trump

April 10 (Asia Today) — This commentary is the Asia Today Editor’s Op-Ed.

U.S. President Donald Trump is reportedly considering pulling American troops from NATO countries he sees as uncooperative during the Middle East war. The idea suggests he is again weighing a transactional approach to alliances, using troop deployments as leverage based on each country’s contribution to U.S. interests.

That possibility is drawing concern in South Korea as well as Japan. Trump has publicly criticized the muted response of non-NATO allies, and worries are growing that debate over troop movements in Europe could expand into discussions over U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. forces in Japan.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Trump and his aides recently reviewed allied contributions and discussed shifting military assets depending on the level of cooperation. Under that idea, troops could be withdrawn from some NATO countries and moved to nations seen as more supportive of U.S. operations in the Middle East.

That differs from Trump’s earlier talk of fully leaving NATO during the controversy over Greenland. A complete withdrawal would face a far higher political and legal barrier in Washington.

Spain and Germany have been mentioned as possible candidates for a reduced U.S. military presence. Spain is the only NATO member that has not indicated support for defense spending at around 5% of gross domestic product, and it refused to allow U.S. aircraft to cross its airspace during the Middle East war. In Germany, senior officials openly criticized U.S. military action, saying it was not their war.

By contrast, Poland, Romania, Lithuania and Greece have been seen as relatively supportive of operations against Iran. Those countries were among the first to back an international coalition to monitor the Strait of Hormuz. Romania in particular quickly approved the use of its air bases by the U.S. Air Force after the war began.

Still, moving more U.S. troops into Central and Eastern Europe could provoke Russia and create new strategic risks. What may look like a reward for friendly allies could become a double-edged sword.

South Korea cannot assume Trump’s frustration is limited to NATO. During the war, he repeatedly complained about allies that declined U.S. requests involving naval participation tied to the Strait of Hormuz, and he spoke of South Korea and Japan in terms suggesting ingratitude.

He also exaggerated the number of U.S. troops in South Korea while pressing the argument that allies should shoulder more of the burden. That matters because Trump has long viewed alliance commitments through the lens of cost-sharing and direct return.

The United States has already drawn on key air defense assets associated with U.S. Forces Korea, including the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and Patriot interceptors, for use in the Middle East. Since Washington’s new National Defense Strategy earlier this year highlighted the role of U.S. forces in deterring China, signs of a broader mission shift have become more visible.

If Trump decides to use troop reductions or redeployment as pressure to demand higher defense payments from Seoul, South Korea could face a new round of security bargaining at an especially sensitive moment. The government should prepare accordingly and work to ensure that any review of U.S. force posture does not come at the expense of deterrence on the Korean Peninsula.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260409010002951

WASHINGTON — President Trump has notched a string of wins on the Supreme Court ’s emergency docket, in part because the conservative justices believe that blocking executive policies is a blow that can’t be easily fixed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday.

The increase in emergency appeals by the Trump administration is “unprecedented in the court’s history,” she said in a speech at the University of Alabama School of Law.

The high court sided with the Trump administration in about two dozen decisions last year, often lifting the orders of lower court judges who found their policies were likely illegal on topics as diverse as immigration and steep federal funding cuts.

While designed to be short-term, those orders have largely allowed Trump to move ahead for now with key parts of his sweeping agenda.

The emergency docket, which is made up of appeals seeking quick intervention from the justices in cases that are still playing out in lower courts, is itself a source of disagreement among the justices. That spilled into public view when two other justices, liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson and conservative Brett M. Kavanaugh, publicly sparred over the emergency docket in an unusual exchange last month.

Sotomayor has disagreed with many of the decisions in Trump’s favor, but the conservatives who form the court’s majority often reason that blocking those policies — or laws passed by Congress — causes legal harm that can’t be easily fixed, she said. It’s a bar that’s tough for the other side to overcome, even for plaintiffs like immigrants who could be newly exposed to deportation or states where schools are losing teacher-training funding.

“If you start with the presumption that there is irreparable harm to one side, then you’re going to have more grants of emergency relief. Because the other side is going to have a much harder time,” she said. “It has changed the paradigm on the court.”

Her comments provided a window into the Supreme Court decisions that are often released with little explanation. While many emergency docket orders have gone Trump’s way, the court also struck down his sweeping tariffs, a central plank of his economic platform, after a longer process of full briefing and oral arguments.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s administration this week acknowledged it made a significant error in figures it used to help justify a fraud probe into New York’s Medicaid program, a glaring mistake that undercuts a federal campaign to tackle waste, mostly in Democratic-led states.

The error, which the administration admitted first to the Associated Press, prompted health analysts to question how many of the Republican administration’s sweeping anti-fraud efforts around the country were based on faulty findings. One of a few mischaracterizations the administration made about New York’s Medicaid program, the error also reflected a common criticism that’s been made of Trump’s second administration — that it tends to attack first and confirm the facts later.

“These numbers could have been cleared up in a phone call, so it’s really slapdash,” said Fiscal Policy Institute senior health policy adviser Michael Kinnucan, whose recent analysis called attention to the Trump administration’s inaccurate claim.

The mistake appeared in comments made last month by Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, in a social media video and in a letter to New York’s Democratic governor announcing the fraud investigation.

Oz claimed that New York’s Medicaid program last year provided some 5 million people with personal care services, which assist people in need with basic activities like bathing, grooming and meal preparation. That would add up to nearly three-fourths of the state’s 6.8 million Medicaid enrollees.

“That level of utilization is unheard of,” Oz said in the video, adding in his post that New York needs to “come clean about its Medicaid program.”

But the real number of New Yorkers who used those services last year was about 450,000, or between 6% and 7% of total enrollees, CMS spokesman Chris Krepich told the AP this week. He said the agency misidentified New York’s approach to applying billing codes and had since refined its methodology.

“CMS is committed to ensuring its analyses fully reflect state-specific billing practices and will continue to work closely with New York to validate data and strengthen program integrity oversight,” he said in an emailed statement.

Krepich said the probe was ongoing as the administration still has concerns with New York’s oversight of personal care services and the Medicaid program and is reviewing the state’s response to last month’s letter. CMS had raised other flags about New York’s program, including that it spends more per beneficiary and per resident than the average state, has high personal care spending and employs so many personal care aides that the job category is now the largest in the state.

Health analysts said the state’s high spending reflected both high costs for services in New York and a policy choice to provide robust at-home care. Cadence Acquaviva, senior public information officer for the New York Department of Health, called Oz’s initial mischaracterizations “a targeted attempt to obscure the facts.”

“New York State remains committed to protecting and preserving vital Medicaid programs that deliver high-quality services to New Yorkers who depend on them,” she said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Gov. Kathy Hochul said, “The initial claim by CMS was patently false, and we are glad they now admit it.”

“Governor Hochul has been clear that New York has zero tolerance for waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, or any other state programs, and will continue her efforts to root out bad actors, protect taxpayer dollars, and safeguard the critical programs that New Yorkers rely on,” spokesperson Nicolette Simmonds said.

New York probe is part of a larger crackdown

The Trump administration’s investigation into New York comes as it has similarly approached at least four other states, including California, Florida, Maine and Minnesota, with investigations into potential healthcare fraud. The anti-fraud effort appears to be expanding as voters in the upcoming midterm elections say they’re concerned about affordability.

Trump last month signed an executive order to create an anti-fraud task force across federal benefit programs led by Vice President JD Vance. As part of that project, Vance announced the administration would temporarily halt $243 million in Medicaid funding to Minnesota over fraud concerns, a move over which the state has since sued.

Kinnucan, the analyst with expertise in New York’s Medicaid program, said he’s concerned that the Trump administration’s adversarial approach to targeting fraud in some states “politicizes” a conversation that should be a team effort.

“We want to think collaboratively among all the stakeholders in the program about how we can actually fix it,” Kinnucan said. “We don’t want to have fraud be this political football.”

Oz made other claims New York advocates say are inaccurate

In his video, Oz made at least two other claims about New York that Medicaid advocates and beneficiaries say distorted the facts.

In one instance, he said the state recently made its screening for personal care eligibility “more lenient by allowing problems like being ‘easily distracted’ to qualify for a personal care assistant.”

Rebecca Antar, director of the health law unit at the Legal Aid Society, said the opposite was true — that the state in a rule change that went into effect last September instead made its program requirements more stringent. She said being “easily distracted” doesn’t appear anywhere among them.

Krepich said the administrator was referring to whether New York’s standard for personal care services was “sufficiently rigorous.”

“When standards are overly permissive, it risks diverting resources away from individuals with the highest levels of need and placing long-term pressure on the sustainability of the Medicaid program,” he said.

Oz in the video also referred to personal care services as “something that our families would normally do for us, like carrying groceries.”

Kathleen Downes, a 33-year-old who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and uses personal care services in New York’s Nassau County, said she was offended by the notion that all Medicaid beneficiaries have family members who are willing and able to help.

Downes, who has been disabled since birth and needs personal care help for things like showering, using the toilet and eating, said she hires both her mother and outside assistants for personal care services, so her aging mother doesn’t have to take on those tasks full time. She said her mother did the labor unpaid for years, precluding her from pursuing other career opportunities.

“He’s assuming that everybody wants to and can just do it for free forever,” Downes said. “And that’s not feasible for a lot of people.”

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Anthony Izaguirre contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Friday she was considering running for president in 2028, offering the clearest signal yet that she could seek to lead Democrats back to the White House.

“I might, I might,” she told an audience in New York. “I’m thinking about it.”

Harris was asked about her plans by the Rev. Al Sharpton during a conversation at a convening of his civil rights organization National Action Network, where several other likely Democratic hopefuls also were appearing this week. Some in Harris’ audience chanted “Run again!” before Sharpton asked whether she might do so.

“I served for four years being a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States,” Harris said. “I know what the job is and I know what it requires.”

Harris’ loss to President Trump in 2024 was gutting for Democrats, who have faced persistent questions about the party’s direction and what type of candidate would be best positioned to retake the presidency.

