He is one of the richest people in Asia, and is an ally of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Prosecutors alleged that Adani and his co-defendants paid $250 million in bribes to Indian government officials. The bribes were to help Adani Green Energy, a subsidiary, win approval to create India’s largest solar power plant. It was projected to bring $2 billion in profits over 20 years.

They also alleged the defendants defrauded American and international investors by gaining funds “on the basis of false and misleading statements.”

Adani Group denied the allegations and called them “baseless.”

May 19 (UPI) — A bipartisan bill in the U.S. House is proposing a new $130 fee for registering an electric vehicle to help pay for transportation infrastructure.

The Five-Year Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill was introduced on Sunday by Reps. Sam Graves, R-Mo., and Rick Larsen, D-Wash. As proposed, it would require an annual $130 registration fee for electric vehicles and $35 for plug-in hybrids.

Graves said in a statement that the bill “ensures that electric vehicle owners begin paying their fair share for the use of our roads.”

Currently, the Highway Trust Fund is used to pay for county roads, bridges, railways and other infrastructure projects. The fund is filled by taxes on gasoline.

“The ‘user pays’ principle has been fundamental to how we fund our nation’s surface transportation system for as long as I’ve been in Congress,” Larsen said in a statement. “I support that principle and worked to make sure that this new fee on EVs is fair and not punitive.”

Albert Gore III, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, said the fees would penalize electric vehicle owners. The organization estimates that the fee is higher than what is collected on the gas tax on a per-consumer basis.

The federal gasoline tax is about $0.18 per gallon. It has not changed since 1993.

“I don’t argue that the number should be zero, but the number should be fair,” Gore said.

Congress eliminated electric vehicle subsidies last year, totaling about $7,500 per vehicle, as part of an effort to peel back sustainability and environmental efforts enacted under the Biden administration.

Fees on electric vehicle owners are in place in at least 41 states,

including Colorado and New Jersey, ranging from $50 to $260.

May 19 (UPI) — The National Transportation Safety Board began its two-day hearing on Tuesday on the deadly UPS cargo plane crash in Louisville, Ky., that killed 15 people on Nov. 4.

The NTSB released the agenda of the hearing as soon as it began at 8 a.m. EDT in Washington, D.C. The hearing will continue to 6 p.m. Tuesday, and 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Wednesday at the NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center in Washington.

The NTSB has investigative hearings to find the facts and circumstances of transportation accidents or incidents under investigation, a press release said. The hearing is open to the public, but only NTSB board members, investigators, witnesses and parties to the hearing are allowed to participate.

The crash is the deadliest in the history of UPS. All three crew members on UPS Flight 2976 died, as well as 12 others on the ground, several of whom were working or shopping at nearby businesses. The crash also injured about 23 others.

The NTSB’s preliminary report showed that fatigued and overly stressed connecting pylons likely caused the left engine to detach from the McDonnell Douglas MD-11. The engine fell from the aircraft as it was taking off from the Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport. The aircraft crashed into the ground and burst into flames. The fully fueled flight was intended for Honolulu.

The preliminary report said cracks caused by fatigue and signs of excessive mechanical stress were found in the pylon that connected the left engine to the wing. The plane was 34 years old and had recently undergone maintenance in San Antonio.

The engine-mounting hardware was last inspected in October 2021. It wasn’t due for another inspection until the aircraft completed 7,000 more flights, the NTSB said. The preliminary report showed no apparent pilot errors.

The NTSB invited several groups to participate in the hearing: the Federal Aviation Administration, UPS, The Boeing Company, GE Aerospace, Teamsters Airline Division, Independent Pilots Association and Collins Aerospace.

The hearing panel includes accident investigators and engineers. They will hear from nine witnesses on Tuesday. A new panel will hear from four witnesses from the FAA and Boeing on Wednesday.

In January, UPS announced it was retiring all MD-11 planes and was reducing its workforce by 30,000.

May 19 (UPI) — The Sandy Fire in Simi Valley, Calif., has spread across more than 1,300 acres Tuesday, putting thousands of people under evacuation orders.

The fire started as a brush fire on Monday morning but spread quickly due to heavy wind gusts. At least one home has been burned.

The California Department of Forest and Fire Protection said Monday night that “fire activity has decreased significantly” due to calmer winds and higher humidity.

“California is mobilizing resources to support Ventura County communities threatened by the Sandy Fire,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “This activation will ensure responders have the support needed to continue protecting lives and homes as dangerous fire conditions persist. We are deeply grateful to the crews on the front lines and urge Californians in impacted areas to follow guidance from local officials.”

The cause of the fire is under investigation.

Fire crews continue to battle the blaze with 750 firefighters working overnight attempting to contain it.

As of 6:11 a.m. PDT on Tuesday the fire had torn through 1,386 acres with zero containment.

No casualties or civilian injuries have been reported.

“We have made tremendous progress on this fire,” said Andrew Dowd, Ventura County Fire Department spokesperson. “Zero percent containment, don’t let that number fool you. A lot of great work has been done.”

