united states

For decades, leaders who were responsible for war crimes tended to plead ignorance or insist it was a mistake and their hands were clean. What has changed in the Middle East is the swaggering contempt we have seen from the United States, Israel and Iran as they instead dismiss, mock or flout the international laws protecting civilians. If the international community does not urgently reassert support for those norms, it may be acquiescing to their destruction.

US President Donald Trump, who told The New York Times he doesn’t “need international law” and the only restraint on his power was his “own morality”, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has dismissed “tepid legality” in favour of “maximum lethality”, have expressed little regard publicly for the safety of civilians  affected by the US-Israeli war on Iran, which just entered its second month.

After announcing that the US had “demolished” Iran’s Kharg Island, Trump told NBC News, “We may hit it a few more times just for fun.” Hegseth has declared that “no quarter” would be given to enemies in Iran. That phrase indicates troops are free to kill those seeking to surrender rather than capture them. Such scenarios have served as a textbook example of a war crime in US military academies.

The Trump administration is not alone in this regard. In language eerily reminiscent of the war in Gaza, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has threatened to demolish homes across southern Lebanon and block hundreds of thousands of civilians from returning.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has declared US banks, investment firms and commercial ships valid targets despite their civilian status. Its spokesman warned Iranians that any street protests would be met with “an even harsher blow” than the January massacres, in which security forces killed thousands across the country. A state television presenter was more direct, saying opponents in the diaspora would face consequences that would see their “mothers sit in mourning”.

These statements are worthy of our attention not only because they telegraph a blatant disregard for civilian life but also because these leaders seem to mean it.

More than 2,000 people have been killed in Iran, more than 1,200 in Lebanon, and 17 in Israel. Altogether, several million people across the Gulf, Israel and Lebanon have been displaced or forced to flee from their homes. Based on a preliminary US military report, US forces were responsible for a deadly attack on an elementary school in Minab, Iran, in which more than 170 children and staff were killed.

The Israeli military has fired white phosphorus, which can burn to the bone, on Lebanese homes despite a clear prohibition on its use as a weapon in populated areas. Iran has launched internationally banned cluster munitions at Israeli cities and attacked commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

The international legal system, designed to protect civilians during armed conflict, did not falter overnight. Unflinching US support for Israel as it carried out acts of genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza, destroyed its hospitals and water systems, carried out countless air strikes that turned neighbourhoods into rubble and killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians over two and a half years contributed to a sense that some leaders would always be above the law.

Those double standards are alive and well, profoundly corroding respect for international law. When Iran struck Gulf energy infrastructure, condemnation rightly came within hours. But when Israel unlawfully dropped white phosphorus on Lebanese neighbourhoods, the same governments went quiet. Leaders need to say, with equal specificity and force, that attacks on Iranian power plants, Lebanese homes and Gulf civilian facilities are violations of the laws of war, regardless of who the perpetrator is. Otherwise, the rules are just a cudgel for punishing rivals.

The Geneva Conventions oblige every country not merely to follow the laws of war but also ensure global respect for them, including by refusing to arm forces credibly accused of violating them.

Yet arms continue to flow to belligerents on multiple sides of these conflicts with no apparent review of the likely impact. European governments that supply weapons or grant overflight and basing rights to forces unlawfully bombing civilians are not bystanders. If the actions of US and Israeli forces match the irresponsible rhetoric of their leaders, countries that arm or assist them could very well find themselves complicit in war crimes.

As during the war in the former Yugoslavia or more recently in Ukraine, the machinery of documentation and accountability needs to occur while the conflict is ongoing, not afterwards. Today, warring parties in the Middle East are working to prevent exactly that. Iran has imposed a nationwide internet shutdown and jailed people for sharing strike footage. Israel has banned live broadcasts and detained journalists. Gulf states have arrested citizens for posting images online. In the US, the Federal Communications Commission has threatened broadcasters’ licences over coverage of the war on Iran unfavourable to the Trump administration.

Governments with developed intelligence capabilities should be preserving and sharing evidence of war crimes right now: satellite imagery, communications intercepts, open-source footage. UN investigative bodies need immediate additional resources. And governments need to speak out clearly on the importance of justice for war crimes.

If this work waits until the shooting stops, the evidence may be gone, and the political will for accountability may quickly shift focus. The belligerents know it. They may even be counting on it.

The leaders repudiating the laws of war today may think they will gain from a world without rules, where brute force settles every question and all civilian harm is just written off as collateral damage. But by dismissing the principle of nonreciprocity, which makes clear that one side’s violations do not justify noncompliance by the other, they have spurred rounds of tit-for-tat strikes that put their own troops as well as their civilian populations in harm’s way.

Those who see the value of the existing system curbing the barbarity of war need to stand up for it. Otherwise, they may one day find themselves forced to explain to future generations why they did nothing while it burned.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The United States and Israel have carried out multiple attacks on medical facilities in the course of their war on Iran.

On Thursday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian appealed to international health organisations to respond to attacks on medical facilities in Iran, including the Pasteur Institute in capital Tehran, a key centre that Iranian officials said had been targeted that day.

At least 2,076 people have been killed and 26,500 have been wounded in Iran since the US and Israel first launched strikes on the country on February 28.

Here is a closer look at how the US and Israel have hit healthcare facilities in Iran.

What has the Iranian president said about attacks on healthcare?

On Thursday, Pezeshkian wrote in an X post: “What message does attacking hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and the Pasteur Institute as a medical research center in Iran convey?”

The Iranian president, 71, a heart surgeon by profession, continued: “As a specialist physician, I urge WHO [the World Health Organization], the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders and physicians worldwide to respond to this crime against humanity.”

What is the Pasteur Institute, which has been targeted?

On Thursday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei wrote in an X post: “The American-Israeli aggressors have attacked the Pasteur Institute of Iran – the oldest and most prestigious research and public health centre in Iran and the entire Middle East, founded in 1920 through an agreement between the Pasteur Institute of Paris and the Iranian government.”

Baghaei deemed the attack “heartbreaking, cruel, despicable, and utterly outrageous”.

He did not specify whether there were casualties from the attack.

The institute was founded more than 100 years ago in collaboration with the Institut Pasteur in Paris, an internationally renowned centre for biomedical research, which itself was founded in 1887.

The institute in Iran conducts research on infectious diseases, produces vaccines and biological products and provides advanced diagnostics.

The centre has played a central role in fighting endemic diseases such as smallpox and cholera. It also supports Iran’s national immunisation programme by developing and producing vaccines and related biologicals – including those used against diseases such as tetanus, hepatitis B and measles.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director general of the WHO, wrote in an X post on Friday that two departments of the Pasteur Institute of Iran have also been working closely with the WHO.

“The conflict in Iran, and the region, is impacting the delivery of health services and the safety of health workers, patients, and civilians present at health facilities,” Ghebreyesus wrote.

Which other healthcare facilities have been hit in Iran?

“Since 1 March, WHO has verified over 20 attacks on health care in Iran, resulting in at least nine deaths, including that of an infectious diseases health worker and a member of the Iranian Red Crescent Society,” Ghebreyesus wrote in his X post.

Some of the facilities hit include:

Red Crescent warehouse

On Friday morning, a drone strike hit a Red Crescent relief warehouse in Iran’s Bushehr province.

