united states

The United States House ⁠of Representatives has blocked an attempt to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in a surprise reprieve for President Donald Trump’s administration as Republicans reel from their midterm election defeat.

The impeachment articles were introduced by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, but the effort was backed primarily by Democrats. They accuse Hegseth of abuses of power and conducting illegal military operations.

The Republican-led House voted 211-204 on Tuesday to refer the articles back to the House Judiciary Committee, where they could remain indefinitely. The procedural move in effect killed the impeachment drive for the duration of the current Congress’s term, which ends in eight weeks. On January 3, Democrats will take control of the House and Senate.

In a twist, the absence of 11 Democratic lawmakers during the vote proved decisive.

Here’s what to know about the vote to block Hegseth’s impeachment and what could happen next:

What was Tuesday’s vote about?

The vote was not on whether to impeach Hegseth. It was on whether to refer the articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, where they may be further investigated or amended.

Such procedural moves are often used as stalling tactics. With the current Congress due to conclude soon, the resolution is unlikely to return to the House floor before its term ends.

Massie called the vote “a procedural motion to kill the resolution”.

What was the result of the vote?

It narrowly passed 211-204.

Massie was the sole Republican to oppose the measure. The remaining votes fell along party lines with Republicans supporting the measure and Democrats opposing it.

Eighteen representatives were absent from the vote – 11 Democrats and seven Republicans. Had the Democrats shown up and voted with their colleagues, they would have had the numbers to defeat the procedural move, forcing a full House vote on whether to impeach Hegseth as early as this week.

Trump cheered the result of Tuesday’s vote in a social media post, saying the Democrats’ impeachment effort had “miserably FAILED!”

Who were the 11 absent Democrats, and why did they miss the vote?

The Democrats absent from the vote were:

• Julia Brownley (California)
• Lou Correa (California)
• Nancy Pelosi (California)
• Laura Gillen (New York)
• Steven Horsford (Nevada)
• Jonathan Jackson (Illinois)
• Brittany Pettersen (Colorado)
• Melanie Stansbury (New Mexico)
• Haley Stevens (Michigan)
• Marilyn Strickland (Washington)
• Frederica Wilson (Florida)

The representatives have given varying explanations for why they did not show up.

Strickland, Jackson, Stansbury and Gillen all blamed a traffic delay in Washington, DC.

Pelosi said she was in her home state for a veterans event while Correa said he was in California before undergoing a health procedure. Horsford’s office cited a personal emergency.

Pettersen, who said she helped introduce articles of impeachment against Hegseth in April, said she had been “denied the ability to vote on this motion” without elaborating.

Jackson, Stansbury, Gillen, Strickland, Horsford, Pelosi and Pettersen all said they would have joined their Democratic colleagues in opposing the measure. Jackson and Stansbury also said they had formally recorded their opposition in the Congressional Record although this does not change the official vote count.

There was no immediate comment from Stevens, Brownley or Wilson on their absences.

Stevens previously criticised the Trump administration for launching the war on Iran with Israel and sought more congressional oversight. But days before the US midterm elections on November 3, the Michigan congresswoman, who had lost the Democratic primary for the state’s open Senate seat earlier to Abdul El-Sayed, endorsed Republican candidate Mike Rogers against her own party’s nominee.

Wilson, 83, on Monday attended the groundbreaking for a housing project in Miami-Dade County. Wilson and Brownley, like Stevens, previously opposed Trump’s handling of the war on Iran and demanded the administration seek congressional approval for the fighting.

What has been the reaction?

Democratic politicians and progressive commentators have expressed outrage that poor attendance from Democrats impacted the outcome of the vote.

Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove from California said: “We knew that this vote was coming, so people should have gotten their raggedy selves up these steps to vote.”

“There is no reason why we should have lost this vote because of attendance issues,” she added.

Senator-elect El-Sayed, responding to a question about the absent Democrats, said: “You should show up and do your job.”

Some pundits pointed the finger at Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is expected to become the new speaker of the House in January. They accused him of failing to exert sufficient pressure on party members to defeat the measure.

Political commentator Krystal Ball called the vote “a major Hakeem Jeffries fail”.

“You could have impeached the war criminal Pete Hegseth but Dems didn’t show up to vote,” she said.

Progressive writer Laura Bassett said: “Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote. He told people to ‘vote their conscience’, and 11 members of his caucus didn’t show up. This is why people want a stronger leader.”

Could Hegseth still be impeached?

Yes. When the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January, they could begin the process again and will be in a stronger position to advance impeachment articles.

Jeffries has said he will consult members about another potential bid to impeach Hegseth next year. “We’ll have that conversation at the appropriate time,” he said.

However, a vote to impeach Hegseth does not necessarily mean he will be removed from office. Impeachment itself means the House has formally brought charges against a federal official, similar to a criminal indictment.