Democrats have notched some wins against Republicans in recent state-level races as Trump’s popularity has declined and have set their sights on gains in this year’s midterm elections. Even if the party’s popularity rises, however, the 2028 race likely will be a tooth-and-nail fight as the country determines who will succeed Trump.

“Democrats can win in the midterm through protest votes against [Trump’s] direction of the country, but they’ll clearly need a vision for 2028 and beyond to win the presidency,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.

The number of Democrats vying to put forth that vision is set to be high. Other potential 2028 candidates, including Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, also spoke or were scheduled to speak with Sharpton before the conference ends Saturday.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is considering a presidential run, was not on the convention schedule. A recent poll found that Newsom would have a wide lead over Harris among Democratic voters in California for the party’s next nominee.

Whether Harris would seek the nation’s highest office again after a fast, truncated 2024 campaign following former President Biden’s withdrawal from the race has been the subject of speculation for months.

She announced in July that she would not run for California governor — leaving the door open for a presidential run or something else — then published a book in September rehashing her campaign.

Voters’ familiarity with Harris gives her both a strength and a liability — her name recognition and experience have helped put her at the top of recent national polls, Kousser said, but voters often turn to fresher faces by the time primary elections come around. Her loss to Trump also could cause voters to balk ahead of an election that will be largely a referendum on his leadership.

At a time when Democrats are in particular need of a bold vision, that ultimately could give Harris a challenge, Democratic strategist Joe Caiazzo said.

“Elections are about the future, and I think it’s really tough for people who are part of our past to make that case. There’s a yearning for something fresh, new, exciting,” he said.

On Friday, Harris said she was considering who could do the best job for the American people.

“I’ll keep you posted,” she said.

MIAMI — President Trump shared video of a deadly attack allegedly by a Haitian immigrant accused of bludgeoning a woman with a hammer at a Florida gas station, portraying the killing as justification for his administration’s mass deportation agenda.

Rolbert Joachin, 40, was arrested and charged with killing a woman on April 2 in Fort Myers, about 160 miles northwest of Miami. Authorities said the man was from Haiti and arrived in the U.S. in 2022. The woman who was killed was identified as a 51-year-old immigrant from Bangladesh and a mother of two adult daughters.

Trump, who posted the video late Thursday to his Truth Social account, has often sought to portray immigrants as bringing crime to the U.S., and the video emerging from the Florida attack presented him with a new, particularly graphic opportunity to do so. Trump also often paints Democrats and his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, as allowing in immigrants who posed a criminal or national security threat to the U.S.

Critics say the president unjustly paints all immigrants as criminals in an effort to bolster his immigration agenda, when studies have found that people living in the U.S. illegally are less likely than native-born Americans to have been arrested for violent, drug and property crimes.

“The video of her brutal slaying is one of the most vicious things you will ever see,” Trump said in his post, describing the man as an “animal.”

Graphic video captured woman’s killing

The woman who was killed was working as a clerk at the convenience store of the gas station, according to court documents. The killing happened outside the store and the man was arrested the same day.

In security camera footage of her killing posted on the Department of Homeland Security’s X feed, the man can be seen repeatedly slamming the hammer into a black vehicle parked in front of the gas station. Eventually a woman in black pants and a pink shirt comes out and appears to question him.

The man, wearing a yellow shirt and black shorts, walks up to the woman and immediately swings the hammer at her head. The woman falls down on the sidewalk in front of the gas station’s front doors. The man attacks the woman with the hammer multiple times before stepping over her unmoving body and walking away, out of the frame of the camera.

The victim was later identified in a police report as Nilufa Easmin, 51. A GoFundMe started by Samir Bahadur Syed, the President of the Bangladesh Association of Southwest Florida, described her as a “devoted mother who worked tirelessly to provide for her two young daughters.”

Syed said that Easmin arrived in the United States about three decades ago and resided in Miami and Palm Beach before moving to Florida’s west coast. She was a single mother, and her two daughters — one 23 years old and the other about 26 — were born in the U.S., Syed told the Associated Press.

He added that Easmin had been working at the convenience store for nearly five months and that she also held another job.

Fort Myers police said they responded to a report of a woman being hit with a hammer at a Chevron gas station. When officers arrived they found a woman on the ground with blood around her head and multiple cuts.

Officers later located Joachin walking on the street and took him into custody. The police said he has confessed. He was charged with murder and property damage and appeared in court on Wednesday. His arraignment is set for May 4.

An email message sent to the public defender listed in court records as Joachin’s lawyer seeking comment was not immediately returned.

Trump administration criticizes temporary deportation protections

Trump blamed Biden for granting the man temporary protection to stay in the U.S.

Kelly Walker, acting field office director for ICE enforcement and removal operations for the Miami field office, said during a news conference Friday that Joachin arrived in a “water vessel” near Key West, Fla., in August 2022. He was arrested and given Temporary Protected Status in 2023. That status was revoked this week, Walker said.

The Trump administration has harshly criticized the use of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, which can be granted by an administration to citizens of a country going through turmoil or strife. Immigrants who qualify are allowed to stay in the U.S. and work for a temporary period, although Republican critics contend that the Biden administration misused its TPS authorities to broadly allow hundreds of thousands of people to stay in the country.

There are several lawsuits at the federal courts challenging Trump’s efforts to terminate TPS for more than one million people, including 350,000 Haitians. In March, a federal appeals court sided with a lower judge’s ruling against the end of temporary status for Haiti and the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 29.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Trump administration have often highlighted crimes committed by immigrants and created a website where one can look up people arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the crimes they’ve committed in the U.S.

The administration often highlights “Angel Families” who have lost family members to crimes committed by immigrants.

On Thursday, ICE held an event marking the one-year anniversary of the reopening of an office dedicated to assisting those families, including emotional testimony from some of the surviving family members.

Salomon, Bellisle and Santana write for the Associated Press. Bellisle reported from Seattle and Santana from Washington.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s plans for a new triumphal arch in the capital, unveiled on Friday, include a towering winged figure with a Lady Liberty-like torch and crown, flanked by two eagles and guarded by four lions — all gilded.

The 12-page plan released by the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts shows the arch will stand 250 feet tall from its base to the tip of the winged figure’s torch, with “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” inscribed in gold atop either side of the monument.

The plan indicates the structure would stand between the Lincoln Memorial in the east and Arlington National Cemetery toward the west and within a traffic circle connecting Washington with northern Virginia. The arch would dwarf the Lincoln Memorial, which stands at 99 feet tall.

Trump has said he wants to build the arch near the Lincoln Memorial and argued that the nation’s capital first sought such a monument 200 years ago.

“It was interrupted by a thing called the Civil War, and so it never got built,” Trump said in February. “Then, they almost built something in 1902, but it never happened.”

Trump has said that major cities around the world have such monuments, and Washington is the only one without one.

The arch is one of several architectural changes Trump is making in his second term. In addition to building a large ballroom at the White House, he’s also made changes to the Oval Office and converted the Rose Garden into a stone-covered patio.

The arch goes beyond the White House, giving Trump a chance to leave another lasting monument in a city known for them. It would expand on his earlier talk of sprucing up the city by replacing its “tired” grasses, and broken signage and street medians.

United States President Donald Trump’s disdain for NATO allies dates back to even before he became president the first time. From anger over their relatively low defence spending to — more recently — threats to take over Greenland, the territory of fellow NATO member Denmark, the American leader has long left the alliance on edge.

But the decision of NATO allies not to join Trump’s war on Iran has deepened the fracture to unseen levels, say analysts. This week, Trump called their lack of support a stain on the alliance “that will never disappear”. Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany put it even more bluntly, hours later: The conflict “has become a trans-Atlantic stress test”.

That back and forth underscores a central question exposed by the Middle East crisis that experts say NATO can no longer put off: can the transatlantic alliance survive, especially if the US pulls out?

“There will be no return to business as usual in NATO, during neither this US administration nor the next one,” said Jim Townsend, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “We are closer to a break than we have ever been.”

Trump can’t pull the US out of the alliance on a whim.

To formally do so, he needs a two-thirds majority in the US Senate or an act of Congress — scenarios that are unlikely to come to pass any time soon, with NATO still enjoying broad support among many legislators in both major American parties.

But there are other things Trump can do. The US has no obligation to come to the aid of allies should they come under attack. The treaty’s Article 5 states members’ collective‑defence obligation, but it does not automatically force a military response — and there is scepticism among allies over whether Washington would ever come to help.

The US can also move the about 84,000 American troops spread across Europe out of the continent. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Trump was considering moving some US bases from countries deemed unhelpful during the Iran war and transferring them to more supportive countries. He could close down US military bases and cease military coordination with allies.

Since US security guarantees to Europe have undergirded NATO since its founding, such disengagement would do enough damage.

“He doesn’t need to leave NATO to undermine it; by just saying he might, he has already eroded its credibility as an effective alliance,” said Stefano Stefanini, former Italian ambassador to NATO from 2007 to 2010 and former senior adviser to the Italian Presidency.

Still, allies are not helpless. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed the weakened state of European defence industries and their deep reliance on the US. That, coupled with the numerous diplomatic crises in the US-NATO partnership – including Trump’s threat to take control of Greenland – has pushed European allies to invest more in defence capabilities. Between 2020 and 2025, member states’ defence expenditure increased by more than 62 percent.

However, areas where Europe suffers from overdependence on the US include the ability to strike deep into enemy territory, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, space-based capabilities such as satellite intelligence, logistics and integrated air and missile defence, according to a report by the International Institute for Security Studies (IISS).

These challenges remain considerable. It will take the next decade or more to fill them and about $1 trillion to replace key elements of the US conventional military capabilities. Europe’s defence industries are struggling to ramp up production quickly, and many European armies can’t hit their recruitment and retention targets, the IISS report said.

Still, some experts believe a European NATO is possible. Minna Alander, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, says NATO has, over the years, become a structure for military cooperation between European countries.

“NATO can therefore survive the Iran war — and even a US withdrawal — as European members have an incentive to maintain it, even if in a radically different form,” Alander said.