While no casualties were reported, the attack destroyed two relief containers, two buses and emergency vehicles, Fars news agency reported.

Tofigh Daru

On March 31, Israeli-US strikes hit one of Iran’s largest pharmaceutical companies in Tehran, the Iranian government said in a post on X.

The company was later identified as Tofigh Daru Research and Engineering Company, which is owned by the Social Security Investment Company, a state-run holding firm. On LinkedIn, Tofigh Daru states that it develops and produces active pharmaceutical ingredients “in the anticancer, narcotics, cardiovascular to immunomodulatory segments”.

No confirmed casualty numbers were reported from that strike.

Delaram Sina Psychiatric Hospital

This newly constructed hospital in Tehran was significantly damaged during an attack on the capital on March 29, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

About 30 patients were in the hospital at the time of the strike late on Monday, the hospital’s director told IRNA. No specific casualty figures for the hospital have been reported.

Ali Hospital

The hospital in Andimeshk in Iran’s Khuzestan province sustained damage from an explosion on March 21, according to the Mehr and Fars news agencies.

In his post on Friday, Ghebreyesus confirmed this attack and said the facility had been forced to evacuate staff and cease services.

Reports about the attack do not mention casualties at the hospital.

Gandhi Hospital

On March 2, Gandhi Hospital in Tehran was damaged during attacks on a television communications tower nearby.

No confirmed casualty figures were reported for the hospital itself.

What does international law say about attacks on healthcare?

International humanitarian law states that health establishments and units, including hospitals, should not be attacked, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

These protections also apply to the sick and wounded, to medical staff and to means of transport such as ambulances.

In 2016, the United Nations Security Council resolution 2286 was adopted unanimously. This condemns attacks on healthcare and calls on nations to respect international law.

However, last year record attacks on healthcare during armed conflict were recorded, according to the WHO’s Surveillance System for Attacks on Health Care (SSA).

The SSA said that in armed conflicts worldwide, 1,348 attacks on medical facilities resulted in the killing of 1,981 people. The majority of these deaths were in Sudan, where 1,620 people were killed, followed by Myanmar, where 148 people were killed.

This was a sharp uptick from 2024, when 944 patients and medical personnel were killed in armed conflict.

Where else has Israel targeted medical staff and facilities?

Lebanon

Besides Iran, Israeli attacks have also targeted healthcare facilities in Lebanon.

A month into its latest bombardment of Lebanon, Israel has killed 53 medical workers, destroyed 87 ambulances or medical centres, and forced the closure of five hospitals, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health.

“Israeli strikes and blanket evacuation orders are cutting people off from care and shrinking the space for health services to function,” Luna Hammad, the Lebanon medical coordinator for Doctors Without Borders (MSF), told Al Jazeera, adding that MSF has seen “a documented pattern of attacks affecting healthcare”.

Gaza

Throughout its genocidal war in Gaza, Israel has also attacked healthcare facilities in the Palestinian enclave.

In October 2023, hundreds of people sheltering in the car park of Gaza’s al-Ahli Hospital were killed in an Israeli attack, according to Palestinian health officials.

Israel attributed the explosion at the facility to a misfired rocket launched by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an allegation denied by the armed group.

In March 2024, the Israeli military said it killed 90 people in its raid on al-Shifa Hospital during a siege, as displaced Palestinians sheltering in the facility described long detentions and abuse.

In December 2024, the Israeli army arrested Dr Hussam Abu Safia, the director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, after refusing to follow orders to abandon one of the last functioning hospitals in northern Gaza. His arrest came a day after the military killed approximately 20 Palestinians and apprehended about 240 in a raid inside the hospital, which was one of the “largest operations” conducted in the territory until that time.

In March 2025, Israeli forces reportedly shot dead 15 Palestinian medics for the Palestine Red Crescent Society and inside clearly identifiable PRCS ambulances, during a rescue mission in Rafah’s Tal as-Sultan neighbourhood.

Iran says it is ready to counter any US-Israeli attacks, insisting its military capabilities remain intact despite Donald Trump’s claims they’ve been ‘decimated.’

Fuel shocks from the US-Israel war on Iran are rippling worldwide, as Strait of Hormuz disruptions push prices higher. From Nigeria to Vietnam and India, workers face soaring costs, longer hours and lost jobs amid a deepening global energy crisis.

Ten Muslim civil rights groups have issued a joint letter denouncing the arrest of a Palestinian American community leader in Wisconsin, Salah Sarsour.

The president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and a vocal Palestinian advocate, Sarsour was reportedly pulled over by 10 federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while driving on March 30.

The joint letter explains that Sarsour was transferred to a detention facility in Illinois, then to Indiana, leaving his family “scrambling to determine his whereabouts”.

A lawful permanent resident, he had lived in the US for 32 years, according to the letter, and his wife and children are all US citizens. Sarsour has been in immigration detention ever since his arrest.

“We must be clear that Salah is being targeted on the basis of his Palestinian and Muslim background,” the letter, issued Thursday, said.

It was co-signed by organisations including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Legal Fund of America, and the US Council of Muslim Organizations.

The groups noted that, under President Donald Trump, a number of immigrant activists, scholars and foreign students had been targeted for deportation based on their pro-Palestinian solidarity.

“His detention reflects a troubling trend we’ve seen with Mahmoud Khalil, Leqaa Kordia, Mohsen Mahdawi and other voices critical of Israeli oppression,” the groups wrote.

“This administration is weaponizing the U.S. justice system to advance the interests of a foreign state, Israel, at a time when it is carrying out a genocide in Gaza.”

The groups have launched an online campaign for Sarsour’s legal defence. By Thursday afternoon, it had earned over $35,500 in donations.

While the Trump administration has yet to issue a statement about Sarsour’s arrest, it has taken a hardline approach to pro-Palestinian activism.

When running for re-election in 2024, Trump pledged to crack down on protesters denouncing human rights abuses during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

According to statements obtained by the Washington Post in May 2024, Trump reportedly called the protest movement a “radical revolution” and said that, if he were elected, he planned “to set that movement back 25 or 30 years”.

Within months of taking office in January 2025, Trump proceeded to take action.

Starting in March 2025, his administration moved to strip hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds from universities that saw protests unfold on their campuses, citing claims of anti-Semitism.

Federal agents also arrested legal permanent residents like Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student leader, stripping him of his green card.

One scholar, Rumeysa Ozturk of Turkiye, saw her student visa revoked for co-signing a pro-Palestinian opinion piece in her school’s student newspaper.

The arrests and subsequent efforts to rapidly deport the activists and scholars have prompted widespread condemnation as a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech and protest.

Officials in Wisconsin have been among the leaders to denounce Sarsour’s arrest as the latest in a series of efforts to stifle free speech. Two local alderpersons, JoCasta Zamarripa and Alex Bower, called the situation a “nightmare”.

“This is an illegal detention of a longtime permanent U.S. resident, as Mr Sarsour is a Milwaukeean who is lawfully present in our community,” they wrote in a joint statement on Thursday.

“The unacceptable activities by ICE — and especially illegally detaining citizens without due process — must stop immediately. How dare federal ICE agents come into our community and unlawfully detain a grandfather, a faith leader, a Wisconsinite!”

State Senator Chris Larson, meanwhile, underscored that the federal government has yet to offer any reasons publicly for Sarsour’s arrest.