A successful impeachment vote triggers a trial in Congress’s upper chamber, the Senate, on whether to convict.

A conviction, which immediately removes the official from office, requires at least two-thirds support in the Senate. That means Democrats, even with their incoming majority in the chamber next year, would likely need about a dozen Republicans to join them to secure Hegseth’s removal.

Only eight officials – all federal judges – have ever been convicted by the Senate. Trump has been impeached twice – in December ⁠2019 and January 2021 – but the Senate acquitted him on both occasions.

A Chinese defence-linked university bought two H200 chips last month, as scrutiny grows over Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s affair with an alleged spy for Beijing.

A Chinese university with ties to the army bought Nvidia’s powerful H200 AI chips last month despite being on a US export blacklist.

Northwestern Polytechnical University, a member of China’s “Seven Sons of National Defense” group of elite defence-focused universities, bought two H200 chips last month for 874,700 yuan ($123,000), according to an October 21 procurement record on its website, the Reuters news agency reports.

The chips were bought for its management school from Shaanxi Bosuan Network Technology rather than directly from Nvidia, the record showed.

The Reuters investigation comes as Nvidia and its CEO Jensen Huang face mounting scrutiny in Washington, DC, over his lobbying for looser ⁠⁠restrictions on sales of AI chips to China, following reports alleging he was targeted by a Chinese spying operation.

The H200 is among Nvidia’s most capable chips for training and running advanced AI systems and is subject to US export licence approvals, which are normally denied for blacklisted institutions such as Northwestern Polytechnical.

Northwestern Polytechnical also bought access this year to H200 ‌‌chips and other powerful Nvidia AI processors through five contracts for rented computing capacity from Chinese companies, procurement records show.

Nvidia CEO Huang has argued that continued US sales to China would preserve US technological leadership and keep Chinese customers reliant on its technology.

However, some US lawmakers say access to Nvidia’s most powerful AI chips can speed China’s development of AI systems for weapons design, intelligence analysis and military modernisation.

US blacklist

Based in the northwestern city of Xi’an, Northwestern Polytechnical conducts research related to military aircraft, missiles and satellites.

Washington’s Department of Commerce added the university to its trade blacklist, known as the Entity List, in 2001 over the institute’s alleged involvement in missile-proliferation activities, and its military research. Washington tightened the restrictions in 2019, making licences for exporting controlled US technology to the university subject to a policy of denial in most circumstances.

Northwestern Polytechnical’s purchases show how Chinese institutions with military ties continue to obtain US AI computing power through domestic suppliers, either by buying chips outright or renting access to servers containing them.

A Reuters review of 26 Chinese procurement and corporate records from this year found universities and research institutions buying US-restricted Nvidia chips or renting access to Nvidia-powered computing services ⁠⁠that use such chips through domestic suppliers.

Several had close links to China’s defence industry or military research.

US President Donald Trump’s administration began allowing some H200 exports to China on a case-by-case basis in January. But that policy did not lift the separate restrictions applying to Entity List organisations such as Northwestern Polytechnical.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the US Congress have urged stronger controls on China’s access to advanced AI ⁠⁠chips, such as chip-tracking requirements, and greater congressional oversight of exports.

The Huang affair

This comes at a time of increased pressure on Nvidia’s Huang. Republican US Senator Kevin Cramer from the Senate Banking Committee called on Huang to step down as CEO after his intimate relationship with Alice Huang, accused of working for Chinese intelligence, plunged the company into crisis.

“The potential for extortion is so tremendous that something as sensitive as Nvidia chips, I ⁠⁠just think he’s got to go,” Cramer told Politico late on Tuesday.

Three Republican congressional committee chairmen have requested a briefing with Huang on November 18 over his reported contacts with the alleged Chinese intelligence operative.

Jensen Huang – who cofounded Nvidia, the world’s second-most valuable company after Apple, more than three decades ago – admitted on Sunday to being unfaithful to his wife, but the company said it has no reason to believe US national security or confidential information has been compromised.

Nvidia’s board announced an independent investigation on Sunday into whether the 63-year-old Taiwan-US dual national had been targeted by a foreign intelligence operation after media reports linking him to Alice Huang, a former executive at a Singapore-based data centre company.

Kennedy dynasty has filed a motion to stop Trump’s arch from obscuring JFK Eternal Flame and slain family gravesites.

Members of the prominent Kennedy family have filed a legal motion to halt the construction of US President Donald Trump’s 76-metre (250ft) “triumphal arch” in Washington, DC, arguing it mars the area near the graves of the family’s famous forebears.

On Tuesday, the nine plaintiffs, children and grandchildren of former Senators Robert F Kennedy and Edward M Kennedy, filed a motion to intervene and an accompanying complaint in two existing federal lawsuits to block the arch’s construction.

The project would sit near the final resting places of the late senators, buried alongside their brother, former President John F Kennedy, and the Eternal Flame commemorating him at Arlington National Cemetery.