An emergency shelter is open at Rancho Santa Susana Community Park in Simi Valley for people needing somewhere to stay overnight.

The Simi Valley Unified School District has closed all schools on Tuesday due to the fire. On Tuesday afternoon, it will determine if schools will reopen on Wednesday.

Cristiano Ronaldo will embark on a sixth World Cup at the age of 41 after Portugal coach Roberto Martinez named him in a 27-man squad for the tournament, with a symbolic “plus one” in memory of the late Diogo Jota.

Speaking at Cidade do Futebol before a packed auditorium on Tuesday, Martinez confirmed that fourth-choice goalkeeper Ricardo Velho, of Genclerbirligi Ankara, will travel with the squad, but can only be added to the official 26-man list in the event of an injury to one of the three registered keepers.

Portugal, the reigning Nations League champions, open their Group K campaign at the tournament in the United States, Mexico and Canada against the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 17 in Houston.

They then face Uzbekistan at the same venue on June 23 and conclude the group stage against Colombia in Miami on June 27. The tournament runs from June 11 to July 19.

Martinez said his selection comprised “27 players plus one”, a reference to Liverpool forward Jota, who died in a car accident in July last year, aged 28.

“He is our strength, our joy,” Martinez said. “Losing Diogo was an unforgettable and very difficult moment, but the very next day, it was up to all of us to fight for Diogo’s dream and for the example he always set in our national team. Diogo Jota’s spirit, strength and example are the +1 and will always be the +1.”

The coach defended his decision to name four goalkeepers and five fullbacks, while leaving out players including Mateus Fernandes, Ricardo Horta and Pedro Goncalves.

“The complexity of the tournament is very important – the demands of the weather, the time zone, everything we already experienced in March,” Martinez said. “There are positions where we need to have more than two players per position. And we need five fullbacks.”

He highlighted the versatility of Diogo Dalot, Joao Cancelo and Matheus Nunes, and pointed to attacking options such as Joao Felix, Bruno Fernandes, Bernardo Silva and Francisco Trincao operating between the lines, with Rafael Leao, Pedro Neto and Francisco Conceicao providing width.

Martinez added that Velho understood his role as a training goalkeeper, noting that FIFA rules only permit replacement in the event of injury during the tournament.

Portugal warm up against Chile in Oeiras on June 6 and Nigeria in Leiria on June 10. FIFA has stipulated that the squad must be in their Palm Beach, Florida training camp at least five days before their opening match.

Portugal World Cup squad

Goalkeepers: Diogo Costa (FC Porto), Jose Sa (Wolverhampton Wanderers), Rui Silva (Sporting CP); Ricardo Velho (Genclerbirligi Ankara);

Defenders: Diogo Dalot (Manchester United); Matheus Nunes (Manchester City), Nelson Semedo (Fenerbahce SK), Joao Cancelo (FC Barcelona), Nuno Mendes (PSG), Goncalo Inacio (Sporting CP), Renato Veiga (Villarreal); Ruben Dias (Manchester City); Tomas Araujo (SL Benfica)

Midfielders: Ruben Neves (Al Hilal), Samuel Costa (Mallorca), Joao Neves (PSG), Vitinha (PSG), Bruno Fernandes (Manchester United), Bernardo Silva (Manchester City)

Forwards: Joao Felix (Al Nassr), Francisco Trincao (Sporting CP), Francisco Conceicao (Juventus), Pedro Neto (Chelsea), Rafael Leao (AC Milan), Goncalo Guedes (Real Sociedad), Goncalo Ramos (PSG); Cristiano Ronaldo (Al Nassr)

United States President Donald Trump says he has decided to pause an attack on Iran at the behest of Gulf leaders after Tehran sent a new peace proposal to Washington through Pakistan.

On Monday, Trump said there is now a “very good chance” the US could reach an agreement with Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

An initial, temporary ceasefire commenced on April 8, six weeks into the war. Since then, armed hostilities have largely subsided, but a durable peace agreement remains elusive, with both the US and Iran dissatisfied with each other’s proposed terms.

Also on Monday, Saudi Arabia said it had intercepted three drones, one day after a drone attack hit the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates. This has raised more concerns about the potential for renewed military escalation in the Gulf as peace negotiations drag on.

What has Trump said about a new attack on Iran?

Following the reported drone attacks on the UAE and Saudi Arabia on Sunday and Monday, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Then, later on Monday, Trump wrote another post, saying he had been asked by the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to hold off on a planned attack on Iran scheduled for Tuesday since “serious negotiations are now taking place.”

He added that he had instructed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine and the US military not to carry out the scheduled attack. However, he said, he “further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached”.

What do we know about the latest peace plan Iran has submitted?

Iran has submitted a revised 14-point peace plan to end the war, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Monday.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told a news briefing on Monday that Tehran’s response to the previous US proposal had been “conveyed to the American side through mediator Pakistan”, according to Tasnim.

Washington and Tehran have exchanged multiple proposals in recent weeks amid a ceasefire that has mostly halted six weeks of fighting. However, the initial direct talks mediated by Pakistan in Islamabad in April stalled, and Trump said last week the ceasefire is “on life support”.