“We have already seen numerous Muslim activists unfairly and unlawfully targeted by the Trump Administration for their beliefs and their speech,” Larson wrote.

“These Unconstitutional assaults on our freedoms should alarm all of us. When any individual or group is targeted by the government for their speech, all of our freedoms are threatened.”

US president has said that he will use tariffs to bring down costly pharmaceutical drugs, but the impact remains uncertain.

United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that could slap long-threatened tariffs of up to 100 percent on some patented drugs if pharmaceutical companies don’t reach deals with his administration in the coming months.

Under Thursday’s executive order, companies that have signed a “most favoured nation” pricing deal and are actively building facilities in the US will have a zero-percent tariff.

For those that don’t have a pricing deal but are building such projects in the US, a 20 percent tariff will apply, but it will increase to 100 percent in four years.

A senior administration official told reporters on a press call that companies still have months to negotiate before the 100 percent tariffs kick in. Bigger companies will have 120 days, and 180 days are offered for everyone else.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview the executive order before it was issued, did not identify any companies or drugs that were in jeopardy of getting hit with the increased tariffs.

But the source noted the administration had already reached 17 pricing deals with major drugmakers, 13 of which have signed.

In Thursday’s executive order, Trump wrote that he deemed the tariffs necessary “to address the threatened impairment of the national security posed by imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients”.

The order arrived on the first anniversary of Trump’s so-called Liberation Day, when the president unveiled sweeping new import taxes on nearly every country in the world, sending the stock market reeling. Those “Liberation Day” tariffs were among the duties the Supreme Court overturned in February.

Critics, pharmaceutical leaders and medical groups warned of the consequences the new tariffs could bring.

Stephen J Ubl, the CEO of the pharmaceutical company trade group PhRMA, said taxes “on cutting-edge medicines will increase costs and could jeopardize billions in US investments”.

He pointed to America’s already large footprint in biopharmaceutical manufacturing and noted medicines sourced from other countries “overwhelmingly come from reliable US allies”.

Trump has launched a barrage of new import taxes on US trading partners since the start of his second term and repeatedly pledged sky-high levies on foreign-made drugs.

But the administration has also used the threat of new levies to strike deals with major companies — like Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Bristol Myers Squibb — over the last year, with promises of lower prices for new drugs.

Beyond company-specific rates, a handful of countries have reached trade frameworks with the US to further cap tariffs on drugs sent to the US.

The European Union, Japan, Korea and Switzerland will see a 15 percent US tariff on patented pharmaceuticals, matching previously agreed rates for most goods.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom will get 10 percent, which Thursday’s order noted would “then reduce to zero” under future trade agreements.

The UK previously said it secured a zero-percent tariff rate for all British medicines exported to the US for at least three years.

Former clerk Tina Peters has become a cause celebre for the election denial movement and President Donald Trump.

An appeals court in the state of Colorado has ordered the resentencing of Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted of involvement in an election meddling scheme in the United States.

The court overturned Peters’s nine-year prison sentence on Thursday, but not her conviction for helping to tamper with voting machines after the 2020 presidential race.

Her case has become a cause celebre for President Donald Trump and the election denial movement, after it emerged that she was seeking evidence to support Trump’s false claim that his 2020 loss was due to massive fraud.

In Thursday’s decision, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that a lower court had considered Peters’s personal beliefs when deciding upon a punishment, thereby rendering the sentence improper.

“The trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing,” the appeals court wrote.

The panel cited comments from Judge Matthew Barrett, who blasted Peters as a “charlatan” promoting “snake oil” claims.

“Her offence was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud,” the appeals court said. “It was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud.”

Peters was convicted in August 2024 for helping someone from outside the government gain access to the Mesa County election system and make copies.

That person was affiliated with efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss, and the copies they obtained were then shared on social media.

False claims that the 2020 election was marred by massive fraud have been a persistent fixation for Trump and his allies, even after his successful re-election in 2024.

Trump’s efforts to remain in office after his 2020 defeat were the subject of a 2023 criminal indictment brought by former special counsel Jack Smith.

He alleged that Trump led a criminal conspiracy to undermine the election process and rally supporters to overturn the results. Those charges, however, were ultimately dropped when Trump took office again in 2025, as the US Justice Department has a policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.

Since his inauguration, Trump has continued to push the claims he won the 2020 race. He has also used his allegations of fraud to demand greater control over the country’s election infrastructure in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

In December, the president pardoned Peters, even though she was not in federal custody, and the presidential power of pardon does not extend to state crimes.

The appeals court panel confirmed on Thursday that Trump’s pardon had no impact on state offences.

“We have found no instance where the presidential pardon power has been stretched in such a way as to invade an individual state’s sovereignty,” the panel said.

State Governor Jared Polis suggested last month that he could consider clemency for Peters.

Pope Leo washed the feet of 12 priests in a Holy Thursday ritual, using the moment to urge Catholics to stand with the oppressed. His remarks come after he criticised the Trump administration on the Iran war and called for an end to the fighting.

Legal groups in Uganda have announced that a dozen deportees from the United States are expected to land in the country, following a deal with President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, the Uganda Law Society and the East Africa Law Society announced they had gone to court to challenge the deportation, which they called “an undignified, harrowing and dehumanising process”.

“We have approached the Courts of Law in Uganda and the region, seeking bespoke reliefs designed to arrest this patent international illegality,” Asiimwe Anthony, the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, wrote in a statement.

“Our perspective of the matter is broader than a single act of deportation. We view it as but one gust from the ill winds of transnational repression that are blowing across our world.”

Thursday’s deportation marks the first confirmed instance of deportees being transferred from the US to Uganda.

The 12 people reportedly landed at the Entebbe International Airport, some 40 kilometres (25 miles) from Kampala, by private aircraft. No identifying information was provided about the deportees.

But the deportation is the latest example of Trump’s far-reaching efforts to offload immigrants to “third countries”, where they have no personal connections — and may not even know the language.

Scrutiny of third country deportations

So far, Trump has struck deals with a number of countries to accept deported foreigners. They include at least six African countries, among them Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Rwanda, Eswatini and South Sudan.

The deal with Uganda came to light last August. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the agreement was a “temporary arrangement” and that priority would be given to deportees from other African countries.

Unaccompanied children and people with criminal records would not be allowed under the deal, according to the ministry’s statement at the time.

It is unclear whether Uganda received payment for its decision to accept third-country deportations.

Other countries, though, have signed multimillion-dollar deals. El Salvador was given nearly $6m to imprison deportees from the US, Equatorial Guinea got $7.5m, and Eswatini nabbed $5.1m.

There is no official estimate about the total cost of these third-country deals, but Senate Democrats in the US have estimated that at least $40m in funding has been given as incentives for countries to accept deportations.

Most of those funds, the Democrats added, were disbursed in lump sums before any deportees arrived. They also note that those funds are separate from the additional costs of the deportation flights: US military aircraft can cost $32,000 per hour to operate.

“Through its third country deportation deals, the Trump Administration is putting millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of foreign governments, while turning a blind eye to the human costs,” Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen said in a February statement.

“For an Administration that claims to be reigning in fraud, waste and abuse, this policy is the epitome of all three.”

Critics have also questioned whether the countries receiving US deportees are adequately safe.