Plaintiffs argued the proposed arch would “fundamentally alter the experience of visiting the gravesites”, a site that draws millions of visitors each year.

The intervention motion was filed by veteran Washington lawyer Norm Eisen and Democracy Defenders Fund, a centre-left legal advocacy group.

It contends that the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior authorised the granite, gold-ornamented structure, dubbed the “Arc de Trump” by critics, without required congressional approval.

The plaintiffs also argue the megastructure would destroy the intentionally designed, century-old line of sight between the Lincoln Memorial and the cemetery’s Arlington House across the Memorial Bridge.

Many plaintiffs

The high-profile intervention adds to an already sprawling roster of plaintiffs who have launched legal challenges against the polarising monument, including Vietnam War veterans, a historian, and the governments of the District of Columbia, Virginia and Arlington County.

Last week, District Judge Tanya Chutkan prohibited the Trump administration from breaking ground on the structure for another 14 days following the string of lawsuits.

Building the arch would be a “permanent denigration” of the gravesites, and the Kennedy offspring “would never again be able to appreciate both sites as they always have before, and as the Kennedy family always intended”, lawyers for the relatives wrote on Tuesday.

The project is just one component of the president’s effort to remodel much of Washington, DC, alongside a historic golf course renovation and threats to demolish the Kennedy Center.

But with Democrats seizing control of Congress in last week’s midterm elections, the overhauls may be set for heightened scrutiny.

Speaking on behalf of the Kennedy family, Rory and Maxwell Kennedy, children of the late senator Robert F Kennedy, said the action is about “protecting sacred spaces that belong to the American people”. They said several members of their slain family are “among the more than 400,000 veterans and family members buried or honored on this hallowed ground”.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a Trump appointee who is estranged from much of his family,  did not join the litigation.

The men, including one who is already in prison, face ‘terrorism’ charges over alleged plot at UK air base used in US war on Iran.

Prosecutors in the United States have charged three men they describe as Iranian-backed operatives over their alleged role in nearly 20 attacks and attempted attacks across the US and Europe, including a plot targeting the United Kingdom’s Fairford air base.

The Department of Justice said on Tuesday that the three men acted in support of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah.

It identified the men as Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood al-Saadi, Mohsen Mohajeri and Mohammad Ali al-Hassani, who face what it called “terrorism-related offenses”.

Al-Saadi is already in jail in New York. Prosecutors did not disclose the whereabouts of Mohajeri and al-Hassani.

The charges announced on Tuesday centre on RAF Fairford in southwest England, where US forces and bombers had been stationed. The US had used the base to deploy bombers in its war against Iran.

Police were called to the Fairford site in September after a local farmer reported seeing a group of men with several white vans engaged in “suspicious” activity.

Six men were arrested in connection with the episode, and all were released on bail. Two were subsequently re-arrested on suspicion of assisting Iran’s intelligence service and charged under the National Security Act.

Iran has strongly denied any involvement in the incident.

Days after the incident, the US withdrew all of its B-1 bombers from Fairford.

A US charging document said that al-Hassani, a 35-year-old Iraqi national, directed others to drive to the base in the vans, some of which carried barrels of fuel. Prosecutors say he had earlier paid the group to buy metal objects that could serve as shrapnel and to disguise the vans as fuel delivery vehicles.

Prosecutors said al-Saadi, 32, who holds Iranian and Iraqi citizenship, passed coded messages to al-Hassani and Mohajeri, a 48-year-old Iranian, to coordinate the plot.

Al-Saadi did so, they said, in phone calls to his mother and sister in Iraq, using coded language.

“These defendants helped orchestrate a campaign of terror on behalf of terrorist organizations affiliated with Iran that targeted Jewish communities in Europe and the United States, and the British military base, RAF Fairford, housing American service members,” said Manhattan US Attorney Jamie McDonald.

“The threat presented by Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups to America and our allies is not hypothetical – it is very real.”

There was no immediate comment from Iran on the charges.

US authorities first detailed the charges against al-Saadi in May, accusing him of directing others to attack US, Israeli and Jewish targets and to kill Americans, in retaliation for the US-Israel war on Iran.

Those attacks included the nonfatal stabbing of two Jewish men in London in April and arson attacks on synagogues, Israeli businesses and Jewish schools elsewhere in Europe.

Al-Saadi has been in US custody since May.

In June, he pleaded not guilty to those charges and called himself a “prisoner of war”. He has been held without bail since his arrest.

The indictment on Tuesday added his alleged role in the Fairford plot and charges the other two men.

Flight-tracking data showed on Tuesday that the US military had removed at least a dozen aircraft from a second UK airbase, RAF Mildenhall, following what the Wall Street Journal said was a threat from Iran.

Announcement follows Trump administration crackdown on visa programs for skilled foreign workers.