For some, the deadline is 2029. That is when Russia may have reconstituted its forces sufficiently to attack NATO territory, according to estimates by Germany’s chief of defence, General Carsten Breuer. “But they can start testing us much sooner,” Breuer said in May last year, ordering the German military to be fully equipped with weapons and other material by then. Others estimate that Moscow could pose that threat as early as 2027.

And what about the US — would it do better without NATO?

According to Stefanelli, the former ambassador, the debate about NATO is often “twisted” to portray the alliance’s raison d’être as solely in function of protecting Europe from Russia, as a US favour to the continent.

NATO was a network of alliances born at the onset of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. For decades, the US fought to attract into the alliance as many countries as possible, treating those that refused as friends of the enemy.

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, NATO invoked for the first and only time Article 5 to rally behind Washington and sent troops to fight in Afghanistan. Thousands of servicemen died there, including nearly 500 from the United Kingdom, and dozens from France, Denmark, Italy and other countries.

And during the war in Iran, European bases were beneficial staging sites for the US military — even if many countries publicly distanced themselves from the conflict.

“NATO served US interests and Trump comfortably overlooks these aspects,” Farinelli, the former ambassador, said. “Europe has its own responsibility by not investing in defence and creating strong dependence, but thinking that NATO serves only European strategic interests is simply not true.”

A war for the soul of the world is happening right now that’s straight out of the Bible — and I’m not just talking about the Middle East.

In one corner are President Trump and his minions, who insist that everything they do is divinely mandated. They have consistently invoked a violent version of God as they deport undocumented immigrants, try to make the United States whiter, rip up long-standing treaties with allies, rain down bombs like a biblical plague on supposed narco boats and choke nations they deem a threat or whose resources they covet.

They’re the ones who lecture religious leaders on what Jesus stood for, demanding blessings for Trump’s actions — or else.

Just check out the recent allegations in The Free Press that senior defense officials dressed down the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S. in January over Pope Leo XIV’s lack of enthusiasm for Trump’s imperialist ambitions. Or Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he of the tattoos hailing the blood thirst of the Crusades (another Middle Eastern forever war that the “civilized” side lost), who compared the rescue of a downed American aviator in Iran over Easter weekend to the resurrection of Jesus.

It’s a playbook straight out of the Book of Revelations, which describes a Beast in the End Times with “a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies” in its quest to hold dominion over the earth.

In the other corner of this existential fight is an actual man of God: Pope Leo XIV.

Rather than cower before a despot who makes the Pharaoh in the Old Testament seem as stable and kind as St. Francis, the first American pope has resisted Trump like a protester at a “No Kings” rally. He has yet to denounce by name anyone in the president’s sordid orbit — but Pope Leo has returned to their actions again and again in his first year as head of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics.

He began his papacy by greeting a cheering crowd with “Peace be with you all” — what Jesus told his disciples after his Resurrection and a brilliant, biblical way to telegraph where he stands in our bellicose times.

On Palm Sunday a few weeks ago, the pontiff proclaimed during Mass in St. Peter’s Square that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war” — a not-so-subtle rebuke to Hegseth, who prayed shortly after the U.S. launched the Iran war for “every round [to] find its mark” and for “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

For his first Easter message, Pope Leo wrote, “Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace! Not a peace imposed by force, but through dialogue!”

Meanwhile, President Trump told a reporter that God supports the destruction he’s inflicting on Iran because “God is good. God wants to see people taken care of.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks to reporters at the Pentagon, July 16, 2025, in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

According to the Free Press article, the Vatican declined an invitation from Vice President JD Vance for Pope Leo to visit the U.S., for fear that Trump would use him as a political pawn. Instead, the man born in Chicago as Robert Prevost plans to spend July 4 — America’s 250th birthday — on a Mediterranean island that has long served as a gateway for migrants trying to make it to Europe.

Critics will accuse Pope Leo of Trump Derangement Syndrome and call him particularly short-sighted, since he stands athwart the desires of many American Catholics.

Though he isn’t Catholic, Trump has favored Catholicism far above any other mainline Christian denomination, from acknowledging feast days to packing his administration and the Supreme Court with adherents in a way that even Joe Biden — a lifelong Catholic — never did.

About 55% of Catholics voted for Trump in 2024, per the Pew Research Center. A survey last year by The Catholic Project at The Catholic University of America found “a clear generational shift away from liberal self-identification” among younger priests. Dioceses across the country are reporting the highest amount of converts in decades, many of them drawn in by orthodox Catholic influencers.

But Trump’s embrace of Catholicism, like everything else in his life, has been conditional on fealty to him. His administration pulled tens of millions of federal funds from Catholic charities because they assisted migrants regardless of legal status — something the American Catholic church has done for over a century. Vance, himself a Catholic convert, accused bishops of being “worried about their bottom line” for daring to criticize the move and his boss’ deportation Leviathan.

The Free Press also reported that Trump’s lackeys invoked the Avignon Papacy — when 14th century French kings exiled a succession of popes from the Vatican and made them their puppets — during their browbeating of the Vatican ambassador.

Re-litigating history is an obsession of the Trump regime, so bringing up a medieval episode amounted to a threat to Leo to shape up — or else.

That’s what makes Pope Leo’s stance against a modern-day Babylon even braver. A pope’s main role is to bear witness to the words of Christ, who said far more about taking care of the meek and turning the other cheek than he did about waging war.

The best popes, from John XXIII to John Paul II, know that their words stand as a challenge for all people, believers and not, to create a better world that paves the way for the world to come. Trump wages war for himself; Pope Leo urges us to stand for something other than ourselves.

At this point in his reign, Trump is a dead ringer for the Antichrist, described in the Second Book of Thessalonians as a “man of sin … the son of perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself above all.”

Pope Leo would never characterize his opposition to Trump in such apocalyptic terms, of course. But his stance against the president’s tyranny is a call to action in the same vein as John Paul II’s exhortation to the free world to oppose the Soviet empire.

“Let us abandon every desire for conflict, domination, and power,” Pope Leo stated on Easter, “and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars and marked by a hatred and indifference that make us feel powerless in the face of evil.”

Amen, amen, amen.

Senegalese prime minister Ousmane Sonko criticised Donald Trump, accusing him of plunging the world into “chaos” by starting a war on Iran, and questioned whether the world is now less safe under Trump’s leadership.

Pro-Iran groups have used artificial intelligence to create internet memes in English to try to shape the narrative during the war against the U.S. and Israel and foster opposition to it.

Analysts say the memes appear to be coming from groups linked to the government in Tehran and are part of a strategy of leveraging its limited resources to inflict damage on the U.S., even indirectly. That includes how Iran has used attacks and threats to control the flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and maintain a stranglehold on the world’s economy. A ceasefire raised hopes Wednesday of halting hostilities, but many issues remained unresolved.

“This is a propaganda war for them,” Neil Lavie-Driver, an AI researcher at the University of Cambridge, said, referring to Iran. “Their goal is to sow enough discontent with the conflict as to eventually force the West to cave in, so it is massively important to them.”

It’s not the first time memes have been used in a conflict, and they have evolved to include AI images in recent years. AI imagery bombarded Ukrainians after the Russian invasion in 2022. Last year, the term “AI slop” became widely used to describe the glut of imperfect images posted online during the Israel-Iran war to try to destroy the country’s nuclear program.

In the conflict that began Feb. 28 with joint U.S.-Israel strikes, the memes have used well-honed cartoons that lambast U.S. officials.

The memes are steeped in American culture

The memes are fluent not just in English but in American culture and trolling. Published on various social platforms, they are racking up millions of views — though it’s not clear how much influence they have had.

They have portrayed President Trump as old, out of step and internationally isolated. They have referenced bruising on the back of Trump’s right hand that prompted speculation about his health; infighting in Trump’s MAGA base; and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s fiery confirmation hearing, among other things.

“They’re using popular culture against the No. 1 pop culture country, the United States,” said Nancy Snow, a scholar who has written more than a dozen books on propaganda.

The pro-Iran images circulating online include a series that uses the style of the “Lego” animated movies. In one, an Iranian military commander raps, “You thought you ran the globe, sitting on your throne. Now we turning every base into a bed of stone,” as Trump falls into a bullseye built of “Epstein files,” the U.S. government’s investigative records on disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Analysts believe groups making the memes are cooperating with the government

The animations show levels of sophistication and internet access that indicate ties to government offices, said Mahsa Alimardani, a director of Witness, a human rights group working on AI video evidence.

“If you’re able to have the bandwidth needed to generate content like that and upload it, you are officially or unofficially cooperating with the regime,” she said, pointing to severe restrictions Iran has imposed on the internet as part of a crackdown on nationwide protests earlier this year.

State media has reposted some of the memes, including some from the account behind the “Lego”-style videos, Akhbar Enfejari, which means Explosive News.

Akhbar Enfejari described itself as an independent group of Iranians with no connection to the government. “We don’t even receive any funding. We’re just a group of friends working voluntarily — paying for our own internet, using our own laptops and computers, and doing all of this ourselves,” the group told the Associated Press on the messaging app Telegram.

The group said it is producing and upload from within Iran to try to disrupt decades-long dominance of Western control of the airwaves.

“They’ve long dominated the media landscape and, through that power, imposed narratives on many nations,” Akhbar Enfejari said. “But this time, something feels different. This time, we’ve disrupted the game. This time, we’re doing it better.”

In addition to the memes coming from pro-Iran groups, Iranian government accounts have trolled the U.S., including in a post Wednesday from Iran’s Embassy in South Africa that said, “Say hello to the new world superpower,” with a picture of the Iranian flag. Both the U.S. and Iran declared victory after agreeing to a ceasefire.

Analysts say the deep grasp of U.S. politics and culture is the fruit of more old-school methods of propaganda: a decades-long Iranian government program to promote narratives against the U.S. and Israel.

“This meme war comes from institutions that are very aware what the American public is aware of and pop cultural references that can appeal to them,” Alimardani said.

Messaging from the U.S. and Israel

Analysts say the U.S. and Israel do not appear to be engaging in the same kind of campaign — and given the restrictions Iran has put on internet access in the country, getting such messages to ordinary Iranians would be difficult.