In the past, the US has criticised Uganda for “significant human rights abuses”, citing reports of extrajudicial killings, life-threatening prison conditions, and torture and other degrading treatment from government agencies.

It also noted that Uganda had government restrictions against human rights and civil society organisations, and that consensual same-sex conduct was outlawed.

According to the United Nations, Uganda already plays host to nearly 1.7 million refugees and asylum seekers, as people flee violence in neighbouring countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan.

An ‘authoritarian project’?

In his letter on Thursday, Anthony, the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, called the US deportations part of a “broader authoritarian project” that his group felt compelled to oppose.

“This development and the attendant illegalities that accompany it are reminiscent of a dark past that the global family of humanity supposedly put behind itself in the pursuit of the ideal that every human being is born equal,” Anthony wrote.

He added that US actions under Trump were paving the way for similar policies elsewhere.

“In the United States, the militarisation of society has given carte blanche to captured democracies in Africa to carry on with despotism unchecked,” he said.

Still, the Trump administration has defended the deportations as legal under the US Immigration and Nationality Act, which has loopholes for removals to “safe third countries”.

The Trump administration has also pointed to diplomatic assurances from the “third countries” in question that US deportees would not face persecution.

The “third-country” policy has, however, faced numerous legal challenges. While the US Supreme Court has largely let such removals proceed, a lower court once again ruled in February that the policy could infringe upon immigrants’ due process rights.

In the case of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, lawyers have even argued that his deportation to a country far from home was evidence of “vindictiveness” on the part of the Trump administration.

Uganda has been floated as one of the destinations for Garcia, who was wrongfully deported in March 2025 and then returned to the US in June, only to face deportation proceedings once more.

Trump has pushed an aggressive programme of mass deportation since returning to the White House for a second term in 2025.

At least 675,000 people have been removed under his administration as of January, according to US government statistics.

British politician and peer Peter Mandelson tried to help convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in arranging for a visit by his “goddaughter” to 10 Downing Street at a time when Epstein was in prison for procuring a minor for prostitution, emails released by the US Department of Justice reveal.

Mandelson was serving as business secretary in the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and sitting on the House of Lords frontbench at the time. Epstein, meanwhile, was a convicted sex offender and was serving an 18-month sentence in Florida.

In an email exchange, Epstein told Glenn Dubin, a hedge fund manager whose child he called his “goddaughter”, that he would “organize a trip to Number !O, and the House of Lords with Peter Mandelson for you guys”.

On the same day, Epstein wrote directly to Mandelson saying that “the most important person to me next to you of course) is my goddaughter that will be in London on Wednesday and Thursday of next week what can we do to make it a very special trip, I would really appreciate it”.

In the exchange, Mandelson asks, “how old?, to which Epstein replied “15”, adding that she will be with her parents. “House of lords, number 10, just for ten minutes, it would mean a lot to me”, he added.

Mandelson responds: “Fine on all”. Epstein responds: “Great”.

Days later, Mandelson replied that he was “trying my best to accommodate” the request and that “we are still on the case… [and] hope something will fall into place”. Epstein subsequently forwarded Mandelson’s response to Dubin.

‘Andrew had tea with the Dubin kids’

These emails are among thousands of messages in the latest tranche of the Epstein files that mention Mandelson – a central figure in modern British politics for decades, long noted for his ability to survive repeated scandals. The exchange offers a glimpse into how Epstein appeared to leverage his relationship with Mandelson while he was in the United Kingdom’s government. In turn, Mandelson appeared willing to open doors for Epstein while he was a convicted sex offender.

Al Jazeera has contacted Downing Street for comment.

Dubin later wrote to Epstein: “Grt time in buck palace…. ….andrew was great. Thx! G”

Fifteen minutes later, Epstein wrote to convicted child sex trafficker and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell: “andrew had tea with the dubin kids and glenn.”

The emails appear to refer to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, ex-prince and brother of Britain’s King Charles. Mountbatten-Windsor was accused by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre of sexual assault, specifically alleging he raped her on three occasions in 2001 when she was 17, as part of a sex-trafficking ring run by Epstein. These allegations led to a 2021 lawsuit for sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which was later settled out of court.

Glenn Dubin’s daughter and Epstein’s so-called goddaughter is Celina Dubin. She is the daughter of Eva Andersson-Dubin, a former girlfriend of Epstein.

Email exchanges suggest that following this visit to London, Epstein stayed in contact with Glenn Dubin’s daughter — who the sex offender called his “goddaughter”.

Calls for UK prime minister to resign

The correspondence raises questions about why Peter Mandelson – who was aware of Epstein’s conviction for procuring a minor for prostitution – was prepared to facilitate an arrangement for Epstein and an underage girl while he was a UK government minister.

At the time of the 2009 exchange, Mandelson had returned to government, serving in a senior Labour role from 2008 to 2010. After leaving office, he built a lucrative global consulting career before re-entering public life, when Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed him ambassador to the United States in 2024.

His relationship with Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, has since become a problem that will not go away for the UK government, and has even led to calls for Starmer to resign.

The release of some Epstein files by the US Department of Justice in September 2025 led to Mandelson stepping down as US ambassador. A second tranche, published on January 30, alleged that he had passed sensitive government information to Epstein on several occasions, according to the files. The claims prompted the British government to refer the matter to police for possible prosecution. Mandelson was briefly arrested in February before being released on bail, while investigations into allegations against him continue.

The political fallout, meanwhile, has since widened, forcing the resignation of two senior government aides. In an attempt to contain the crisis, the prime minister said all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment would be made public, a move that has instead intensified scrutiny.

The initial release of what have become known as the “Mandelson files” showed that, ahead of his appointment to Washington, UK officials had explicitly warned that his long-standing ties to Epstein posed a “reputational risk” to the country.

Government documents indicate that during the vetting process in late 2024, Mandelson repeatedly denied key aspects of his relationship with Epstein, including whether he had stayed with the sex offender after his 2008 conviction. However, internal correspondence shows officials were aware of the relationship, discussed it as part of due diligence, and raised concerns with the prime minister’s chief of staff. The appointment nonetheless went ahead.

Starmer has since apologised for the decision. Further WhatsApp messages are expected to be released in the coming days, and could prompt fresh calls for Starmer’s resignation, raising questions about how much more damage the UK government can sustain.

‘Like the bad boy you are’

One of Mandelson’s first recorded interactions from the files is with Ghislaine Maxwell.

As far back as June 2002, the emails show him already in direct contact with her, stepping into a world that blurred intimacy and power.

“I love disgusting. That’s why I am wild and dangerous…” Mandelson wrote to Maxwell.

In the same exchange, the tone shifted to potential political and business advisory work in the United States, invoking contacts linked to former US Senator George Mitchell.

In the same exchange, Mandelson appears to have gate-crashed a lunch with Epstein, prompting a rebuke relayed through Maxwell: “You spoiled Jeffrey’s lunch. Pete, I have warned you about that before. Behave or you will be punished like the bad boy you are.”

At the time, Mandelson was in exile from political life. It was 2002, and he had already been forced to resign twice from government — first, after taking a loan of 373,000 pounds ($496,700) from fellow minister Geoffrey Robinson to help purchase a house, then after being accused of intervening in a passport application for the businessman Srichand Hinduja.

It was in this vacuum of political hiatus that Mandelson would cultivate his business and personal connections with Epstein.