United States technology giant IBM has said it will stop sponsoring US foreign worker visas and green cards for most roles in its largest division.

A company spokesperson told Reuters on Tuesday that its consultancy unit had opted to end sponsorship for most roles.

The company said its participation in US high-skilled visa programmes had been declining for years, adding that the decision came “as skill availability and client needs have evolved”.

IBM Consulting employs more than 150,000 of IBM’s 264,300-strong global workforce.

IBM has become less reliant on so-called H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers in recent years. Only 1,611 H-1B petitions were approved for the company in fiscal year 2026, according to data from US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration has increased pressure on major companies to cut down on their highly skilled foreign workforce in the US. US President Donald Trump has claimed the programme is often subject to fraud and takes work away from skilled Americans and gives it to immigrants.

Last year, the administration announced it would require a one-time $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions.

The administration said in October it was suspending a number of tech companies from a programme that allows H-1B workers to apply for green cards, saying it was cracking down on fraud and ensuring American workers were not being laid off and replaced by foreigners.

The suspended companies included Adobe and top H-1B employers Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Microsoft.

The suspensions were announced within hours of Trump honouring Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella with the National Medal of Technology and Innovation.

India-born Nadella was one of six business leaders honoured by Trump. Five were foreign-born US citizens, including Tesla boss Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who immigrated from Russia with his family as a child.

Trump administration awarded more than $60m each to St Louis, Missouri, and Jackson, Mississippi, in crime push.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has said that it will award the cities of St Louis, Missouri, and Jackson, Mississippi, more than $60m each to expand law enforcement resources as part of a bid to combat violent crime.

The White House stated in a social media post on Tuesday that the so-called “Model Cities Initiative” would help the municipalities increase their capacity for prosecutions and policing activities.

“The Model Cities Initiative reflects the Trump Administration’s commitment to reducing crime across the country and ensuring the safety of every American,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a press release describing the programme last month.

The initiative has said that it will distribute nearly $300m for such efforts among the cities of St Louis and Jackson, along with Jacksonville, Florida, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The Trump administration has promoted a largely punitive approach to combatting crime in cities across the country, including controversial steps such as the deployment of the National Guard to large, Democrat-led cities that have drawn accusations of executive overreach, civil liberties violations and political intimidation.

While Trump and his supporters have credited their policies with a drop in violent crime, that trend predates his return to office and has taken place in cities with a wide variety of approaches towards criminal justice across the country.

Homicides in St Louis, for example, have been falling for several years after a brief surge during the COVID-19 pandemic, and hit their lowest levels in more than a decade during the first half of 2026.

While Democratic officials have denounced Trump’s crackdowns, some Republican-led states have embraced them.

The government deployed members of several federal agencies to the city of Memphis, Tennessee, governed by Democrats at the local level but located in a Republican-led state.

The Trump administration has touted that effort as an inspiration for the Model Cities Initiative along with other cases, such as Washington, DC.

The government has hailed the Memphis deployment as a success, but some residents and civil liberties groups have accused the task force of widespread civil rights violations and excessive force.

A video released earlier this month as part of an investigation into a shooting by a member of the Tennessee National Guard, deployed in Memphis as part of Trump’s task force, showed the soldiers aiming their guns at a man as he lay dying on the street after being shot in the back.

The midterms are over, and Democrats have scored a decisive victory, exceeding even their most optimistic expectations. But does this result signal a country turning blue – or a country simply fed up with the status quo? And how much of this was a rejection of a system, rather than an endorsement of the Democratic Party?

Josh Rushing is joined by Emma Vigeland, cohost of The Majority Report, and Olivia Troye, who served as a national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, to unpack the results and what they reveal about the state of American politics.

Contributors:
Emma Vigeland – Cohost, The Majority Report
Olivia Troye – Former national security adviser to Mike Pence

A new poll shows that the majority of Americans want the Democrats in Congress this January to deliver an end to the war in Iran, reverse US President Donald Trump’s trade policies, and bring down the high cost of living.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Tuesday found that 71 percent of Americans supported Congress passing legislation to end the war with Iran, including 93 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Republicans. About 62 percent backed repealing Trump’s import tariffs, while nine in 10 respondents said Congress should focus on the cost of living during its first 100 days.

The war with Iran and Trump’s tariffs have both contributed to economic pressures, linking voters’ concerns about living costs to the administration’s foreign and trade policies.

Americans also expect some degree of cooperation between the White House and the incoming Congress. Large majorities of respondents from both parties said it was important for Trump to work with Democrats, and for Democratic leaders to try to work with the president.

Political retaliation against the Trump administration is a lower priority. Forty-two percent said it would be bad for the country if the new Congress tried to impeach Trump, compared with 33 percent who thought it would be good.

Democrats will have between 54 and 56 Senate seats next year, depending on results from uncalled races in Mississippi and Alaska. But delivering on voter priorities could still be difficult. Most bills need 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster, and Trump can veto legislation that passes both chambers.