While the specific proposals in the latest plan from Iran have not been made public, Baghaei said demands include the release of its assets frozen abroad and the lifting of sanctions.

“The points raised are Iranian demands that have been firmly defended by the Iranian negotiating team in every round of negotiations,” he said.

Iran has also previously demanded compensation for damage inflicted by US-Israeli attacks, an end to the ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports and a halt to fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israeli forces continue daily attacks and have mounted a ground invasion in the south of the country.

Washington has urged Tehran to dismantle its nuclear programme and lift a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, which, before the war, carried one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquefied natural gas ‌(LNG) supply.

What are the main sticking points between Iran and the US?

A major point of contention is Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. During negotiations, Washington has urged Tehran to give away its enriched uranium, a demand Tehran has resisted.

Iran is believed to have about 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent. A 90 percent threshold of enriched uranium is needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has never officially declared an intention to build nuclear weapons. The US wants this stock to be handed over to it, but Iran is reportedly only willing to consider handing it to a third party – if at all.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from BRICS nations in New Delhi last week that Iran and the US have reached a “deadlock” on the question of Iran’s “enriched material”.

As a result, he said, the topic is being “postponed” until later stages in the talks. “For the time being, it is not under discussion, it’s not under negotiation, but we will come to that subject in later stages.”

Araghchi confirmed he had spoken to Russian officials about an offer from Moscow to store Iran’s enriched uranium. He said Iran may consider Russia’s proposal at an “appropriate time” and that he appreciates Moscow’s efforts.

“When we come to that stage, obviously we will have more consultations with Russia and see if the Russian offer can help or not,” he said.

The US and Iran are also arguing about whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium at all. Under the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed with several countries in 2015, Iran was able to continue enriching to 3.87 percent – enough for the development of a nuclear power programme. Trump withdrew the US from that agreement in 2018, despite consistent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had stuck to its terms. Now, the US wants a moratorium on all uranium enrichment for a period of up to 20 years, it says.

Another sticking point between the two countries is the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf.

Since early March, Iran has restricted shipping through the strait, a narrow waterway linking Gulf oil producers to the open ocean and through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime. Iran has allowed passage by vessels from select countries, but they are required to negotiate transit with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

In its previous proposals to end the war, Iran has mentioned charging fees or tolls for vessels seeking to pass through the state. Washington has repeatedly rejected the prospect. In April, the US announced a naval blockade on ships entering or leaving Iranian ports, further adding to the disruption of global oil and gas supplies.

Iran’s state media reported, citing the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that technical teams from Iran and Oman met in Oman to negotiate a mechanism for safe transit in the Strait of Hormuz.

A third likely major point of friction – although one which may also be kicked into later discussions – is Iran’s support for a network of “proxy” armed groups around the Middle East which it calls its “axis of resistance”. These include the Houthis in Yemen, who have also caused disruption by launching attacks on Israel-linked ships in the Red Sea in the past, Hezbollah in Lebanon and multiple groups based in Iraq and Syria.

On Monday morning, a jury in Oakland, California, announced its verdict in one of the most-watched tech feuds between billionaire Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The nine-member jury handed a decisive victory to Altman, saying Musk had waited too long to bring his claims against the artificial intelligence company and its top executives.

Musk, who cofounded OpenAI as a nonprofit, had filed a $150bn lawsuit against the organisation, Altman and its president, Greg Brockman, accusing them of turning it into a for-profit entity for personal enrichment.

The verdict, however, stopped short of resolving the central question at the heart of the case, whether OpenAI betrayed the nonprofit mission on which it was founded in 2015 as it transformed from a research lab focused on benefitting humanity into one of the world’s most powerful AI companies.

Instead, the case became focused on a procedural issue. After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury unanimously found that the statute of limitations had expired before Musk filed the lawsuit in 2024, meaning jurors concluded he had waited too long to bring his claims under the applicable legal deadline. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the finding and dismissed the case.

The ruling removes a major legal threat for OpenAI at a pivotal moment for the company, which is deepening its commercial partnerships, expanding its relationship with Microsoft and moving towards what could become one of the largest public offerings in Silicon Valley history; while for Musk, the ruling leaves room to argue that the case was lost on timing rather than substance.

Shortly after the verdict, Musk repeated his accusations on X. “Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!” Musk wrote on X. “Creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.”

Musk has decided to appeal, ensuring that the increasingly bitter feud between two of Silicon Valley’s most powerful figures is unlikely to end any time soon.

How did Musk and Altman fall out?

Musk and Altman cofounded OpenAI in 2015 alongside Brockman and other researchers at a time when concerns were growing over how AI could reshape society.

The idea, according to testimony and internal discussions presented during the trial, was that the company could focus on building safe AI systems that benefitted humanity rather than prioritising shareholder returns.

Musk and Altman also believed the nonprofit structure would help OpenAI compete with technology giants such as Google by attracting top researchers and positioning the organisation as a mission-driven alternative.