These early messages set the pattern for what followed: Long, meandering exchanges between Mandelson and Epstein in which sexual innuendo sits alongside business.

By 2003, messages from Mandelson to Epstein were being preserved in a 50th birthday book compiled for Epstein. Several pages show photographs of the two men together, accompanied by handwritten notes in which Mandelson refers to Epstein as his “best pal”.

The book itself was gifted in 2003, but it remained out of public view until its release two decades later, in September last year.

Financial links also surface from this release of files. Bank statements from 2003 and June 2004 appear to show Epstein making several payments, worth $25,000 each, to accounts associated with Mandelson, as reported by the Financial Times.

Other emails also suggest Mandelson desired a life that domestic politics could not afford. Epstein offered Mandelson access to the seemingly limitless excess of the ultra-wealthy. “When are you going to the island at Xmas? I am having trouble getting air tickets to St Barts and was wondering about going via US, NY or Miami,” asked Mandelson in one exchange in 2005.

Epstein’s reply was characteristically transactional. “I can pay for your tickets if needed.” Whether the offer was accepted remains unclear. Another message from Maxwell to Epstein read: “Asked Mandelson how he is getting to the island – he sd I hope JE is sending the chopper…so I take it you want me to give him a ride on the plane”.

The messages suggest that Mandelson was impressed by the allure of Epstein’s island in the Caribbean – and his mansion in New York that he frequented repeatedly, according to the correspondence released by the Justice Department. Pictures that have since shown Mandelson in a dressing gown laughing with Epstein alongside Mountbatten-Windsor, who was then Prince Andrew — he was stripped of his royal titles in late 2025 because of the revelations of his close relationship with Epstein.

Another released photo shows Mandelson in his underwear speaking with an unidentified woman at what was reportedly Epstein’s residence.

In another email in 2002, Mandelson told Maxwell of a cancelled meeting in Paris and then asked her if he could “stay on for a few days to have complete peace”. It is unclear why he was seeking her permission to stay in Paris — and whether Maxwell and Epstein were covering his costs in the French capital.

Then, in 2008, Epstein was arrested on suspicion of soliciting a minor for prostitution. While many of his former contacts have said that they cut off ties with him around this time, the files reveal that Mandelson positioned himself as a kind of informal counsellor, coaching Epstein through the mounting allegations.

“You are fighting back so you need strategy,” he wrote. He pressed repeatedly for updates, for “developments”, and asked whether everything was being handled.

“Hope you are strategising,” he added, in another message.

Upon finding out about the conviction, Mandelson wrote: “I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened … Your friends stay with you and love you.”

‘Special unpaid adviser’

Following Epstein’s conviction, the two did not cut off contact. The files suggest that Mandelson and Epstein were in more regular communication even as the financier was serving a prison sentence for soliciting prostitution with an underage girl.

This rate of emails again intensified in June 2009, when Mandelson was appointed first secretary of state, effectively the second most powerful figure in Gordon Brown’s government. Epstein appeared to take pride in the promotion. In one message, Epstein circulated a Guardian article about Mandelson’s new role to Maxwell and alleged sex trafficker and model scout Jean-Luc Brunel. In another email, he congratulated Epstein for his “comeback” and said his appointment made him “proud”. In another, he broadcast the news to his network of powerful associates, including senior figures at JPMorgan such as Jes Staley, writing to him: “For all intents and purposes Peter Mandelson is now deputy prime minister”.

At times, Epstein seemed to act as an intermediary between Mandelson and Staley – who, according to multiple documents in the Epstein files, is alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman, a claim he denies.

The files suggest Epstein passed messages between Mandelson and senior JPMorgan figures, facilitating introductions and discussions around financial and policy matters. Staley, for instance, asked Epstein to arrange meetings with Mandelson, which appeared to take place in December 2009, February 2010, and a call set up by Epstein in March 2010 – and another call with either Mandelson or then-Chancellor Alistair Darling in January 2010.

The tone of the correspondence oscillated between admiration and calculation. In one exchange, Epstein described Mandelson as “devious” after he lobbied a bank to underwrite a mining project backed by their mutual associate Nat Rothschild, as reported by the Guardian.

Epstein also began offering advice. He suggested Mandelson could leverage his new position, “in charge of all universities”, to establish a prize in “cyberwar artificial general intelligence”, an area in which Epstein himself held business interests. Mandelson’s reply was telling: “You can become my special unpaid adviser.”

Other messages reportedly suggest Mandelson may have tipped Epstein off about sensitive political developments, including Brown’s impending resignation in 2010 and a 500-billion-euro ($580bn) European Union bailout designed to stabilise the Greek debt crisis.

In a separate exchange, days after his appointment as first secretary of state, Mandelson forwarded Epstein a private email sent to Brown containing sensitive market information, including discussions of potential government asset sales, tax policy, and business expectations that the Conservatives would win the next election.

The forwarded “interesting note” was from Nick Butler, a special adviser, outlining “business issues” for the prime minister. Epstein, still in prison at the time, responded with policy advice of his own. The government, he wrote, should consider not only physical assets but “INTELLECTUAL assets, that are not being exploited”, effectively advising a sitting cabinet minister on economic strategy.

‘You are the only person that knows everything about me’

The weekend after this correspondence, Mandelson appeared to have stayed at Epstein’s residence. At the same time, the two continued a close personal relationship. In one exchange, Mandelson told Epstein: “Had a long dream about you last night.”

In another exchange, Epstein appeared to act as a confidant. Mandelson, writing from the Lords frontbench while seemingly engaged in parliamentary business, asked whether Epstein had spoken to a contact.

The correspondence then turned to a figure named Simone. “I am worried about Simone who is totally despairing,” Mandelson wrote. “I am not sure what else to do. Any ideas?”

Epstein advised him to travel to New York: “Yes, you should go to New York for a weekend… I have been consistent on this. Do not lose the opportunity. Coming across people you really enjoy is rare – don’t be lazy, get on a plane.”

“You are the only person who knows everything about me,” Mandelson later responded.

Weeks later, however, Epstein appeared to change his position. He wrote: “I’m rethinking the Simone issue with your new profile. I’m afraid it’s asking for serious trouble. It won’t be kept quiet. Rinalado will go ballistic. Fraught with danger.”

Financial links emerge again shortly after. It is widely reported that in September 2009, Mandelson’s husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, emailed Epstein requesting financial help to cover the costs of an osteopathy course, including fees, equipment and a laptop. Epstein agreed: “I will wire your loan amount immediately.”

A payment of 10,000 pounds ($13,310) followed. When da Silva sought clarification on whether the amount covered his school fees, Epstein confirmed it did. Mandelson, in turn, emailed Epstein with a note of caution: “Remind him that to avoid a gift-tax filing, it must be a loan.”

Days later, da Silva confirmed receipt of the funds: “Thank you for the money which arrived in my account this morning.”

The contact between Mandelson and Epstein did not end there. According to the files, the two remained in communication until 2016, while the UK government’s own due diligence report says the relationship continued until 2019.

In one of their final exchanges, Mandelson’s fascination with power appeared to endure. “By the way, as political practitioner, Donald is phenomenal,” he wrote, referring to US President Donald Trump. “The craft and tenacity are amazing.”

NASA has successfully launched the Artemis II mission, marking the first crewed mission to the moon’s vicinity since the Apollo programme ended in 1972.