Repealing tariffs or reversing other administration policies would therefore require either sufficient Republican support or a willingness to confront the president politically.

Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Denver, said voters are motivated by opposition to the Trump administration on several fronts, including the economy, the war, corruption and immigration enforcement.

“They want to see Democrats working to fix these things. And also to some extent, to hold the Trump administration accountable,” Masket told Al Jazeera.

A fight over who leads the Democrats

The pressure to deliver on those priorities is unfolding alongside a growing dispute over who should lead the Democratic Party.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll did not measure public support for individual congressional leaders. It did, however, find that the Democratic Party itself remains unpopular, with 45 percent of respondents viewing it favourably and 51 percent unfavourably.

Hakeem Jeffries is widely expected to become speaker of the House, despite calls for an alternative. No challenger has publicly emerged, but a Change.org petition urging Democrats to reject his leadership has attracted more than one million signatures. House Democrats are due to hold leadership elections on November 18 and 19.

The Senate contest is less settled. Chuck Schumer, who has led Senate Democrats since 2017, faces calls to step aside. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen has said Schumer should not receive a “blank check” and is considering a possible challenge. Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed has backed Van Hollen.

The backlash reflects broader dissatisfaction with the party’s direction. Jeffries and Schumer have been criticised over their positions on Israel and Gaza, their relationships with corporate donors and pro-Israel lobbying groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and what voters see as a failure to confront the Trump administration forcefully.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which counts several elected officials among its members, has not backed Jeffries or Schumer for their respective leadership posts. In a statement to Al Jazeera, the DSA said Democrats must reject “half-measures” and deliver on popular policies.

“We the people must be a counterweight both to the internal politics of Congress and the corporate donors who want to keep business as usual,” DSA spokesperson Priscilla Yeverino wrote to Al Jazeera.

Political commentator Bea Neilson said some progressives see the two leaders as representing an older Democratic establishment that is out of step with the party’s base.

“They want an avatar of a fighter,” Neilson told Al Jazeera.

But Neilson argues that the role of the House speaker is not simply to dictate the party’s legislative agenda. Rather, they respond to the positions of lawmakers across the caucus, working with policy committees and other groups to identify legislation that can secure enough votes to pass.

Individual members or blocs of lawmakers can withhold their support, making the job an exercise in negotiating competing interests as much as setting political direction.

Masket agreed that the effectiveness of congressional leaders is often measured less by their public speaking than by their ability to manage their caucuses and get legislation through Congress.

“People wanting their speaker or a Senate majority leader to be a more inspiring leader, I think they’re just asking for the wrong person,” Masket said. “That’s the wrong title for that role.”

That role, he suggested, may fall more naturally to the next generation of presidential contenders, who are expected to begin emerging early next year.

The leadership elections will take place before the new Congress begins in January. The larger question for Democrats is whether their leaders can turn a sweeping electoral mandate into tangible change.

Rare bipartisan bill requires data centres to pay for infrastructure, but environmental groups say it falls short.

The United States Senate has voted to move forward on a bipartisan bill that would speed up the process to build new data centres and energy infrastructure in the country.

Nearly all of the chamber’s Republicans, as well as more than a dozen Democrats, voted 73-25 on Monday to take up the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, which supporters, including US President Donald Trump, have said is necessary to meet the nation’s growing demand for electricity.

“This Bill is a BIG WIN for U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE and DOMINANCE”, Trump posted on social media Monday as he encouraged lawmakers to support it.

The legislation would overhaul the permitting process for major energy projects – both clean energy and fossil fuel-run – across the US, reduce deadlines for environmental reviews and impose restrictions on when projects can be challenged in the country’s courts. It would also force owners of energy-hungry data centres to pay for the infrastructure that is needed to power them.

Growing anger in the US over those facilities’ use in powering artificial intelligence (AI), which has resulted in rising electricity bills for customers across the country, helped fuel last week’s takeover of the US Congress by Democrats.

“The people sent us a very clear message on Tuesday that they expect us to lower the costs in their daily lives,” Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich, the ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said on Monday. “We don’t have to wait for the new Congress to start lowering costs. We can do that today.”

Authors of the bill claim it will provide $19bn in savings on residential electricity bills through 2040. The number of solar and wind projects connecting to the US electric grid would be doubled, with data centres paying $55bn over the next 10 years to cover their power usage.

But despite the bill’s claims of increasing clean energy projects, environmental organisations are opposed to the legislation. They argue it would also lock in development of fossil fuels, weaken environmental laws and make it harder for US residents to challenge projects in their communities.

Earlier this year, a coalition of national groups – including the Climate Justice Alliance, Indigenous Environmental Network and Western Environmental Law Center – issued a joint statement opposing the bill.