Musk claims he contributed roughly $38m to OpenAI during its early years, but relations between the founders later deteriorated sharply. He resigned from OpenAI’s board in February 2018, officially citing potential conflicts of interest as Tesla became more focused on AI.

But the split deepened after OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary and Microsoft invested heavily in the company. Microsoft has since committed tens of billions of dollars to its partnership with OpenAI, helping transform ChatGPT into one of the defining products of the global AI boom.

Musk became increasingly critical of the company, arguing that OpenAI had moved far beyond the nonprofit vision on which it was founded. In 2023, he launched a rival AI company, xAI, the maker of the Grok chatbot, before filing his lawsuit against OpenAI the following year.

Why did the case collapse?

At the centre of the trial was a relatively technical legal question about when Musk became aware that OpenAI was moving towards a profit-driven structure.

Because the lawsuit was filed in 2024, Musk needed to convince jurors that the alleged wrongdoing occurred within the legal time limit for bringing his claims.

Musk argued that his concerns fully crystallised only in 2023, particularly after Microsoft’s big investments into OpenAI’s for-profit arm.

But OpenAI’s lawyers argued that Musk had known for years that the company planned to pursue a commercial structure and raise huge amounts of outside funding.

Evidence presented during the trial showed that discussions about creating a for-profit arm dated back to at least 2017. Jurors also heard testimony that Altman had sent Musk documents in 2018 outlining plans for OpenAI to raise billions of dollars through a for-profit structure.

Ultimately, the jury sided with OpenAI’s argument that Musk could have filed his lawsuit much earlier – and therefore waited too long.

That meant jurors never had to answer the more explosive question at the centre of the case about whether OpenAI had actually betrayed its founding mission.

What did OpenAI argue?

OpenAI maintained throughout the trial that there was never an agreement to remain a nonprofit indefinitely. Its lawyers argued that Musk understood from the beginning that developing cutting-edge artificial intelligence would require extraordinary levels of funding and computing power.

OpenAI also portrayed Musk’s lawsuit as partly motivated by rivalry. By the time the case reached court, Musk’s xAI had emerged as a direct competitor to OpenAI in the race to develop advanced AI systems.

Meanwhile, OpenAI had become one of the most powerful companies in the technology industry, reportedly valued at more than $800bn and moving towards what could eventually become one of the largest public offerings in history.

Lawyers for OpenAI argued that Musk became hostile only after losing influence within the company and watching Altman turn OpenAI into the dominant force in generative AI.

What questions did the trial leave unanswered?

Although the verdict was a clear legal victory for OpenAI, the trial never became the sweeping test case about the future of artificial intelligence that many had expected.

Because the case was resolved on procedural grounds, the court did not answer some of the biggest questions raised by the AI boom: how these systems should be governed, who should benefit economically from them, and whether companies developing increasingly powerful AI tools can still claim to act in the public interest while pursuing enormous commercial growth.

The trial also touched only briefly on broader concerns surrounding AI development, including transparency, labour and the extraction of data used to train AI systems.

Nicole Turner Lee, director of the Centre for Technology Innovation, told Al Jazeera that one of the central problems surrounding AI is that the technology is deeply “extractive”.

“It does undergo theft where people do not consent as to whether or not their information, their image, their voice, their text are actually being extracted,” she said, raising concerns about compensation and consent in AI training systems.

Those issues remained largely outside the scope of the trial due to it ultimately centring on procedural issues.

The ruling, therefore, also removed the possibility of a far more disruptive outcome that could have threatened OpenAI’s corporate structure, its partnership with Microsoft and the wider wave of investment pouring into the AI industry.

But the broader debate over AI’s future is far from settled. With Musk preparing an appeal, the courtroom battle between the two former allies looks set to continue alongside wider questions about how AI should be governed.

Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is under investigation in Spain over alleged influence peddling and related crimes in the long-running Plus Ultra airline case.

The High Court said on Tuesday that Zapatero’s office in Madrid was searched along with three other premises, adding that the former premier had been summoned to testify on June 2.

The investigation is tied to the 2021 state rescue of Plus Ultra, which received 53 million euros ($62m) through the state holding company SEPI during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The case escalated in late December after several arrests, including businessman Julio Martinez Martinez, known as Julito, who is considered key to understanding the links between Plus Ultra and Zapatero.

Zapatero is alleged to have been the driving force behind the airline’s bailout and is accused of having pressed the Ministry of Transport, then led by Jose Luis Abalos, to approve the rescue.

Suspicion also centres on Analisis Relevante, Julito’s company, which allegedly received the same amount Plus Ultra later paid to Zapatero. Víctor de Aldama, a Spanish businessman involved in other corruption probes, has alleged Zapatero received 10 million euros ($12m) in commissions.

The bailout remained politically controversial because critics questioned both Plus Ultra’s financial viability and the company’s ownership links to Venezuelan businessmen seen as close to the government of then-President Nicolas Maduro, raising concerns about transparency and possible political influence.

The court is examining whether the aid was properly approved and whether any improper lobbying or influence was involved.

Speaking to the newspaper El Pais, the president of the Andalusian regional government, Juanma Moreno, said: “There has never been a serious investigation process, much less an indictment of a former president. This is something unprecedented and will shake up the government.”