Early in the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a video that used AI to make it seem like he was speaking in Farsi, in which he urged Iranians to overthrow their government. The White House has published a steady stream of memes, but those are aimed at a U.S. audience and feature clips from American TV shows and sports.

The U.S. government-run Voice of America, which for decades beamed news reports to many countries that had no tradition of a free press, does still broadcast in Farsi, though it is has been operating with a skeleton staff since Trump ordered it shut down.

“This world order is really changing overnight and the U.S. is not going to end up necessarily as the state that everybody listens to,” Snow said.

McNeil writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s threats to wipe out Iran, “a whole civilization,” ended the restraint that Democrats have mostly practiced when it comes to questions of removing him from office in his second term.

By the dozens, Democrats came out to say that Trump should no longer serve in the White House, either through the impeachment process or the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that a president is no longer able to perform the job.

While Trump eventually pulled back on his threat and agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, the episode highlighted the growing demands for Democrats to oppose the Republican president in the strongest possible terms. Calls about Iran flooded into congressional offices, lawmakers said.

The breadth of the Democratic pushback underscored the gravity of Trump’s apocalyptic threat to a country of more than 91 million people. It also served to raise the domestic political stakes for a conflict that is far from over. The Trump administration faces mounting calls to testify about the war and justify its demands for hundreds of billions of dollars in new military spending.

“We cannot excuse what the president said as a negotiating tactic,” Rep. Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat, told reporters at the Capitol Thursday.

“It is important that even though we were able to get this ceasefire, which I pray holds, that we hold this president accountable for what he threatened because threatening genocide is not just against international law, it’s against our federal law, too,” she added.

Still, Democratic leaders and many moderates in the party have steered clear of endorsing impeachment, and any attempt to remove Trump from office is seemingly doomed to fail so long as Republicans control Congress.

In the near term, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are instead pushing Republicans to join them and pass legislation that would force Trump to get congressional approval before carrying out any more attacks on Iran.

A few Democrats attempted during a brief session of the House on Thursday to pass what’s known as a war powers resolution on Iran, but Republicans, who control the chamber, did not acknowledge their request.

“We need Speaker Johnson to call us into session,” said Democratic Rep. Emily Randall of Washington. “The American people deserve that.”

At the White House, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has defended Trump’s rhetoric as effective.

“I think it was a very, very strong threat from the president of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a ceasefire and agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz,” she said at a Wednesday White House press briefing.

Callers jam congressional phone lines

As they press their case against Trump, Democrats are responding to the worries of their own base and constituents. Congressional offices were bombarded with phone calls and emails this week, largely from people alarmed by the president’s rhetoric.

In the House, the office of Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) received a “ton” of calls and emails Monday and Tuesday, mostly about Iran but also about impeaching Trump or removing him by deploying the 25th Amendment, said one aide who was not authorized to discuss the internal office situation and requested anonymity.

When her district staffers in the state office took a break Tuesday, they returned to 75 voicemails on Iran an hour later, the aide said.

“My office phones have not stopped ringing,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) at a press conference in Portland, urging House colleagues to immediately return to Washington.

Dexter’s office received more calls on Tuesday, 257, more than it has ever received in a 24-hour period since the first-term lawmaker’s team began keeping track.

The groundswell appeared to be organic, rather than an orchestrated campaign to pressure lawmakers to act.

While outside groups have been circulating some discussion points, including the legal details around invoking the 25th Amendment, there has not been an organized effort to flood the congressional offices with a strategic message, said one Democratic strategist familiar with the situation who requested anonymity to discuss the private conversations.

It was simply the “horror” of what Trump was saying, the strategist said, and the scale of the president’s threats, that appeared to have sparked the mobilization.

On the political right, several prominent figures including former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, also suggested Trump should be removed from office through the 25th Amendment.

Will Democrats make an impeachment push?

Democrats twice impeached Trump for actions taken during his first term, but he was acquitted each time. They have tried to avoid such debates for the last 16 months as they tried to center their midterm message on kitchen table issues rather than opposing a president who narrowly won the popular vote.

Republicans also have the majority in the House and have easily fended off two previous efforts to impeach Trump in his second term. A significant number of Democrats have either joined with Republicans or voted “present” as the House blocked impeachment resolutions sponsored by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).

Then came Trump’s threat on Tuesday morning to wipe out “an entire civilization.”

“Temporary ceasefire or not, Trump already committed an impeachable offense. Congress needs to get back to work and remove him from office before he does more damage to our country and the world,” said Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, a veteran of the war in Iraq.

It’s unclear how House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries will handle the demands for another impeachment push. But Democratic leaders are holding a call on Friday with members of the House Judiciary Committee that is focused on “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment.”

Standing on the Capitol steps Thursday, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) said she supports impeachment, but nevertheless hit the brakes on it for now, as the Democrats are in the minority. Instead, she called on Republicans to stand up to Trump’s threats, including by invoking the 25th Amendment.

She predicted the imperative to remove Trump from office could only grow as negotiators navigate a fragile framework for a peace deal. Dean and other Democrats criticized the plan as “chaotic” and unworkable.

Yet Dean said Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization should have already been enough. “The president brought the entire globe to watch his madness,” she said.

Groves, Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Pivotal negotiations in Pakistan this weekend between the United States and Iran could hinge on developments in Lebanon, where ongoing Israeli strikes Thursday risked derailing a wider regional ceasefire.

Tensions only deepened amid reports of limited Iranian drone attacks across the region, and as Arab states warned that the Strait of Hormuz — a vital global shipping route — had only partially reopened despite President Trump’s assurances that Tehran had guaranteed full access.

Yet tests of the ceasefire have not deterred Iranian and American officials from their plans to travel to Pakistan on Saturday for the highest-level talks between the two nations, aimed at a final agreement to end the war, now in its sixth week.

The stakes are high for Iran, which has been pummeled by U.S. attacks, and for Trump, whose pursuit of the war has been domestically unpopular. The plan appeared precarious early Thursday, amid ongoing disagreement over whether the ceasefire included Lebanon.

Iran warned that continued Israeli attacks targeting the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon could jeopardize the two-day-old truce. Hours later, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government would open direct negotiations with Lebanon — but subsequently declared he would not cease strikes there.

His move to negotiate with the Lebanese came the day after President Trump asked Netanyahu to slow operations in Lebanon ahead of the Pakistan talks, a source familiar with the matter told The Times. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, told reporters Thursday that the talks starting would be “contingent” upon hostilities ceasing in Lebanon.

As Israel’s posture on Lebanon injected uncertainty into the situation Thursday, the Strait of Hormuz — which Iran agreed to reopen in the ceasefire deal — remained closed, according to Sultan Al Jaber, a government minister in the United Arab Emirates. Traffic through the strait was below 10% of its usual volume Thursday, with only seven ships passing through in a 24-hour period, Reuters reported.

Trump, however, projected optimism Thursday about the weekend negotiations in Islamabad — even as the U.S. position appeared to weaken.

“I spoke with Bibi and he’s going to low-key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little more low-key,” Trump said in an interview with NBC News. He said he was “very optimistic” that a deal with Iran was in reach.

A White House official said Vice President JD Vance will lead the U.S. delegation, which will also include special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. They would be the highest-level talks between the United States and Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

An Israeli official said the separate talks with Lebanon, to be conducted by the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors to Washington, would start next week at the State Department. A State Department official confirmed the agency would host the talks.

Israel is not a direct party to the weekend negotiations in Pakistan between the U.S. and Iran. But “the United States knows our red lines in terms of nuclear disarmament, proxies, ballistic missile production,” the Israeli official said. “We believe we’re on the same page here.”

The Tuesday night ceasefire deal between the United States and Iran came after 39 days of conflict in the region, set off by Trump’s Feb. 28 attack on Iran. The full terms have not been publicly disclosed, and much remains uncertain about the agreement.

The agreement got off to a shaky start Wednesday: The strait remained restricted as the Iranians accused Americans of violating the agreement and it emerged that the U.S. and Israel were at odds with Iran over whether Lebanon was part of the ceasefire.

Trump threatened late Wednesday on his social media website that if Iran did not comply with the ceasefire, “then the ‘Shootin’ Starts,’ bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before.”

The deal’s status became even more fragile as Thursday dawned and Iran said Israeli strikes in Lebanon overnight violated the agreement. European leaders and the prime minister of Pakistan, which is brokering U.S.-Iran talks, warned that the operations could be putting the truce at risk.

“This is a dangerous sign of deception and lack of commitment to potential agreements,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Thursday. “The continuation of these actions will render negotiations meaningless.”

The speaker of Iran’s parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, warned of “explicit costs” for any moves Iran views as violations of the ceasefire, saying Lebanon was an “inseparable part” of the deal.

Israel and the U.S. have said that Lebanon, where Israel says it is targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah militants, was not part of the ceasefire agreement. Netanyahu said in a Thursday evening statement that he was pursuing negotiations at the request of the Lebanese government.

“There is no ceasefire in Lebanon. We are continuing to strike Hezbollah with full force, and we will not stop until we restore your security,” he said.

Also Thursday, House Republicans rebuffed an attempt by Democrats to vote on restricting Trump’s war powers. Democratic leaders — who have raised concerns about Trump’s Easter Sunday threat to wipe out Iranian civilization and said his statement amounted to threatening war crimes — afterward called on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to bring Congress back to session.

Meanwhile, Trump railed on his social media website against conservative figures who have criticized his approach to the war, including former Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, calling them “stupid people” and proclaiming that the United States “IS NOW THE ‘HOTTEST’ COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!”

He also continued to attack NATO members for not living up to his expectations in helping him with the war in Iran. In a post earlier Thursday, the president said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been “very disappointing” and suggested the United States needs to pressure allies in order for them to respond to its needs.

That followed a meeting Wednesday afternoon with NATO Secretary Mark Rutte at the White House, after which Trump asserted online that “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN.”

In an interview with CNN, Rutte said Trump had made his disappointment with NATO allies clear. Rutte said he had emphasized to Trump that a large majority of European nations have given the U.S. some logistical military help, such as allowing American warplanes to land at their bases and fly over their territories.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry said Israel’s surprise barrage of airstrikes on Wednesday killed 303 people and wounded about 1,150 others, in a preliminary toll. It added that the numbers were likely to rise while search efforts for bodies and DNA testing continue.