“We cannot allow the lies to continue, as the facts are clear: If this backroom permitting reform deal is pushed through, it will enable a no-guardrails buildout of dangerous projects that will harm our health and environment, drive up energy costs, and violate our rights,” they said in September.

“This will be especially harmful for communities of color and lower income neighborhoods already overburdened by pollution and climate impacts.”

While the legislation received rare overwhelming support from both major political parties, the Democrats’ midterm win could complicate its final passage.

Some in the party argue that the legislation should be shelved until new Democratic majorities in the US House and Senate are sworn in early next year.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is on track to become the body’s new speaker in January, criticised the bill last week, warning it “falls short” in several areas.

“We must once again support the clean energy economy and combat the climate crisis with the fierce urgency of now,” a Jeffries spokesperson said in a statement released to the Associated Press.

Jeffries’s office added: “Leader Jeffries will not rubber-stamp legislation that emerges from the Senate without more constructive involvement with our Caucus as we fight to make life more affordable for the American people.”

The maker of Claude is looking to raise up to $64.4bn in one of the largest IPOs in history next week.

Anthropic is seeking a valuation of $1.4 trillion for its upcoming IPO, with the company looking to raise as much as $64.4bn in what would be one of the largest stock market debuts in history.

The company, which makes the Claude AI chatbot, launched its investor roadshow on Tuesday, with reported plans to go public next week.

According to its filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Tuesday, Anthropic plans to offer 825 million shares priced between $70 and $78, giving it a valuation of up to $1.4 trillion when potential shares are included.

It has also secured $26bn in a separate private placement backed by some of the world’s largest tech companies, including Google, Nvidia, Microsoft and AMD.

The listing is being closely watched as a major test for how much investors are still willing to bet on AI companies, which have driven huge gains in tech stocks and the broader US market.

The $1.4 trillion valuation is lower than earlier estimates, which had suggested Anthropic could be valued between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion, as concerns grow about the company’s enormous infrastructure spending and recent swings in AI stock prices.

Those concerns extend beyond Anthropic, with investors increasingly questioning whether AI companies can make enough money to justify their soaring valuations and sustain the boom.

Despite the uncertainty, Anthropic’s growth has been explosive.

The company reported revenues of $17bn in their third quarter, up from $1.4bn a year earlier, as its net losses narrowed. On Tuesday, Anthropic said it was on pace to generate about $81bn in annual revenue, $10bn higher than its estimate a month earlier.

The company credits its growth to the demand for Claude, including from industries like healthcare, financial services and legal services.

But to keep up with that demand, Anthropic has committed almost $900bn to computing costs with partners including Amazon and Google, a massive financial bet on continued demand for its product.

The IPO also lands in an uncertain political climate, with Democrats having just won control of both chambers of the US Congress in the midterm elections last week. The new Democratic-led House of Representatives and Senate have raised the prospect of more regulation of AI companies and new restrictions on the construction of data centres that power the technology.

AI stocks slid after the midterms, with the Nasdaq falling 5.5 percent on Thursday, its biggest one-day drop in more than a year. The selloff, also driven by declines at Nvidia, whose CEO was targeted by an alleged Chinese spy, wiped out trillions of dollars from the market.

Markets have since recovered some of those losses, though the Nasdaq dipped slightly below 1 percent on Tuesday. Some analysts argued the sell-off was an overreaction and that the election was unlikely to derail the expansion of data centres.

Decision by the Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority reportedly related to ⁠US sanctions imposed on Iranian airlines.

Iraq barred a plane carrying Iran’s national football ⁠team from ⁠landing at Basra airport on Tuesday, a decision by the Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority linked to ⁠sanctions by the United States imposed on Iranian airlines, two Basra airport officials told the Reuters news agency.

The plane returned to Iran and landed ⁠at Abadan airport, and the team will now travel by road to Basra, an Iranian consulate official in Basra said.

The Iranian team was travelling to Iraq to participate in a ‌four-nation tournament in Basra also involving Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

An Iraqi civil aviation official said Iraq made the decision because it could not risk violating US sanctions on Iranian airlines.

The incident highlights the increasing impact of US sanctions on Iranian aviation operations in Iraq. ⁠

Washington announced sanctions on any global companies doing business with Iranian airlines after September 23, aiming to ground Iran’s entire civil fleet worldwide.

In September, Iraq ordered the suspension of Iranian flights to Baghdad airport after the US threatened secondary sanctions against airports and service providers that handle Iranian carriers.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that airports servicing Iranian airlines could face sanctions, including exclusion from the US ‌dollar system.

This warning was part of a broader effort to tighten restrictions on Iran’s transport sector and on ‌foreign ‌entities providing services to sanctioned Iranian airlines.

Intensified sanctions are part of a US bid to squeeze Iran economically as President Donald Trump struggles to end the war that the US and Israel launched on the country in February.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it has lifted its self-imposed 2,000km (1,250-mile) limit on the range of its ballistic missiles, raising questions over whether Tehran now considers hitting targets beyond the Middle East.