The conservative opposition People’s Party has used the case to sharpen its attacks on Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of the Socialist Workers’ Party, to which Zapatero also belongs. Sanchez’s administration is already facing separate corruption probes involving figures close to the prime minister as well as investigations touching his wife and brother.

Zapatero, who governed Spain from 2004 to 2011, has long been a key ally of Sanchez and has also drawn criticism from the opposition over business and political ties with Venezuela after leaving office. He has denied wrongdoing before a parliamentary committee.

May 19 (UPI) — The Trump administration has issued temporary Russia sanctions relief for a third straight month, extending a waiver allowing the delivery and sale of Russian oil already loaded onto tankers at sea amid the ongoing energy crisis cause by the U.S. war with Iran.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the 30-day reprieve on social media, saying it will “provide the most vulnerable nations with the ability to temporarily access Russian oil currently stranded at sea.”

“This extension will provide additional flexibility, and we will work with these nations to provide specific licenses as needed. This general license will help stabilize the physical crude market and ensure oil reaches the most energy-vulnerable countries,” he said in a statement.

The United States has imposed thousands of sanctions on Russia since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, in an effort to cut it off from a lucrative revenue source to fund its war.

The sanctions relief — first issued on March 5 to permit the sale of Russian crude to India before being broadened March 12 — may have helped Russia generate ab additional $150 million per day in oil revenue, or $3.3 billion to $5 billion in the month of March alone, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in mid-April that about $10 billion worth of Russian oil was at sea, condemning the sanctions relief by stating “every dollar paid for Russian oil is money for the war.”

Democrats and Ukrainians have been sharply critical about the sanctions relief, describing it as undercutting their years of work to try to hobble Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to make war.

Following the announcement of the extension on Monday, Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts described the waiver as “delivering another dangerous and indefensible gift” to Putin.

“Every additional dollar the Kremlin earns from this license helps Putin finance his illegal war against Ukraine and kill innocent Ukrainians,” the Democratic pair said in a joint statement.

The Trump administration initially issued the waiver as oil prices surged in response to the war in the Middle East, which began Feb. 28 when the United States and Israel launched joint attacks on Iran.

Shaheen, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Warren, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, criticized the Trump administration over its reasoning that the waiver is to support vulnerable countries, stating that justification “would be more credible had it not launched this war, or if it had used policy tools to limit the prices Russia could push on those countries.”

“Instead, the Trump administration has helped Russia charge more for its oil cargoes by removing the risk of sanctions,” they said.

“Continuing to show weakness like this will only invite more aggression and put a just end to the war in Ukraine further away.”

May 19 (UPI) — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he has imposed additional sanctions against Cuba, with more to come in the days and weeks ahead, as the Trump administration ratchets up the pressure on the communist government of President Miguel Diaz-Canel.

The sanctions announced Monday by the U.S. State Department target 11 Cuba officials and three Cuban security and intelligence entities, freezing any assets under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting U.S. persons from doing business with them.

Agencies blacklisted were Cuba’s Ministry of Interior, the National Revolutionary Police Force and its Directorate of Intelligence, Havana’s primary foreign intelligence agency.

Officials hit included the heads of the Revolutionary Police Force as well as various ministers, the chief of staff of military counterintelligence, the chief of the Central Army of Cuba, the chief of the Eastern Army of Cuba, and the president of Cuba’s National Assembly for People’s Power, among others.

Rubio described them as “Cuban regime elites” and officials who have been involved in repressing the Cuban people.

“Regime-aligned actors such as those designated today bear responsibility for the suffering of the Cuban people, the failing Cuban economy and the exploitation of Cuba for foreign intelligence, military and terror operations,” he said in a statement, while warning that more sanctions “can be expected” in the following days and weeks.

“Today’s designations further restrict the Cuban regime’s ability to suppress the will of the Cuban people.”

Late Monday, Diaz-Canel lashed out at the United States over the sanctions, saying no one in Cuba’s government, political party or military institutions has any assets or property to protect under U.S. jurisdiction — and the Trump administration knows this.

“The anti-Cuban rhetoric of hate tries to make people believe such things exist in order to justify the escalation of its total economic war,” he said in a social media statement.

“That’s why we will continue to denounce, int he firmest and most energetic way possible, the genocidal siege that seeks to strangle our people.”

He described Trump’s Cuban policy as “collective punishment” and “an act of genocide,” calling on the international community to prosecute those responsible for it.

President Donald Trump has been targeting Havana with sanctions and economic restrictions since early this year, when he declared a national emergency concerning Cuba on the grounds that it has aligned with “numerous hostile countries, transnational terrorist groups and malign actors adverse to the United States.”

Trump has blocked Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba, adding to the decades-old economic embargo and worsening the island nation’s energy crisis. The country’s fuel oil stocks have run dry, according to officials, and blackouts are common.

Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of military action against Cuba and has stopped short of directly calling for regime change as he seeks to extend the United States’ influence across the Western Hemisphere.