The 322-foot Space Launch System (SLS) rocket lifted off at 6:35pm ET (22:35 GMT) on Wednesday from Cape Canaveral, Florida, sending the Orion crew capsule on a 10-day journey.

While Artemis II will not land on the moon, it will fly a “free-return” trajectory that swings around it to prove the spacecraft can sustain a crew on future missions.

The idea is to descend to the surface of the Earth’s only natural satellite again on Artemis IV in 2028.

“We have a beautiful moonrise,” said Reid Wiseman, the NASA astronaut serving as mission commander, about five minutes after the launch. “We’re heading right at it.”

Here is what we know:

What happened?

The Artemis II mission launched successfully from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, sending four astronauts on a historic journey around the moon, the first crewed mission beyond low-Earth orbit in more than 50 years.

The launch followed a tense countdown, as engineers worked through several technical issues. Teams closely monitored the rocket during fuelling due to hydrogen leaks that had delayed the mission in the past, but no major leaks were detected on launch day.

Engineers also resolved last-minute problems involving battery sensors and the rocket’s flight termination system, a critical safety system used to destroy the rocket if it goes off course, before clearing the mission for liftoff.

The 32-storey rocket lifted off in the early evening in front of large crowds gathered near the launch site. The crew are now on a mission that will take them around the moon and back to Earth.

The launch had been planned for as early as February 6, and then March 6, until a hydrogen leak prompted NASA to ‌roll the ⁠rocket back to its vehicle assembly building for scrutiny.

It had earlier been scheduled for November 2024, but NASA announced a delay due to technical investigations, particularly into the Orion’s heat shield.

Who is part of the Artemis II mission?

All three NASA astronauts are veterans of Earth-orbit science expeditions to the International Space Station, while the lone Canadian joining them on a voyage around the moon and back is a spaceflight rookie.

• Reid Wiseman, 50, commander: The NASA veteran and former International Space Station commander is leading the Artemis II mission. A test pilot-turned-astronaut, he has leadership and deep spaceflight experience.
• Victor Glover, 49, pilot: The US Navy aviator is the first Black astronaut assigned to a lunar mission and flew on SpaceX Crew-1.
• Christina Koch, 47, mission specialist: The record holder for the longest single spaceflight by a woman at 328 days is a veteran of multiple spacewalks and has scientific and deep-space mission expertise.
• Jeremy Hansen, 50, mission specialist: The first Canadian set to travel to the moon is a former fighter pilot. His presence represents international collaboration in deep space exploration.

When will the mission reach the moon?

If the mission goes as planned, the capsule is expected to reach the moon on about April 6, the sixth day of the mission.

The crewed Orion capsule will then fly around the moon, reaching its closest point before beginning the journey back to Earth, with splashdown expected on April 10, 2026.

What is the mission plan for the next 10 days?

The Artemis II mission is expected to last about 10 days and follows this general outline:

Days 1-2 high Earth orbit : The crew will spend their first one to two days in high Earth orbit conducting extensive checks on the spacecraft’s systems.

Once those checks are complete, Orion’s propulsion system will perform a “translunar injection”.

A translunar injection is a critical manoeuvre performed by the Orion spacecraft’s propulsion system. Occurring after the crew completes their initial systems checks in high Earth orbit, this manoeuvre propels the spacecraft out of Earth orbit and sets it onto a direct trajectory towards the moon.

Days 3-4 translunar transit: As they transit to the moon over the next several days, the astronauts will continue monitoring Orion’s systems.

The spacecraft will then pass behind the moon on a “free-return” trajectory, a strategic path that naturally swings the capsule back towards Earth without requiring any additional propulsion.

Day 5 lunar sphere of influence: Orion enters the moon’s gravitational pull, which becomes stronger than Earth’s.

The astronauts will spend the first several hours of the day testing their spacesuits, including practising how quickly they can put them on, pressurising them and strapping into their seats.

Day 6 lunar flyby: This is the day the crew fly by the moon.

The spacecraft reaches its closest approach, approximately 4,000-6,000 miles (6,450-9,650km) above the lunar surface.

Day 7-9 Return journey: Following the flyby, Orion remains on its free-return trajectory. The crew conducts deep-space science, including medical monitoring through programmes like ARCHER.

Day 10 Re-entry and splashdown: Orion separates from the service module and re-enters Earth’s atmosphere at roughly 25,000mph (40,230km/h). The mission concludes with a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.

What’s NASA’s next mission?

Artemis III is the next mission and is currently planned for 2027.

It will involve the Orion spacecraft docking in Earth orbit with at least one of NASA’s lunar landers, either Blue Origin’s Blue Moon system or SpaceX’s Starship.

The docking manoeuvre is intended to demonstrate how the landers will collect astronauts in orbit before transporting them to the moon’s surface.

WASHINGTON — In his first formal address to the nation since launching a war on Iran more than a month ago, President Trump on Wednesday night repeated a familiar list of claimed successes — and brushed aside setbacks — while providing little clarity on a clear path to ending the conflict.

“We are going to finish the job, and we’re going to finish it very fast. We are getting very close,” the president said from the White House.

Trump said Iran is “no longer a threat,” yet spoke of potentially needing to escalate the conflict and increase bombings on Iran’s energy and oil infrastructure if it continues to fight back.

“If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants, very hard and probably simultaneously,” he said. “We have not hit their oil, even though that’s the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it, and it would be gone, and there’s not a thing they could do about it.”

Trump earlier this week said he expects to pull American forces from Iran within three weeks, and emphasized that the United States does not have to be in the Middle East but that it is only there to “help our allies.”

In his speech, Trump did not lay out a specific timeline for an exit strategy, but said the the U.S. is “on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly.”

“We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong,” he said. “In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.”

He also repeated his assertions, made for weeks, that the U.S. has basically already defeated Iran and won the war, which he characterized as a “decisive, overwhelming victory.”

He also stressed that it is “very important that we keep this conflict in perspective,” before listing out — by month and day — the length of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

Prior to Wednesday night’s formal address, Trump had only spoken of the war — which U.S. and Israel launched against Iran on Feb. 28 — in less formal settings, during media gatherings and other public events.

The speech was a key messaging moment for the president, who, 33 days into the war, has struggled to clearly explain the scope and objectives of a conflict that has killed thousands of people in Iran and neighboring countries and disrupted global markets.

Trump repeatedly insisted that the U.S. is doing great, is “in great shape for the future,” and doesn’t need the oil that Iran has put a stranglehold on in the Strait of Hormuz, ignoring the clear effects of the war and those disruptions on the U.S., including on gas prices.

Those effects are already contributing to fractures within Trump’s base. Some have expressed frustration with the administration’s decision to enter a new conflict in the Middle East, concerns that could become a political liability for Republicans ahead of the high-stakes midterm elections in November.

In his remarks, Trump appeared to be speaking to those who have criticized him for deviating from his campaign promises by entering the war, saying he had promised to never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon “from the very first day” he announced his first presidential campaign in 2015.

Trump has repeatedly downplayed the economic pressure the war has placed on Americans, including rising gas prices, arguing that the short-term financial strain is necessary for national security. He has also promised that gas prices will “come tumbling down” when the conflict ends.

“Gas prices will rapidly come back down,” Trump repeated on Wednesday. “Stock prices will rapidly go back up. They haven’t come down very much. Frankly, they came down a little bit, but they’ve had some very good days.”