“This limitation has been lifted for us,” IRGC spokesman Brigadier-General Hossein Mohebbi announced at a news conference in Tehran on Saturday.

Mohebbi did not say whether Iran already had missiles that exceed the cap, but added that Iran would show its capabilities through action rather than statements, as Tehran has hardened its position and shifted towards an “offensive” military doctrine.

The announcement came days after Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei warned that “any kind and level of threat” from the United States or Israel would be met with a response unlimited by geography. Mojtaba has said Iran needs to end the “no war, no peace” situation amid the volatile status of the Strait of Hormuz and the US naval blockade on the Iranian ports.

It also comes as the diplomatic push to end the US-Israel war on Iran has intensified, with Trump on Monday saying there is “positive momentum” towards ending the military hostilities after talks with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani in Washington, DC.

So what does lifting the limit actually change, and why is Iran doing it now?

Where could Iran’s missiles reach?

Iran already has operational capabilities to launch missiles beyond 2,000km, but it has kept a cap on them amid focus on regional deterrence. Iranian missiles can reach the entire Arabian Peninsula, the Levant and most of Egypt, as well as parts of Southeastern Europe, including Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia.

For Gulf states, the announcement changes little. They already sit well within Iran’s 2,000km range and have come under repeated Iranian missile fire since the US and Israel launched the war on February 28.

The change can help Iran to position some of its rocket launchers in the country’s east, from where it would require a bigger range to reach Israel. The US and its European allies fear Iran can target US bases in the Indian Ocean and Europe.

In March, the United Kingdom accused Iran of firing missiles towards the joint US-UK base at Diego Garcia, some 4,000km (about 2,500 miles) from Iran. Tehran denied targeting the base located in the Indian Ocean, saying it was “an Israeli false flag” operation.

In 2019, the UK, France and Germany said their modelling put a lighter-warhead version of Iran’s Khorramshahr missile at a range of approximately 3,000km (about 1,900 miles). US officials have also said technology from Iran’s space programme could be repurposed to build intercontinental ballistic missiles, The Associated Press news agency reported. Iran currently does not have intercontinental ballistic missiles in its arsenal.

Muhanad Seloom, assistant professor of international politics and security at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera that the Diego Garcia launch had already made Iran’s point. “Iran denied doing that, but they wanted to signal that they have the capacity. So yes, they do have the capacity,” he said.

Seloom, who is also an honorary research fellow at the University of Exeter, pointed to Iran’s space launches over the past decade, saying the same rockets could in theory reach anywhere in the world. “How effective, that’s a totally different story,” he said, adding that Iran could probably field missiles with a range of about 5,000km (3,100 miles).

Iranian security analyst Mohamed Taheri made a similar case on Iran’s state-run Channel 3, saying range had stopped being a technical obstacle for Iran by the mid-2010s. “Even now we have no technical limitation in reaching ranges above 2,000km,” he said.

“If we were to increase that range to 4,000km, we would certainly have most of Europe within our missile range, and roughly most of North Africa as well,” Taheri said.

How has Europe responded to Iran’s missile threat?

The IRGC announcement about ending its self-imposed limit seems to be a shift from Tehran’s assurances to Europe on missile range. Europe’s relations with Iran have deteriorated over its nuclear programme and regional geopolitical ambitions. The European Union’s designation of the IRGC as a “terrorist” group and its allowing the US to use bases on the continent have attracted Iran’s ire.

Iran warned Bulgaria repeatedly this year over US aircraft on its soil. In April, Tehran sent a diplomatic note cautioning Bulgaria against letting US military aircraft use its airports for operations against Iran.

When Bulgaria’s parliament approved hosting up to eight US KC-135 refuelling tankers at Bezmer airbase in July, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Bulgarian decision-makers “must bear responsibility” for the move. It was Tehran’s third warning to Sofia.

In August, two Iranian insiders told the Financial Times that the US bases in countries such as Bulgaria had been assessed as possible targets, describing the threat to Europe as real but confined to the continent’s south and southeast. Two US tankers left Bezmer on August 21.

Last month, the UK spy chief said Iran is stepping up targeting of military bases in Europe. It came after UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the IRGC was “almost certainly” behind a suspected plot against Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford, an airbase used by US bombers to carry out strikes on Iran. The incident prompted the US to withdraw its military jets from the facility over security concerns earlier this month. Tehran has denied involvement, saying it was a “false flag” operation.

On Monday, the US military evacuated aircraft from a second British base, RAF Mildenhall, “in the wake of a threat from Iran”, according to The Wall Street Journal. The refuelling tankers were moved to Germany and elsewhere, and US officials were still discussing the precise nature of the threat.