Cuba blames the United States for its current economic and energy situation, and the sanctions came as its foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, on Monday, defended Havana’s right to self-defense in response to reports that claimed the island nation had purchased drones from Russia and Iran.

While some Republicans, including Sen. Rick Scott and Rep. Carlos Gimenez, both of Florida, celebrated the sanctions, several Democrats have condemned the Trump administration’s broader campaign, accusing it of manufacturing a pretext for war.

Reps. Delia Ramirez of Illinois and Nydia Velazquez of New York lambasted the administration in a joint statement, accusing it of attempting to justify another “unauthorized and unlawful military invasion,” seemingly referring to the U.S. military abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January and Trump’s late February strikes on Iran, which triggered a war later halted by a fragile cease-fire.

“For the Trump administration, the goal is another military incursion. They will justify their actions by claiming it serves the freedom of Cubans,” the Democratic pair said, calling on Congress to pass a war powers resolution to curb Trump’s ability to make war without congressional authorization.

“Today, we must act to stop the destructive ambitions of imperialists and warmongers.”

On Tuesday, voters in Pennsylvania’s third congressional district — which encompasses much of Philadelphia’s urban core — will decide what kind of progressive champion they want representing them in the United States House of Representatives.

Four candidates are vying for the Democratic nomination in Tuesday’s primary. They include state Representative Chris Rabb, state Senator Sharif Street, pediatric surgeon Ala Stanford and lawyer Shaun Griffith.

On the whole, all four campaigns are markedly progressive, focusing on issues such as expanding healthcare, affordability and housing.

But supporters say the race exposes the fault lines within the Democratic Party as it seeks to rally opposition to Republican President Donald Trump in the 2026 midterm cycle.

Marc Stier, who served as the director of the Pennsylvania Policy Center, a progressive think tank, until earlier this year, noted that there are few differences in the candidates’ platforms.

“They’re all opposed to Donald Trump. They’re all talking about civil rights, healthcare and voting rights,” said Stier, who backs Rabb. “So the differences aren’t that great.”

But the race has drawn nationwide attention, including endorsements from top Democrats.

For Stier and other local experts and leaders, the divisions come down to a duel between ideals and pragmatism — and how the candidates wish to be perceived along that spectrum.

A Democratic stronghold

The primary is highly symbolic for the Democratic Party. Pennsylvania’s third congressional district is considered one of the most left-leaning areas in the US.

According to The Cook Political Report, the district was 40 percentage points more Democratic than the national average in the most recent presidential election.

That makes it a key party stronghold in a pivotal swing state: Pennsylvania has alternated between voting Democratic and Republican in the last four presidential races, most recently siding with Trump.

Since 2016, Democrat Dwight Evans has represented the area. But in June, he announced he would not seek reelection after holding congressional office for a decade.

That opened a gateway to a heated primary, with no incumbent to lead the pack.

Street, Rabb and Stanford are considered the frontrunners. No independent polling has been conducted in the race, but surveys gathered by the candidates or their supporters show a volatile three-way contest.

An April poll sponsored by 314 Action, a group supporting Stanford, found the surgeon leading with 28 percent of voter support, followed by Rabb at 23 percent and Street at 16 percent.

Meanwhile, a November survey sponsored by Street found the state senator ahead with 22 percent support, ahead of Rabb at 17 percent and Stanford at 11.

A three-way race

Each of the three candidates has positioned themselves as the Democrat who will shake up the status quo and deliver results.

“The same old politics and the same old politicians are not going to cut it,” Stanford declared at a forum hosted by WHYY public radio in February.

“We need people who step up in a storm, who lead when others wilt away, and that’s what I’ve done and will do for this city.”

There are differences, however, in how the candidates are presenting themselves.

Stanford is campaigning as the political outsider whose public health advocacy offered critical leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is her first political run.

Street, on the other hand, is seen as the political veteran backed by party leadership. He first entered the state Senate in 2017, becoming the first Muslim elected to the chamber, and his father was a former Philadelphia mayor.

Then there’s Rabb, a democratic socialist who has positioned himself as the firebrand progressive in the mould of New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He, too, has served in government since 2017, representing northwest Philadelphia in the state House of Representatives.

All three have embraced progressive rallying cries, such as increasing affordable housing, widening access to healthcare, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency accused of racial profiling and violent tactics.

But Street has set himself apart by wedding his reputation to the Democratic establishment. From 2022 to 2025, he served as chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

“Street has very strong relationships with the political machine here: the party establishment, the ward leaders and committee people, and other legislators,” Stier said.

Supporters weigh in

But amid the frustration with the Democratic Party, particularly after its defeat in the 2024 presidential race, Street’s opponents have sought to distance themselves from the left-wing establishment.

“Rabb clearly says his goal is to push the envelope on issues and build public support for bolder ideas than Street is likely to push forward,” said Stier.

But Stier acknowledges that some voters see progressives like Rabb as all talk and no action.

“As my ward leader says, Rabb is one of those people that makes a lot of speeches but doesn’t get much done,” Stier said.