If direct negotiations with Israel do take place, they would break a long-standing political taboo for Lebanon. Successive governments have dealt with Israeli diplomats only as far as allowing technical discussions with Lebanese military officials via the United Nations.

The prospect of direct negotiations is likely to kick up fierce opposition from Hezbollah and its political ally, the Lebanese Shiite party Amal.

Both parties — which together form the so-called Shiite Duo, are part of a voting bloc in parliament and hold important portfolios in Lebanon’s Cabinet — are already in a war of wills with the Lebanese government, which recently declared the Iranian ambassador-designate persona non grata and ordered his departure.

Amal and Hezbollah officials told the ambassador-designate to remain in Lebanon and exhorted the government to reverse its decision. He remains at the embassy in Beirut.

McDaniel and Wilner reported from Washington and Bulos from Amman, Jordan. Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.

First Lady Melania Trump denied any relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, calling the allegations “false” in a rare White House address. She said she only had casual contact with Ghislaine Maxwell and urged US Congress to hold public hearings for Epstein’s victims.

U.S. abortion opponents are increasingly frustrated with the lack of action by President Trump’s administration to stem the flow of abortion pills prescribed online that they view as undermining state abortion bans.

A court ruling this week in a lawsuit the Louisiana attorney general brought against Trump’s Food and Drug Administration cast a spotlight on the simmering tension. The judge said the state has a strong case while declining to block telehealth prescriptions to the pill mifepristone for now.

Anti-abortion groups are pushing the FDA to move faster with a review that they hope will result in restrictions on the abortion pill, including blocking its prescribing via telehealth platforms. The administration says the work takes time.

The groups have focused mostly on the health agency and not the Republican president whose three U.S. Supreme Court appointees were instrumental in the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed the state bans in the first place. But the administration’s requests in the Louisiana lawsuit and similar ones elsewhere to delay rulings until it finishes a review have sparked anger for some activists.

“The stall tactics are beyond frustrating,” Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, said in an interview. Hamrick said the administration could also block the pills from being mailed by changing its interpretation of a 19th century law and enforcing it.

A judge opened the door to pushing the administration

U.S. District Judge David Joseph, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, gave a mixed ruling Tuesday in a case brought by Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill and a woman who says her boyfriend coerced her into taking mifepristone to end a pregnancy.

Their overall aim is to roll back FDA rules that have made the pills more accessible. Murrill, like officials in other states that have filed similar lawsuits, contends that the availability of the pills via online providers takes the teeth out of the bans in the 13 states that bar abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions.

Surveys of abortion providers have suggested that its availability through telehealth is a reason the number of abortions in the U.S. has not dropped since the overturn of Roe. While state abortion bans include prohibitions on abortion using the pills, some Democratic-controlled states have adopted laws that seek to protect medical providers who prescribe them over telehealth and mail the pills to states with bans. Those so-called shield laws are being tested through civil and criminal cases.

In the Louisiana case, Joseph declined to grant Murrill’s request to block telehealth prescriptions to the pills while the case moves through the courts. But he said he could do that eventually and the plaintiffs in the case are likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments because the state has demonstrated it’s suffered “irreparable harm.”

He also ordered the FDA to report to him within six months on the status of its review of the drug.

On Wednesday, Murrill filed a notice that she’s taking the case to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of forcing faster action.

The politics aren’t simple

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, an influential conservative voice who is also a former Louisiana lawmaker, applauded Murrill’s step.

He said people he meets are often shocked to learn that the number of abortions has not dropped since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling.

“Bewilderment sets in,” he said. “We’re already seeing an enthusiasm gap between the parties. What the Republicans do not need is a dampening of enthusiasm in their base.”

He’s hoping the administration will restrict abortion pills rather than risk losing support from conservative, anti-abortion voters in November’s midterm elections.

Other groups are being more cautions.

Madison LaClare, director of federal government affairs at National Right to Life, said her group trusts the administration to review mifepristone. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, avoided harsh words for the president: “The Trump-Vance administration has an important opportunity right now to prioritize women’s safety,” she said in a statement.

Still, recent electoral results suggest that voters seeking to keep abortion available have the political momentum. Since Roe was overturned, abortion has been on the ballot directly in 17 states. Voters have sided with the abortion-rights side in 14 of those questions.

“There seems to be an emerging consensus in the country that people don’t want to ban abortion,” said Rachel Rebouche, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who studies abortion.

The FDA says it’s working on it

In a statement Wednesday in response to questions from the Associated Press, the FDA said it’s reviewing the safety of mifepristone, “including the collection of robust and timely data, evaluation of data integrity, and implementation of the analyses, validation, and peer-review.”

After that, the agency said, it will decide whether to make changes to the rules about how the drug can be prescribed.

It said this kind of study can take a year or more to complete by academics but the agency is trying to move faster than that. A spokesperson did not answer questions about when the work began.

Mifepristone has been a political priority for anti-abortion activists and their allies in Congress since Trump returned to office last year. In his January 2025 confirmation hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was repeatedly asked about the drug by Republican lawmakers and said the president had requested a safety review.

Frustration over signs that the FDA isn’t prioritizing curbing abortions flared last fall when the FDA approved an additional generic version of mifepristone.

The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol.

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies.

Because of rare cases of excessive bleeding, the FDA initially imposed strict limits on who could prescribe and distribute the pill — only specially certified physicians and only after an in-person appointment where the person would receive the pill.

Both those requirements were dropped during the COVID years. At the time, FDA officials said that after more than 20 years of monitoring mifepristone use, and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women, it was clear that women could safely use the pill without direct supervision.

Mulvihill and Perrone write for the Associated Press.

Washington, DC – Preliminary data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that international development aid from its members dropped by about 23 percent from 2024 to 2025.

Much of that decline was attributed to a major shortfall in funding from the United States.

The forum, which includes many of the the largest economies across Europe and the Americas, said on Thursday that the US saw a nearly 57 percent drop in foreign aid in 2025.

The OECD’s four other top contributors — Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and France — also saw declines in their foreign aid assistance.

The report marked the first time foreign development assistance from all five of the OECD’s top donors simultaneously declined. The total assistance for 2025 totaled only $174.3bn, down from $214.6bn the year before, representing the largest annual drop since the OECD began recording the data.

OECD officials warned the dramatic decrease comes at a time when global economic and food security has been cast into doubt amid the stresses of the US-Israeli war with Iran.

“It’s deeply concerning to see this huge drop in [development funding] in 2025, due to dramatic cuts among the very top donors,” OECD official Carsten Staur said in a statement.

Thursday’s preliminary data shows that only eight member countries met or exceeded their funding from 2024.

“We are in a time of increasing humanitarian needs,” Staur added, citing growing global uncertainty and extreme poverty. “I can only plead that DAC donors reverse this negative trend and start to increase their [assistance].”

The data covers the 34 members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which provide the vast majority of global foreign assistance.

But the numbers offer an incomplete picture of global development aid, as it fails to include influential non-DAC members including Turkiye, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and China.

The data tracked by the OECD distinguishes official development assistance from other forms of aid, including military funds.

US drives ‘three-quarters of the decline’

In its preliminary assessment, the OECD noted that the US “alone drove three-quarters of the decline” in 2025, the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Trump has overseen widespread cuts to the US’s aid infrastructure, including dissolving the US Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of a wider effort to shrink government spending.

The US contributed about $63bn in official development assistance in 2024, which was cleaved to just short of $29bn in 2025, according to OECD.

Research this year from the University of Sydney has suggested that cuts to US funding over the past year have corresponded with an increase in armed conflict in Africa, as state resources grow more scarce.

Other experts have noted that the slashed assistance is likely to prompt upticks in cases of HIV-AIDS, malaria and polio.

Analysts at the Center for Global Development have projected that the US cuts were linked to between 500,000 and 1,000,000 deaths globally in 2025 alone. A recent article published in the medical journal The Lancet found that a “continuation of current downward trends” in development funding could lead to over 9.4 million new deaths by 2030.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has maintained it is transforming, not eschewing, the US aid model.

In recent months, it has struck a handful of bilateral assistance agreements with African countries that it says are in line with its “America First” agenda.

But while the details of such deals have not been made public, critics note that some negotiations appear to have involved requests for African countries to share mineral access or health data.

‘Turning their backs’

Oxfam, a confederation of several non-governmental aid organisations, was among those calling on wealthy countries to change course following Thursday’s report.

“Wealthy governments are turning their backs on the lives of millions of women, men and children in the Global South with these severe aid cuts,” Oxfam’s Development Finance Lead Didier Jacobs said in a statement.

Jacobs added that governments are “cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarisation”.

As an example, he pointed to the US, where the Trump administration is expected to request between $80bn and $200bn for the US-Israeli war with Iran, which has currently been paused amid a tenuous ceasefire.

The administration has separately requested a historic $1.5 trillion for the US military for fiscal year 2027.

“Governments must restore their aid budgets and shore up the global humanitarian system that faces its most serious crisis in decades,” Jacobs said. 

WASHINGTON — First lady Melania Trump is denying ties to Jeffrey Epstein and knowledge of his crimes, saying Thursday that the “stories are completely false” and calling online accusations that she was somehow involved “smears about me.”

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today. The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation,” she said.

Reading an extraordinary statement at the White House, she denied any association with Epstein and said, “My attorneys and I have fought these unfounded and baseless lies with success.”

The first lady also called on Congress to hold a public hearing centered on survivors of Epstein’s crimes, with a chance to testify before lawmakers and have their stories entered into the congressional record.

“Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public if she wishes,” she said. “Then, and only then, we will have the truth.”

Her out-of-the-blue message came just as her husband, President Donald Trump, and his administration had finally appeared successful in moving beyond the Epstein controversy, which had sent shockwaves through the nation’s politics for months.

The case had begun to be overshadowed by the war in Iran and other major issues — but the first lady’s comments might push it back into the political spotlight.