Trump appeared less energetic during his evening speech than during some of his previous daytime events, where he has consistently maintained an upbeat tone about the war, while offering inconsistent accounts of what his administration aimed to achieve, or how long and what it would take to meet those objectives.

Those inconsistencies were evident even hours ahead of the address. In an interview with Reuters, he said he was not concerned about the enriched uranium held by Tehran — a statement that appeared to undercut a central justification for the war.

“That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. military will be “watching it by satellite.”

In public remarks ahead of the address, Trump said the war was launched to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but also that the U.S. had completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities months prior, in separate attacks over the summer. He also said he was worried about Iran’s enriched uranium, wanted the U.S. to take it, and would even consider sending U.S. forces inside Iran to collect it.

There have also been mixed messages about the U.S.’s intentions for Iran’s leadership since Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed at the start of the conflict, leaving a leadership vacuum that was filled by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, a 56-year-old hard-line cleric who Trump initially called an “unacceptable choice.”

As Iran’s clerical rulers maintained a firm grip on the country, Trump administration officials, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, argued that U.S. war objectives had “nothing to do” with Iran’s leadership. But Trump in recent days has repeatedly talked about how “regime change” was achieved.

On Wednesday, Trump said a deal remained within reach with Iran’s new leaders, who he called “less radical and much more reasonable.”

Hours before Trump was to deliver his speech, Rubio posted a video which he began by saying, “Many Americans are asking, ‘Why did the United States have to attack Iran now?’” — an apparent acknowledgment that Trump’s own answers to that question in recent days may have failed to resonate.

Rubio also pushed another rationale for the war that the administration has floated on and off for the past month — saying Iran was building up an arsenal of missiles and drones to shield its nuclear ambitions, and that the war was the “last best chance” for the U.S. to eliminate those weapons capabilities before it was too late.

“We were on the verge of an Iran that had so many missiles and so many drones that nobody could do anything about their nuclear weapons program in the future,” Rubio said. “That was an intolerable risk.”

Others also tried to frame the war narrative Wednesday.

Prior to Trump’s speech, Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a public letter denouncing what he described as “a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives” from the U.S., and arguing Iran is not a threat and has only ever defended itself against U.S. aggression.

He called on the American people to “look beyond the machinery of misinformation” from the Trump administration and reach their own conclusions about the war and its purpose, at one point echoing a question also being asked by some in Trump’s base: “Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?”

He noted Iran was in the midst of nuclear negotiations with the U.S. when the U.S. attacked it “as a proxy for Israel,” and accused U.S. leaders of committing a “war crime” by targeting Iran’s energy and industrial facilities.

“Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war?” he asked.

Iran denies seeking a truce and keeps up counterattacks, as US-Israeli raids cause deaths and damage across the country.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The mission is a major step in NASA’s plan to return humans to the moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars.

The Artemis II space mission has blasted off from the US state of Florida, sending four astronauts on a historic journey around the moon and marking the first time humans have travelled beyond low-Earth orbit in more than 50 years.

The mission, which launched on Wednesday, is a major step in the US space agency NASA’s plan to return humans to the moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars.

The 32-story rocket rose from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center where tens of thousands gathered to witness the lift-off.

The Artemis II crew – NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover and Christina Koch, and Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen – are set for a nearly 10-day journey around the moon and back, taking them farther into space than humans have travelled in decades.

“On this historic mission, you take with you the heart of this Artemis team, the daring spirit of the American people and our partners across the globe, and the hopes and dreams of a new generation,” said Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, the launch director. “Good luck, Godspeed Artemis II. Let’s go.”

Five minutes into the flight, Wiseman, the commander, saw the team’s target: “We have a beautiful moonrise, we’re headed right at it,” he said from the capsule.

A senior Iranian official has laughed in response to US President Donald Trump’s claim that Iran’s president has asked for a ceasefire, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem says Trump’s comments come a day after Iran’s foreign minister said his country was not looking for a ceasefire.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court, inserting himself directly into a high-stakes legal battle over one of the most consequential orders of his administration.

Trump arrived at the court Wednesday morning by limousine for arguments over whether the president has the authority to effectively rewrite the Constitution by ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily.

In the run-up to Wednesday’s arguments, Trump suggested that Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans who have ruled against his agenda are “so stupid.”

“Some people would call it stupidity; some people will call it disloyal,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

“Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!” the president wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The unprecedented appearance highlights how high Trump believes the stakes are, according to Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA.

“It’s not clear why Trump is attending,” Winkler said. “Maybe he is just interested in the unusual drama of a Supreme Court argument. Or perhaps he is trying to intimidate the justices, like the scene in ‘The Godfather Part II’ where the mob boss shows up at a hearing to scare the witness into recanting his testimony.”

Regardless, Trump’s presence probably won’t change any minds on the bench, Winkler said.

The justices prize their independence, including many who share Trump’s judicial philosophy. Still, it will likely change the mood, Winkler said — most hearings are quiet and academic.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is a keystone of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown.

Trump has framed the policy as a necessary step to curb what he describes as abuse of the immigration system.

“Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”

Every lower court that has considered the issue has found the order illegal and prevented it from taking effect. A definitive ruling by the nation’s highest court is expected by early summer.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

One nation that’s hoping to gain from the United States-Israel war on Iran is Russia, the world’s third largest oil producer. Higher crude prices due to the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz have allowed Russia to earn more from its oil and gas exports. A sanctions waiver announced by the US is also helping Moscow.
But its revised budget plans are at risk after repeated Ukrainian attacks on its ports and oil refineries. Russia has banned petrol exports to protect against domestic fuel shortages. So can Russia help fill the global energy gap, or is its capacity already under threat?

LONDON — President Trump has said he is strongly considering pulling the U.S. out of NATO, ratcheting up his criticism of European allies and exposing a wider rift in the transatlantic alliance — this time over America’s war alongside Israel against Iran.

While Trump’s talk of a possible NATO pullout dates back years, the comments to Britain’s Telegraph newspaper, published Wednesday, were among the clearest and most disparaging yet — suggesting the fracture has deepened perhaps to a point of no return.

Asked whether he would reconsider U.S. membership in the alliance after the war on Iran ends, Trump replied: “Oh yes, I would say (it’s) beyond reconsideration.”

Contacted by The Associated Press, NATO did not provide an immediate comment.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, asked about the comment, said Britain was “fully committed to NATO” and called it “the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.”

Many European leaders have felt political pressure over the war, which faces opposition in their countries and has sent petroleum prices soaring as Iran has effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil passes.

“Whatever the pressure on me and others, whatever the noise, I am going to act in the British national interest in all the decisions I make,” Starmer said Wednesday.

Long-simmering tensions within the alliance have bubbled up again over the war. As energy prices have spiked, Trump has been desperate to get countries to send their ships to the Strait. He’s called his NATO allies “cowards,” pulling at any rhetorical lever he can to get help with the fallout of a war that no ally was consulted on or asked to take part in.

For years, Trump has berated America’s European allies, urging them to assume greater responsibility for their own security and spend more on defense. He has argued that the U.S. has done more for them than the other way around.

A U.S. pullout would essentially spell the end of NATO, which flourished for decades under American leadership.