He dismisses such remarks as hackneyed. “It’s the kind of standard attack that is made by the establishment against people who are very outspoken and don’t always get along with the party establishment in Harrisburg.”

But it is the kind of argument Lou Agre, a ward leader and retired lawyer, sympathises with.

Formerly the president of the Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, Agre is backing Street in the upcoming election. He is not convinced that Rabb’s progressive positions can lead to tangible results.

“Street has always stood behind organised labour,” Agre said.

To Agre, Street represents experience, while Rabb is heavy on rhetoric. “This is a race between a guy with a record and another guy who has a platform that he’s using to get a point across,” he explained.

Duelling endorsements

In many ways, local leaders say that the difference between Tuesday’s primary candidates comes back to familiar arguments that often divide centrist and progressive Democrats.

Those labels have, in part, translated into endorsements — and behind-the-scenes party battles.

The news outlet Axios reported this month that Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro privately warned local building trade unions that attacking Stanford could inadvertently help Rabb, who has been critical of the governor.

Rabb, meanwhile, has earned the endorsements of some of the country’s most prominent progressives, including Ocasio-Cortez, Representative Ilhan Omar and Senator Chris Van Hollen.

Street, by contrast, has become the candidate of choice for some of Philadelphia’s biggest power brokers, including local labour unions, city council members and Mayor Cherelle Parker.

For her part, Stanford has scored the endorsement of the outgoing congressman, Evans, whom all three hope to succeed.

Tuesday’s primary will be key. The winner will almost certainly prevail in the general election in November. No Republicans have come forward with a bid.

But with the race split narrowly between the three candidates, the outcome may ultimately boil down to turnout, and which candidate can rally the most supporters.

“If people come out to vote, if turnout is high in North and West Philadelphia, parts of the southwest and those neighbourhoods, then Sharif will win,” Agre said of his preferred candidate. “If not, who knows what will happen?”

He described Stanford, whom some have depicted as a middle ground between Street and Rabb, as a complicating factor in the race.

“Ala Stanford’s the wild card. Is she fading, or does she still have her slice of the electorate? I don’t know,” Agre said.

Stier, meanwhile, acknowledged that each of the three candidates has a path to victory.

“There are pockets of support for all these candidates,” Stier noted. But he thinks the more moderate approach of Street and Stanford may open a path for victory for Rabb.

“The winner of this race is not going to have a majority. Someone’s going to win this race with 35 to 40 percent of the vote,” he explained.

“And I think Rabb’s campaign is expecting that Stanford and Street will split the more centrist vote, and he will get all the progressive votes, and he’ll run to victory that way.”

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi arrived Tuesday at an airport in the South Korean city of Daegu for a two-day trip that will include a summit with President Lee Jae Myung in his hometown of Andong.

Lee and Takaichi are scheduled to hold talks in Andong, about 190 kilometers southeast of Seoul, later in the day, which are expected to cover a wide range of bilateral and regional issues, including North Korea and the prolonged U.S.-Iran war in the Middle East.

Takaichi’s trip reciprocates Lee’s visit to her hometown of Nara Prefecture in January when the two last met in person as part of the neighboring countries’ ongoing “shuttle diplomacy.”

As military guards of honor welcomed her, Second Vice Foreign Minister Kim Jina received her before an escorted vehicle took her toward a hotel in Andong, where she is scheduled hold talks with Lee.

Around 170 police officers and 40 patrol cars and motorcycles were deployed at and around the airport to ensure safety during Takaichi’s arrival.

Shortly after her arrival in Andong, Lee welcomed Takaichi with a hug at the entrance of a hotel, wearing a light sky-blue tie matching the color of the Japanese leader’s suit.

“You have gone to great trouble to come all the way to this small city,” Lee told Takaichi before ushering her into the hotel, according to a pool report.

Following her summit with Lee later in the day, the two leaders will make a joint press announcement on the results of their meeting, followed by a banquet dinner and a performance.

The Japanese prime minister is scheduled to return home Wednesday morning via the Daegu airport.

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.

Video shows helicopters dumping water on a fast-moving wildfire in southern California’s Simi Valley. The Sandy Fire has scorched more than 526 hectares (1,300 acres) and damaged at least one home. Thousands are under evacuation orders and warnings.

The World Health Organization is getting health experts and supplies to DR Congo to battle the Ebola outbreak. WHO representative Anne Ancia says the situation in Bunia, the epicentre of the outbreak, is complex and difficult.

May 18 (UPI) — Alex Saab, a billionaire Colombian businessman and longtime ally of ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, appeared in a Miami federal courtroom on Monday, days after he was extradited to the United States.

Saab, 54, made his initial court appearance in the Southern District of Florida, where a federal indictment was unsealed, charging him with conspiracy to launder money through U.S. banks.

U.S. authorities have long accused Saab of corruption, specifically of using his connections to the Maduro regime to skim money from government programs intended to benefit Venezuela’s poor and of helping Maduro evade sanctions.

The case is centered on the Venezuelan government program Local Committees for Supply and Production, known as CLAP, an acronym of its Spanish name. Created in 2016 in response to the collapse of Venezuela’s economy, CLAP was intended to provide subsidized food to the country’s poor.