The first lady said she was not friends with Epstein or Maxwell but was in overlapping social circles in New York and Florida. She described an email reply she sent to Maxwell as “casual correspondence” without elaborating.

“My polite reply to her email doesn’t amount to anything more than a trifle,” she said.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

MADISON, Wis. — The bluntest assessment of Republican failures during this week’s elections in Wisconsin came from one of their own.

“We got our butts kicked,” said U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor.

He was referring to Democratic victories in campaigns for the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the mayor’s office in Waukesha, a conservative suburb outside Milwaukee. But some Republicans were also rattled by a special election in Georgia, where their candidate to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene in Congress won by a much slimmer margin than the party enjoyed in the past.

Taken together, the swings from red to blue added more data points to an increasingly clear picture of Democratic momentum heading into the November midterms, when control of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and state governments around the country are up for grabs.

“In rural, urban, red, blue, Democrats have overperformed everywhere,” said Jared Leopold, a Democratic consultant whose clients include Keisha Lance Bottoms, a candidate for Georgia governor. “That is a significant canary in the coal mine about what November of ’26 is going to look like.”

Some Republicans insisted there was no need to panic, and their fundraising remains stronger than Democrats’. Stephen Lawson, a Georgia strategist, said “the sky is not falling.”

But he also said his party is running behind where it has been in the past, and Republicans need to be “looking at these results carefully.”

‘A red alarm for Republicans’

Special elections can be notoriously unreliable as political benchmarks, but Democrats have consistently demonstrated surprising strength. They flipped a Texas state Senate district. They won a Florida state House seat in a district that includes President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach.

Then they gained ground on Tuesday in the race to replace Greene, who resigned from Congress in January after a falling out with Trump.

Clay Fuller, the Republican candidate, prevailed by 12 percentage points. Two years ago, Greene won by 29 percentage points and Trump carried the district by almost 37 percentage points.

“That’s a red alarm for Republicans,” said Democratic strategist Meredith Brasher.

Fuller defeated Shawn Harris, who plans to challenge him again in November.

Jackie Harling, the district’s Republican chairwoman, said she believed that Greene’s resignation energized Democrats while her party is suffering from “election fatigue.”

“Marjorie Taylor Greene was like a freight train that you couldn’t stop, and when she pulled out, it gave Democrats hope and it gave them a shot at winning something they believed was unwinnable,” Harling said.

‘Slightly bluer side of purple’

Georgia has key races this year, including an open contest for the governor’s office. Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, is trying to defend his seat as well.

There’s reason to think that simmering discontent could boomerang on Republicans just two years after Trump harnessed voters’ anger with his comeback presidential campaign.

In November, Democrats defeated two Republican incumbents in statewide races for seats on the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities. Rising electricity rates have been a fault line in recent campaigns, especially as enormous data centers are built to power artificial intelligence.

But Georgia Democratic Party Chair Charlie Bailey is trying to maintain modest expectations.

“We could cement ourselves, put ourselves, on the slightly bluer side of purple,” he said. ”We’re not going to overnight turn into Colorado.”

‘A very clear sign of momentum’

Wisconsin holds statewide elections for Supreme Court seats, and liberals expanded their majority with a 20-percentage-point blowout victory on Tuesday.

Democrats saw gains in red, blue and purple counties when compared with another judicial race last year, which was also won by the liberal candidate.

“This to me was a very clear sign of momentum and enthusiasm for Democrats in the fall,” said Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Devin Remiker.

The state has its own open race for governor this year, and Democrats are hoping to take control of the state Legislature and oust Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden.

“It’s time for us to put this thing in overdrive,” said Mandela Barnes, a Democratic former lieutenant governor who is running for governor.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, another Democratic candidate for governor, said it’s clear that “people are really upset with the Republican Party and their brand right now.”

“But that doesn’t mean that they’re automatically going to come over to the Democrats,” Crowley said. “And that’s why we have to continue to focus on the issues and speak to the values of all the voters here in the state of Wisconsin.”

‘A lot of anxiety’

Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor in Wisconsin, cautioned against reading too much into Tuesday’s results.

He said “every election is unique,” and he wasn’t making any changes to his campaign. He said the key to winning will be to “paint that clear contrast of how we are going to help everyday Wisconsinites.”

But Democrats seemed to be making inroads, including in Waukesha. The city is located outside of Milwaukee in the Republican stronghold of Waukesha County.

Democrat Alicia Halvensleben, president of the city’s Common Council, defeated Republican Scott Allen, one of the most conservative members of the state Assembly.

She said Trump came up “a lot” when she was campaigning, although she thinks her victory came down to local issues and how the state legislature wasn’t addressing them.

“There’s so much uncertainty at the national level,” Halvensleben said. “I think that level of uncertainty is causing people a lot of anxiety, all the way down to the local level.”

Bauer, Amy and Cooper write for the Associated Press. Amy reported from Atlanta, and Cooper from Phoenix.

BRUSSELS — NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has weathered a fresh ordeal with President Trump, this time over the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, a conflict that does not even involve the world’s biggest military alliance and one it was never consulted about.

Since launching the war, Trump has derided U.S. allies as “cowards,” slammed NATO as “a paper tiger” and compared U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to Neville Chamberlain, who is probably best remembered for a policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany.

That comes on top of Trump’s repeated threats to seize control of Greenland, which have deeply strained relations with U.S. allies in NATO and raised fears that doing by force could spell the end of the organization.

In recent days, the man who is as good as chairman of the NATO board suggested that the U.S. might leave the trans-Atlantic alliance. Trump already threatened to walk out in 2018 during his first term. His complaint now is that some allies ignored his call to help as Iran effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade waterway.

After talks with Rutte on Wednesday, the alliance’s most powerful leader took to social media to show his annoyance. “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN,” Trump posted.

Peppered with questions later on CNN about whether Trump intended to take America out of NATO, Rutte said: “He is clearly disappointed with many NATO allies, and I can see his point.”

Keeping America in

Rutte has earned a reputation as a “Trump whisperer,” notably helping to draw up a plan that has seen European allies and Canada buy U.S. weapons for Ukraine, and keep the administration involved in Europe’s biggest war in decades.

Indeed, one of his most demanding tasks since taking office in 2024 has been to keep the mercurial U.S. leader engaged in NATO, particularly as America has set its sights on security challenges elsewhere, in the Indo-Pacific, Venezuela, and most recently Iran.

Rutte has used flattery, praising Trump for forcing allies to spend more on defense. He has congratulated the U.S. leader over the war and refrained from criticizing Trump’s warning that “a whole civilization will die” should Iran not reopen the strait.

“This was a very frank, very open discussion but also a discussion between two good friends,” Rutte told CNN. He declined to confirm reports that Trump is considering moving U.S. troops out of European countries that do not support the war.

Asked whether the world is safer thanks to the U.S.-Israel war, Rutte said: “Absolutely.”

War launched by a NATO member, not at one

The striking thing about the war on Iran is that NATO has no role to play there. As a defensive alliance it has protected ally Turkey when Iranian missiles were fired in retaliation at its territory, but the war was launched by a NATO member, not at one.

Rutte himself has said that NATO would not join the war, and there is no public confirmation that the U.S. had even raised the issue at the organization’s Brussels headquarters, although it cannot be ruled out that the administration made a request on Wednesday for that to happen.

NATO declined to say whether security for the strait has been officially discussed and referred questions to the United Kingdom, which is leading an effort outside the alliance to make the trade route safe for shipping once the ceasefire is working.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said Thursday that his country is always ready to consider providing support through NATO to partners who request it there.

“If the U.S. or any other NATO ally is asking (for) our support, we are always read to discuss it,” he told broadcaster CNBC. “But for that, we need of course the official ask to discuss then what is the mission, what is the goal?”

If allies “need our support, then we need to plan together,” he said.

NATO trying to stay out

Rutte himself insists that the alliance will only defend itself, and not become involved in another conflict outside of NATO territory, which is considered to be much of Europe and North America.

“This is Iran, this is the Gulf, this is outside NATO territory,” he said.

NATO has operated outside of the Euro-Atlantic area in the past, notably in Libya and Afghanistan. But there is no appetite to do so again given its chaotic U.S.-led exit from Afghanistan in 2021, which former NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg described as a “defeat.”

Trump’s ire seems most directed at Spain and France, rather than NATO itself. Spain has closed its airspace to U.S. planes involved in the Iran war and has refused U.S. forces the use of jointly operated military bases.

After the two-week ceasefire was announced, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez posted on X that his government “will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket.”

“What’s needed now: diplomacy, international legality, and PEACE,” he added.

France has been critical, insisting that the war was launched without respecting international law and that Paris was never consulted about it. No blanket restrictions were placed on the use of joint bases or its airspace, but French authorities have said they’re making such decisions on a case by case basis.

Cook writes for the Associated Press.

If conservative commentator Steve Hilton is elected California’s next governor, as President Trump wants, it would mark a “political revolution” for the liberal state, the candidate said.

The state’s Democrat-controlled Legislature, “after all their years of lecturing us about democracy,” would be forced to work with him “to enact the changes that Californians just voted for,” and he would be willing to work with them too, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur and former Fox News host said.

If firebrand Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is elected governor, he will take a decidedly different approach, he said.

“You want to know how I’m gonna work with a Democrat Legislature? I’m not. I’m gonna get every single one of them unelected,” Bianco said. “Every single day, I’m gonna stand on the steps of the Capitol, and I’m gonna tell the California voting public about the idiots in Sacramento that are ruining their lives.”

For the first time in years, the state GOP is riding into its convention this weekend on a wave of optimism about the upcoming gubernatorial race.

According to recent polling, Hilton and Bianco both stand a chance of winning more votes in the June 2 primary than any of the many Democratic candidates, who have spread thin their party’s nearly 2-1 advantage in voter rolls. If the GOP candidates do that, they would advance to a head-to-head contest in November’s general election, and one would become the state’s first Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Much could change to prevent that scenario. More Democrats could drop out. Voters could coalesce around one or two of those left. Hilton, with Trump’s endorsement, could consolidate Republican support and push Bianco out of contention.