On Truth Social on Tuesday, Trump lashed out at countries “like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran,” and suggested they buy U.S. oil or go to the Strait of Hormuz themselves “and just take it.”

He also wants allies to help fix damage from the war that they had no part in starting.

The U.K. is working on plans that could help assuage Trump.

On Thursday, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper will host a virtual meeting of 35 countries that have signed up to help ensure security for shipping in the Strait after the war. Starmer said military planners will also work on a postwar security plan for the strait.

The backdrop: NATO not on board to join U.S. in war

NATO is built on Article 5 of its founding treaty, which pledges that an attack on any one member will be met with a response from them all.

As the Iran war has spread, missiles and drones have been fired toward NATO member Turkey and a British military base on Cyprus, fueling speculation about what might prompt NATO to trigger its collective security guarantee and come to their rescue.

The alliance has not intervened or signaled any plan to. Secretary-General Mark Rutte — who has voiced support for Trump and America’s role in the alliance — has been focusing mostly on Russia’s war against Ukraine, which borders four NATO countries.

NATO operates uniquely by consensus. All 32 countries must agree for it to take decisions, so political priorities play a role. Even invoking Article 5 requires agreement among the allies. Turkey or the U.K. cannot trigger it alone.

In the Mideast war, Trump has bristled at the across-the-board rejection from European and other allies, and even rival China, to help secure the Strait of Hormuz.

Many European Union and NATO member country leaders have fumed since the war’s outset on Feb. 28 because they weren’t informed ahead of time, seen as a break with precedent.

Trump insisted he needed the element of surprise, and he spoke out about possible military action and visibly built up U.S. forces in the region in the run-up to the war.

Rising voices, and tougher action, from Europe over the Mideast war

European leaders have called for the war to stop and want the United States and Iran to return to negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, which America and Israel see as a threat.

The vocal opposition in Europe to Trump’s war against Iran has started to turn into action.

Spain — the most vocal critic in Europe — on Monday said it closed its airspace to U.S. planes involved in the Iran war.

Early last month, France agreed to let the U.S. Air Force use a base in southern France after receiving a “full guarantee” from the United States that planes not involved in carrying out strikes against Iran would land there.

Other countries have spoken out against it: Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s largely ceremonial president, last week called the aggression against Iran a “dangerous mistake” in violation of international law.

U.S. relations with Europe had already soured in recent months over Trump’s call for Greenland — a semiautonomous territory of stalwart NATO ally Denmark — to become part of the United States, prompting many EU countries to rally behind Copenhagen.

Lawless and Keaten write for the Associated Press. Keaten reported from Geneva. AP writer Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear President Trump’s claim that he has the power to revise the Constitution and to end birthright citizenship for babies born in this country to parents who were here unlawfully or temporarily.

Trump proposed this potentially far-reaching change in an executive order. It has been blocked by judges across the country and has never been in effect.

His lawyers contend they seek to correct a 160-year misunderstanding about the Constitution’s promise that “all persons born” in this country are deemed to be citizens.

The president’s executive order “restores the original meaning of the citizenship clause” and would deny “on a prospective basis only” citizenship to the “children of temporarily present aliens and illegal aliens,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal.

But the first hurdle for Trump and his lawyers may concern the powers of the president.

In February, the court blocked Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs on the grounds the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to impose import taxes.

By comparison, the president has even less power to set the rules for U.S. citizenship. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

After the Civil War, Congress adopted a civil rights act in 1866 that said “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, including Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States … of every race and color.”

To make sure that rule stood over time, it was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. Its opening line says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In 1898, a conservative Supreme Court upheld that rule and affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

In 1952, when Congress revised the immigration laws, it added the same provision without controversy. Lawmakers set multiple rules for deciding disputes over American parents who live abroad, but the first rule was simple and undisputed.

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the law said.

Critics say Trump’s plan could replace a clear and simple rule with a confusing and complicated one. States would have to look into the history and legal status of a newborn’s parents to decide whether they met the new qualifications.

Until now, a valid birth certificate had been sufficient to establish a person’s U.S. citizenship.

Last week, Trump was urging Senate Republicans to pass a new election law that would require millions of Americans to present a birth certificate as proof of their citizenship if they register to vote or move to a new state.

“Proving citizenship to vote is a no brainer,” the White House said.

This week, however, Trump’s lawyers are urging the court to rule that their birth in this country is not proof of their citizenship.

There is a “logical inconsistency” here,” said Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center.

In the legal battle now before the court, the key disputed phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction.” That has been understood to mean that people within the United States are subject to the laws here, except for foreign diplomats and, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

But Sauer contends it excludes newborns who are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction” because their parents are in this country unlawfully.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union called this a “radical rewriting” of the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about the parents of a newborn child.

If upheld, this order could apply to “tens of thousands of children born every month, “ they said, “devastating families around the country.” But worse yet, they said, the outcome “would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.”

Some legal experts predict the court may rule narrowly and reject Trump’s executive order because it conflicts with federal immigration laws. Such a ruling would be a defeat for Trump, but it could allow Congress in the future to adopt new provisions, including a limit for expectant mothers who enter this country to give birth.

Former US Senior State Department official Jennifer Gavito argues why US attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities may be a sign that the war is coming to an end.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi tells Talk to Al Jazeera that Iran is not negotiating with the United States, despite ongoing exchanges of messages, including direct communication from US envoy Steve Witkoff.

Araghchi says talks lack trust, adding that no response has been given to US proposals, and that there is no basis for negotiations. Araghchi outlines Iran’s conditions for ending the war, warns against threats and deadlines, and signals a readiness to continue defending the country as regional tensions escalate.

MEGAN Thee Stallion has been rushed to hospital after suddenly falling “very ill” during a performance of Moulin Rouge on Broadway.

The 31-year-old rap star managed to get through the opening scenes of the hit musical in New York before the show had to be halted so she could get treatment.

Megan, who plays Zidler in the beloved Broadway production, was quickly taken to hospital and is still undergoing an evaluation, it is believed.

A representative of the Savage rapper told TMZ: “During Tuesday night’s production, Megan started feeling very ill and was promptly transported to a local hospital, where her symptoms are currently being evaluated.”

There is yet to be any further update on her condition.

Megan’s personal hairstylist and close friend Kellon Deryck has come out since to ask fans to say “a prayer” for the rapper.

MEG-A SEXY

Megan Thee Stallion suffers wardrobe malfunction in completely see-through dress

Megan is due to appear in Moulin Rouge! The Musical until May 17 at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre.

Her casting as Zidler marks a history making moment for the star as she becomes the first female-identifying performer to play the role in any production of Moulin Rouge worldwide.

Concerned audience members said they were told to “stay inside and seated” while medics assessed Megan off stage.

After she left the theatre, the show continued as a male performer took on the role of Zidler.

Megan’s first show came on March 24 where she was congratulated for putting on an impressive act in New York City.

Earlier this year, the Hot Girl Summer artist spoke about how big of an honor it is to be able to perform on Broadway.

She released a statement when she was announced for the musical saying: “Stepping onto the Broadway stage and joining the Moulin Rouge! The Musical team is an absolute honor.

“I’ve always believed in pushing myself creatively and theatre is definitely a new opportunity that I’m excited to embrace.

“Broadway demands a different level of discipline, preparation, and storytelling, but I’m up for the challenge and can’t wait for the Hotties to see a new side of me.”