Federal prosecutors allege that Saab and his unnamed co-conspirators paid bribes to Venezuelan government officials to be awarded the CLAP contracts to import food, but instead enriched themselves by siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from the program.

The charging document further accuses Saab and others of expanding the scheme to include the illegal sale of Venezuelan oil, starting in at least 2019 and continuing until the return of the indictment, which is dated Jan. 14.

The U.S. charges stem from the accusation that at least some of the allegedly ill-gotten money was transferred through U.S.-based bank accounts. If convicted, Saab faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

“When illicit proceeds are moved through the United States financial system, our courts have jurisdiction and our prosecutors will act,” U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quinones of the Southern District of Florida said in a statement.

The indictment announced Monday is the second a Trump administration has brought against Saab, and his extradition on Saturday is the second time he has been sent to the United States to face criminal charges.

Maduro’s government has been a target of President Donald Trump since his first administration, which sought to oust the authoritarian leader through a so-called maximum pressure campaign of sanctions, including designating Saab in 2019 over the alleged CLAP scheme.

Saab was then arrested in June 2020 in Cape Verde at the request of the United States and was extradited.

But he was returned to Venezuela by the Biden administration in 2023 in exchange for 10 detained Americans. As part of the prisoner exchange, Saab was issued a full pardon for charges included in the first indictment.

After his re-election in 2025, Trump ousted Maduro and brought him to the United States to face narco-terrorism charges in a clandestine early January military operation.

Then in February, under the government of Maduro’s former vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, who was elevated to president following her predecessor’s U.S. arrest, Venezuelan authorities detained Saab at the request of the United States.

Saab’s return to U.S. custody now raises speculation that he could be used in the federal prosecution’s case against Maduro, given his former proximity to Maduro and members of Maduro’s family.

“Saab would be a powerful witness in the prosecution of Maduro — and could offer insights into Delcy’s role in building South America’s prototypical kleptocracy,” Benjamin Gedan, a foreign policy scholar and director of the Stimson Center’s Latin America Program, said in a social media statement.

Two gunmen have killed three people at the Islamic Center of San Diego in what police are treating as a hate crime. Police say the attackers, aged 17 and 19, died from self-inflicted gunshots. A security guard was among those killed.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran says Iranian leaders are ‘projecting defiance’ and rejecting ‘public pressure’ from the US.

The Trump administration has frequently accused US allies of failing to live up to mutual defence obligations.

The United States has said it will not take part in a joint board for continental defence with Canada, depicting the country as failing to live up to its defence obligations.

On Monday, US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby wrote on social media that his department would halt its involvement in the Permanent Joint Board on Defense to “reassess” the forum’s benefits.

The board dates back to World War II and has served as a forum for regional security. But relations with Canada have grown strained since US President Donald Trump returned to office for a second term in 2025.

“A strong Canada that prioritizes hard power over rhetoric benefits us all. Unfortunately, Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments,” Colby wrote on X.

“We can no longer avoid the gaps between rhetoric and reality. Real powers must sustain our rhetoric with shared defense and security responsibilities.”

The announcement is the latest instance of the Trump administration chiding Western allies for what the president believes is an overreliance on US military power.

Allied countries have largely refuted his claims, arguing that they are ramping up military spending and taking steps to take greater control over regional security.

Just last year, at a NATO summit in The Hague, nearly every member state agreed to increase defence spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP). Spain petitioned to be excluded from the agreement, though.

Canada, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, was among the countries committing to the increased spending.

Of the 5 percent earmarked for defence, 3.5 percent would go to bolstering Canada’s “core military capabilities”, Carney’s government said. The rest would go to security-related expenses, including port improvements, emergency preparedness and other resources.

Since taking office as prime minister in March 2025, Carney has been an outspoken supporter of lessening Canada’s dependence on the US’s military and economy.

In a speech this year, he outlined a vision in which “middle powers” like Canada banded together to sidestep the current “era of great power rivalry”, a veiled reference to countries like the US, Russia and China.

While the US and Canada are neighbours, Trump’s second presidency has resulted in fraying bonds between the two countries, even beyond matters of security.

Trump has accused Canada of pursuing unfair trade policies and failing to crack down on the illicit traffic of people and drugs across the border, though critics have questioned the legitimacy of these claims.

To force Canada to comply with his policies, the US president has pursued an aggressive tariff regimen to tax cross-border imports.

Trump has suggested in the past that Canada could avoid such penalties by ceding its sovereignty and becoming the US’s 51st state.

“Cooler and wiser brains are needed to preserve a close alliance w/ our neighbor,” US Republican Representative Don Bacon said in a social media post on Monday, criticising the decision to pull out of the defence forum with Canada.

“This all started w/ taunts of ‘Canada will be the 51st state’ and ‘their Prime Minister will be the 51st governor’. The insults gained us nothing but animosity that cost us economically and now militarily.”

The US, Canada and Mexico are set to negotiate an updated version of a regional free trade agreement, known as the USMCA, later this year.