Still, the prospect of a Republican governing California, a stronghold of the anti-MAGA movement, has captivated political experts and spectators alike.

Gov. Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on the death penalty shortly after taking office, a policy the next governor could reverse. At San Quentin, an inmate is moved from his cell on death row.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Trump, in his recent endorsement, said he has “known and respected” Hilton for many years and would help him “turn it around” in California after an “absolutely horrendous job” by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state Democrats.

“With Federal help, and a Great Governor, like Steve Hilton, California can be better than ever before!” Trump wrote.

Many Democrats predict the opposite: grandstanding and gridlock as either Hilton or Bianco’s MAGA-aligned agenda meets stiff resistance from powerful state Democrats repulsed by the president’s movement.

“If the new governor decided to go hard MAGA, they would face enormous pushback,” said state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who considers it unlikely for both Republicans to advance.

“I don’t think there’s any question that the state would descend into chaos,” said Phil Angelides, a Democrat and former state treasurer who lost to Schwarzenegger in the 2006 gubernatorial race.

The limits of power

California governors hold substantial power.

They direct and appoint leaders to the state’s many executive agencies, boards and commissions, which oversee vast portfolios in vital areas, such as the environment, California’s university systems and the state parole board. They craft the state budget and have a line-item veto to eliminate legislative appropriations. They can make major unilateral decisions — such as welcoming federal troops into California cities — and command a bully pulpit to drive public opinion and policy, including through statewide ballot measures.

Demonstrators confront California National Guard troops and police outside a federal building during protests in Los Angeles in 2025 after the Trump administration sent in the National Guard. The Republican candidates for California governor said they would welcome similar orders by the Trump administration.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

California’s next governor would have the power to end Newsom’s moratorium on the death penalty, appoint state judges and grant state pardons. During emergencies the governor would be able to reshape state regulations, suspend laws and redirect funding, as Newsom did during the COVID-19 pandemic by banning price gouging, halting evictions and postponing the 2020 tax deadline.

But their power also has limits.

Many of the governor’s appointees are subject to state Senate confirmation. The Legislature can change and amend the governor’s proposed budget and pass a budget bill distinctly different from his proposal. Democrats, with their supermajority, can also override the governor’s vetoes.

The independently elected state attorney general can sue to defend state laws, regulations and residents, a power current officeholder Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has exercised more than 60 times to challenge the Trump administration. The California Supreme Court, which leans liberal, can rein in the executive branch if it determines it has violated the state Constitution or other statutes.

Trump has repeatedly pushed the limits of executive authority and benefited from having a Republican-controlled Congress and a conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority that holds an expansive view of executive power. Hilton or Bianco would face the opposite in California, where many legislators would refuse to acquiesce to a Republican governor, especially one almost certain to face a swift recall, political experts said.

Hilton or Bianco could “potentially build alliances” with Democrats on issues such as housing and affordability and drive change that way, said Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State. But “if the Democratic majority in the Legislature decides to dig in its heels, then they could oppose practically everything [the new governor] would do.”

Nalder said Hilton or Bianco could also “try to rule in a Trumpian way” by testing the boundaries of their authority. She expects Bianco would do so given his recent decision to “violate the norms of democracy” by seizing more than half a million 2025 ballots as part of an unusual local sheriff’s investigation into allegations of voter fraud that state and county officials say have no merit.

But he “wouldn’t have the public support or the hold on the other branches of government that Trump has,” she said, “so it would be much more difficult.”

Angelides said electing either Hilton or Bianco would put someone “deeply associated with the MAGA movement” atop a deeply blue state government in which many career employees hold opposing views, which would cause a cascade of disruptions.

“There’s no reason to believe it will be different than the chaos we’ve seen in the Trump administration: an evisceration of a number of state agencies, as well as the departure of a lot of talented people who will not stay and would not jeopardize their careers, their reputations, to work under a governor from the MAGA movement,” Angelides said.

State employees are protected by powerful unions with deep ties to Democratic leaders, which Hilton said he would sever.

A Bonta spokesperson said in a written statement that the attorney general “works in service of the people of California — not the Governor,” and would not hesitate to exercise his independent authority under the state Constitution.

“We hope to maintain a close working relationship with whomever California’s next Governor is, but our mission and our priorities will not change,” the spokesperson said. “Regardless of who is in that office, we will continue to enforce civil rights laws, investigate and prosecute complex crimes, protect public safety, stand up for consumers and the environment, and fulfill our duty to Californians.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) also offered a diplomatic response, saying in a statement that “it is critical that whoever our next Governor may be helps advance the lives and goals of California and its communities.”

In their own words

Hilton and Bianco both said they would radically reshape state government, in part by dismantling regulations that are hampering development and making basic necessities — housing, food, gas, electricity — too expensive.

Hilton, a top advisor in British Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government more than a decade ago, would install agency leaders who would be hyper-focused on slashing costly regulations in order to “reduce the burden of cost and hassle on California families and businesses,” he said. “Elections have consequences, and so it would be irresponsible not to use maximum aggression to make the changes as quickly as possible.”

The top two Republican candidates running for California governor said they would have a much better relationship with President Trump than Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who challenged the president’s policies in court and mocked him on social media.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

Bianco said “every single regulation in this state is leaving” if he wins, with California becoming far more business friendly. “The environmental activism, the environmental activism terrorists who are controlling state government, are going to be put in their place, which is outside where nobody hears from them.”

Both Hilton and Bianco also sharply criticized California Democrats for challenging Trump at every turn, a practice they would end.

“I would be wanting to work with the administration to help Californians,” Hilton said.

“Why would you ever push back on a president unless they were seriously trying to destroy your state?” Bianco said. “California is failing because of its own policies.”

Hilton said he expects Bonta to lose to his Republican running mate for attorney general, Michael Gates. Bianco said that if Bonta remains in office, he would completely “defund” the state Justice Department.

Hilton and Bianco also shared similar thoughts on Trump’s immigration crackdown and deployment of the National Guard to Minneapolis and Los Angeles, the latter without Newsom’s approval.

Hilton said that he “certainly would never want to see, in California, the scenes that we saw in Minneapolis, nor would I want to see repeated the scenes that we saw in our state last summer,” but that those clashes were “provoked and instigated by Democrat sanctuary policy,” which he would end.

California’s sanctuary policies largely bar local police and corrections officials from conducting or assisting federal authorities in immigration enforcement, which state leaders say is not their responsibility and could undermine community trust in local police.

Bianco said that Trump sent in troops because Newsom “was derelict in his duties to protect the people of California,” and that it is more important to address “failed Democrat policies for the last 20 years.”

“President Trump has done not one single thing to harm California in the last year,” he said.

Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, said that if Hilton or Bianco becomes governor, Sacramento will see “a lot of gridlock and grandstanding, and that’s from both parties.”

But he also said he does not expect that to happen, because undecided voters are going to “figure it out” and coalesce behind a Democrat — even if at the last moment.

“That last slice of the electorate,” he said, “doesn’t wake up until the last two weeks.”

Times staff writer Katie King contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Morning broke in the Middle East on Wednesday with a wave of attacks by Iran. Air defenses in Kuwait were overwhelmed. Three dozen drones and 17 ballistic missiles were shot down over the United Arab Emirates. The most important oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia suffered a hit. Sirens flared in Tel Aviv, and a devastating drumbeat of Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s allies in Lebanon killed scores in Beirut.

A day after President Trump hailed a ceasefire in his war with the Islamic Republic, reversing course on his threat to escalate, the only country spared from attack appeared to be Iran itself.

The “fragile truce,” as Vice President JD Vance called it, began with a calculated show of force from an Iran militarily weakened by six weeks of U.S.-Israeli strikes, yet strategically positioned to press for sweeping concessions from an American president eager to end the war.

Strait flush

A naval vessel sails on March 1 in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which much of the world’s oil and gas passes.

(Sahar al Attar / AFP/Getty Images)

The president’s main conditions for a truce were the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and, through negotiations, a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear work. But Tehran offered no sign of relenting on its enrichment program, and by Wednesday afternoon, had warned that tanker traffic would halt through the strait until Israel paused its attacks in Lebanon.

It was the clearest demonstration yet of Iran’s emboldened position to use the strait — treated for decades as a free and open international waterway — as a bargaining tool, threatening its closure over any number of demands, or else implementing a toll system as reparations for its war damage.

By Friday, U.S. negotiators flying to Islamabad for talks can expect Iran’s hold on the strait to weigh against all other priorities, including American demands that Iran relinquish its right to enrich uranium, the source of decades of tortured diplomatic efforts.

The White House said that traffic had increased through the strait on Wednesday. But it also described reports of its closure, briefed to a displeased president, as “completely unacceptable,” serving as a stark reminder in the West Wing of the new world its war had brought.

James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called the ceasefire framework “a foreign policy disaster” for the United States that revealed Iranian leverage long predicted by independent experts and intelligence analysts.

“Let’s assume the ceasefire actually takes hold — and as far as I can see, it hasn’t done so far,” Acton said. “Iran has the upper hand, and frankly, it’s not close.”

“The negotiations are likely to focus on opening the Strait of Hormuz, which is clearly Trump’s top goal, not Iran’s nuclear program,” he added. “Because Iran has demonstrated it can close the strait — and inflict large economic costs on the U.S. and large political costs on Trump — it now has plenty of leverage over the United States.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks during a news briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room on Wednesday. Leavitt spoke to reporters on a range of topics including a two-week ceasefire deal between the U.S., Iran and Israel.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Unclear terms

The Trump administration reportedly urged two allies of Tehran — China and Pakistan — to pressure the Iranians into a ceasefire ahead of a Tuesday evening deadline, self-imposed by Trump, to escalate the conflict. The resulting truce was described not in a shared statement among the warring parties, but in separate, differing social media posts that all but guaranteed misinterpretation between the two sides.

A statement from the Pakistanis, who have helped mediate the talks, said the ceasefire extended to hostilities in Lebanon. The Israeli statement said it did not; Trump’s post omitted any mention of Lebanon at all.

But the president’s statement did say that a 10-point plan from Iran could serve as the basis for negotiations over a long-term truce going forward. The White House was forced to walk that back Wednesday afternoon, claiming that Iran had presented its diplomats with another, secret 10-point plan substantially revised from those detailed in the press.

“They put forward a more reasonable and entirely different and condensed plan to the president and his team,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. “The idea that President Trump would ever accept an Iranian wish list as a deal is completely absurd.”

In social media posts and interviews with select reporters on Wednesday, Trump appeared to suggest exactly that — floating sanctions relief for Tehran and proposing a plan to share revenue from a Strait of Hormuz toll system that could raise global oil prices while directly funding the Iranian government.

Limited achievements

Experts agree that the U.S.-Israeli campaign succeeded in significantly degrading Iran’s drone and ballistic missile infrastructure. But in a statement on Wednesday, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said any deal between Washington and Tehran had to include structural limits on those programs — suggesting concern in Israel that Iran could reconstitute its military within a matter of years.

Iran’s continued attacks on its neighbors Wednesday, its downing of American aircraft last week, and its retention of its nuclear material have raised doubts among U.S. allies about whether Washington’s military capabilities can deliver on its promises.

“There is less respect for what the United States — and Trump in particular — can accomplish, be it through military force or diplomacy, and for the strategic thinking that underlies U.S. policy,” said Patrick Clawson, director of the Iran program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “These attitudes are even stronger in Europe, Russia and China.”

Iran’s military weaknesses have been uncovered as well. Few of its missiles and drones inflicted physical damage throughout Israel and the Arab world.

Yet the psychological impact — on local populations, on the economy of metropolitan Dubai, on the commercial shipping sector and the oil market — has proven Iran is capable of exacting greater pain than its conventional military capabilities would suggest.

Whether the United States can return the Strait of Hormuz to its status before the war, as a free and open waterway, may depend on longstanding allies that Trump has ostracized over the course of the war.

“We launched a war that affected the rest of the world, with little consideration for its effects,” said Dennis Ross, a veteran diplomat on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.

“When you berate allies and leave them out but expect them to be there when you need them, you discover that you don’t have them,” Ross added. “No one is going to assume that the U.S. is more reliable after this.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read:The new LACMA is divisive. It’s also ambitious, disorienting — and radically alive
The deep dive: Excitement over ‘affordable’ L.A. Olympics turns to angry sticker shock over high-priced tickets
The L.A. Times Special: Bruce Springsteen’s comeback at Kia Forum is no victory lap. It’s a battle against Trump

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Amid all the alarming and unhinged comments of the president of the United States in recent days threatening Iran with genocide — remarks beyond even the usual cray-cray blather from Donald Trump — it was a statement from his spokesperson on Tuesday that really put the madness in the White House in perspective.

“Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do,” Karoline Leavitt said.

She issued those words just hours before Trump’s 8 p.m. Tuesday deadline for Iran to either reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping or face Armageddon — that is, war crimes by the United States. The statement from the White House press secretary was as clear a description as Americans could get of governance under Trump these days: A mad king reigns, virtually unchecked.

And as a practical matter, there is nothing under the Constitution, neither impeachment nor removal under the 25th Amendment, that can be done about him. There’s only voters’ opportunity to eject the complicit Republican majorities in the House and Senate in November’s midterm elections, to install a Democratic — and democratic — check on Trump for the remaining two years of his term.

By now we know that, just before Trump’s deadline to Iran warning “a whole civilization will die tonight,” he announced a fragile two-week ceasefire for negotiations. The commander in chief declared victory, natch. But so did Iran. And it had the better of the argument: Iran continued to control and monetize passage through the strait, unlike before Trump’s war began Feb. 28, and already on Wednesday it flexed that power by closing the route in retaliation for Israeli strikes. The ceasefire also lets Iran retain possession of its enriched, nearly bomb-grade uranium, and the nation won Trump’s offer of possible tariff and sanctions relief.

So much for the “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he demanded in a post a month ago.

I’m writing these words on Wednesday. Who knows where things will stand by the time you’re reading this? “Only the president knows.”

Trump has fluctuated, reversed and contradicted himself repeatedly — even within a single social-media screed or chest-thumping performance for the press — since he ordered war against Iran nearly six weeks ago, without notice to Congress, let alone its authorization. Since Sunday, he’s variously called Iran’s leaders “crazy bastards” and “animals” and taken credit for “Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail.”

Presidential rule by fiat and whim would be wrong in any case under the Constitution’s checks and balances of power, and specifically of war power. But in Trump’s case, America has a president who lately has piled on the evidence that he is mentally unstable, unfit for the office.

And spare us the cheerleaders’ claims on Fox News about how he’s playing multidimensional chess. When even Alex Jones likens Trump to “crazy King Lear” and calls for invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from power — echoing former Trump promoters including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Candace Owens, among others — you know he’s crossed a line by his unilateral war-making and profane threats (on Easter Sunday!) of genocidal apocalypse.

The evidence of Trump’s dangerous instability has been there from his political genesis. In his first term, he warned he’d unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” against nuclear-armed North Korea then declared that he “fell in love” with dictator Kim Jong-un (without achieving any diminution in Kim’s arsenal). He celebrates the deaths of political enemies and prosecutes those still living. He repeatedly interrupts himself on some policy question to bloviate about his ballroom plans.

He’s ordered armed agents into American neighborhoods on immigration raids, then expressed neither responsibility nor remorse when citizens died and legal residents got deported. The national security leaders of his first term let it be known that they’d prevented him from acting on his worst impulses, but there’s no chance of that from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Retired Gen. Mark Milley, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2021 described first-term Trump as being in mental decline and “fascist to the core.”

You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks Trump has gotten better in the intervening five years.

The country “can’t be a therapy session for … a troubled man like this,” Trump’s first-term attorney general, William P. Barr, told CBS in 2023 as Trump campaigned to return to office.

If only the presidency were therapy for Trump. Instead he’s like a power addict in the world’s most powerful job, mainlining its intoxicants, and no one will stop him. Only people with extraordinary egos seek the White House in the first place, but when an actual egomaniac inhabits that warping bubble of butter-uppers, there’s danger. I remain haunted by the words of retired Gen. John F. Kelly, Trump’s first-term Homeland Security secretary and then White House chief of staff, who in 2023 said of Trump’s potential reelection: “God help us.”

Having failed twice to convict and remove Trump in his first term, Democrats have shied from a third attempt, until now. Scores in Congress have called for impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment to oust him. There’s some value in sending a message. But Democrats are offering supporters false hope. A Republican-led Congress and a Cabinet of clownish sycophants will not exercise the powers they have, even against a mad king.

The authors of the Constitution, having thrown off a king, debated at length how to guard against a power-crazed president. But they didn’t anticipate political parties that put tribal loyalty over the country. That partisanship has rendered the high bars to a president’s removal — a vote of two-thirds of the Senate for conviction after impeachment, or, under the 25th Amendment, action by the vice president and a Cabinet majority — all but insurmountable.

That leaves the voters, who in special and off-year elections as recently as Tuesday have shown their zeal to punish Trump’s party. We can hope that a new Congress will check him come January.

And we can pray.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

US president meets NATO chief, expresses disappointment over member states failing to back war on Iran.

United States President Donald Trump has lashed out at NATO over its reluctance to join Washington’s war on Iran, and appeared to revive threats over Greenland, following a meeting with the alliance’s secretary-general.

Writing on his TruthSocial platform on Wednesday, Trump said in capitalised letters that “NATO wasn’t there when we needed them, and they won’t be there if we need them again”.

The remarks came after a two hour meeting with NATO’s Mark Rutte at the White House, a day after the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

Ahead of the meeting, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said that member states had “turned their backs on the American people”, who fund their nations’ defence. She said Trump would have a “very frank and candid conversation” with the NATO chief and quoted the US president as saying: “They were tested, and they failed.”

The rhetoric has raised seats in the West that Trump could move to withdraw the US from the transatlantic alliance, which he has repeatedly called a “paper tiger”. Several NATO members refused to open their airspace to US military aircraft or send naval forces to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy route that Iran has effectively closed.

Trump – following his meeting with Rutte – also appeared to revive his threat to seize Greenland from NATO member Denmark – a move had roiled the alliance before he launched his war on Iran

“Remember Greenland, that big, poorly run, piece of ice!!!”, he wrote.

Rutte, known in Europe as the “Trump whisperer” for his skill in maintaining a productive relationship with the US president, told the CNN broadcaster that Trump was “clearly disappointed with many NATO allies”.

Rutte said he had “very frank” and “very open” discussions with Trump during the meeting, and that while he understood the US president’s frustrations, he had pushed back against some of the broader criticism.

“I was also able to point to the fact that the large majority of European nations have been helpful, with basing, with logistics, with overflights, with making sure that they live up to the commitments,” Rutte said.

“What the US did with Iran, they could do because so many European countries lived up to those commitments. Not all of them, and I totally understand his disappointment about that, but it is, therefore, a nuanced picture,” he added.

Rutte also rejected the notion that NATO members considered the war on Iran “illegal”, arguing that there was widespread support in Europe for degrading Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. He also said that prolonged diplomacy risked a “North Korean moment” – where talks drag on until a country acquires nuclear capacity and it becomes too late to act.

The NATO chief declined to answer directly when asked multiple times if Trump had said he would leave the alliance.

NATO, which includes European countries, the US and Canada, was formed in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union and has been the cornerstone of the West’s security ever since.

The alliance has only activated its mutual defence clause on one occasion, following the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in the US.

It was not clear what role Trump had expected it to play in the ⁠Middle East.

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, reported that Trump was looking at punishing some NATO members he believed were unhelpful during the conflict by moving US troops out of their countries.

The plan, reported by the Wall Street Journal, would fall short of Trump’s hinted threats to pull the US out of NATO entirely – a move for which he would need the approval of the US Congress.

Rutte did not answer directly when asked about that report.

“The large majority, including France, of European nations, has been doing what they committed before they will do in a case like this,” he said instead.

“So Europe, as a platform of power projection for the United States, was in full play over the last six weeks.”