The UK Ministry of Defence did not confirm the reason. “Aircraft and other assets move regularly according to operational requirements,” a spokesperson said.

Bases in the UK, Germany and Romania are among other European locations the US has used during the conflict.

“It’s possible that in this war we may set aside the geographic restraint we’ve observed stemming from our diplomatic relations with certain countries and even be able to strike the bases that exist in Europe,” Iran’s Taheri said.

For European governments, the announcement is “worrying … but not alarming”, Doha Institute’s Seloom said. Missiles would have to travel far to reach mainland Europe or the UK, he explained, giving NATO members with assets in the region early warning and time to intercept them.

He said threatening Europe would not serve Iran’s interests, since European governments did not back Trump’s war and have pushed for a diplomatic solution despite paying a heavy price in energy costs. That could change if Iran comes to be framed as a threat to international security, he warned, pointing to Iraq, where successive UN Security Council resolutions preceded European support for the 2003 invasion.

“No one could defend Iranian policies when it comes to threatening Europe or the UK,” Seloom said. Lifting the limit, he added, suggests Tehran “is reading this conflict as existential now”.

That, he argued, is what should concern the whole region. “When you give them the idea that you have only one option, is to die … they can do anything. There would be no red lines,” he said.

Why is Iran doing this now?

Because the cap was self-imposed, Iran could have dropped it at any time. For years, the IRGC said the limit was meant to reassure European countries that they would not be targeted.

Mohebbi, the IRGC spokesman, went further, saying that if Iran decided to change its nuclear doctrine and build a bomb, the necessary preparations would be made.

One reading is deterrence: a warning to Washington, and to European governments hosting US aircraft, that renewed strikes could bring a wider response. Iran’s earlier threats to Bulgaria were seen in similar terms, as an attempt to discourage European governments from supporting US operations.

Tehran is also eyeing diplomatic leverage amid efforts to end the conflict. It can offer the cap as a concession, suggesting that any restraint on range now has a price at the negotiating table.

“It’s both,” Seloom said. He argued that Tehran sees a narrow window before the new US Congress convenes in January, in which Trump will want a deal he can present as a success.

The decision to lift the limit, he said, “is basically to push the Trump administration to go for a deal, not to launch another campaign of military action”. With Trump threatening to hit bridges and the power grid, Iran is “signalling that they can go even crazier”.

What has the West historically said about Iran’s missiles?

Western concern over Iran’s missiles has run alongside the nuclear file for more than a decade.

The 2015 nuclear deal signed under US President Barack Obama put a limit on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), put a curb on Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

Those curbs expired in October 2023, following which Western countries expressed concerns about Tehran’s missile activities. In September 2025, France, Germany and the UK reimposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear enrichment. But Tehran defended the enrichment boost after blaming Trump for withdrawing from the 2015 deal.

Trump put the destruction of Iran’s missile and nuclear programme as the main goals of the war launched in February. “We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground,” he had said.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said days later the goal was to destroy Iranian offensive missiles and missile production. Experts and US intelligence assessments, however, indicated Iran’s missile programme was years away from threatening the US homeland.

Before the war, Iran held the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East, estimated at between 2,500 and 6,000 missiles.

United States President Donald Trump has said the US plans to seek compensation from countries it “protected” during its war on Iran.

In an interview with CBS News correspondent Ross Douthat that aired Sunday, Trump said such countries would “pay us any and all costs we had for the war”.

“We’re going to get all that money back,” Trump said. “They’re going to do it, 100 percent. Because without us, they wouldn’t exist.”

For the first time, Trump also explicitly spoke of compensation from Israel, which he said “wouldn’t exist” without US military intervention.

The reimbursement demand comes after Trump and his Republican party took a drubbing in midterm elections, which the president has conceded was partly due to public discontent over the Iran war.

The US president has since declared the war “effectively over” militarily, while defending his decision to start the conflict as “a very good decision”.

Here’s what to know about Trump’s demand for repayment, and what it could mean for the US and its allies:

Which countries does Trump want compensation from?

Trump — for the first time — singled out Israel, which was a direct participant in the war against Iran from the outset.

“We decapitated their [Iran’s] nuclear arsenal,” he said. “If I didn’t do that, there would be no Israel right now. Israel would be gone.”

Previously, Trump has said he would seek repayment from Gulf countries that benefit from the US military presence around the embattled Strait of Hormuz, where US forces have been escorting vessels.

“We’re protecting a very rich portion of the world, we’re spending money, and so what we’ve done is we’re going to be reimbursed for protection,” Trump said during a press briefing in July.

He named Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait as countries that should pay.

But while Israel jointly launched the war on Iran with the US, Gulf countries have said that they were not even informed about Washington’s plans, and have since borne the brunt of Iran’s retaliatory attacks. As members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), they have called for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

How much has the Iran war cost the US?

$47.1bn as of mid-October, according to the US military.

But the full cost is likely to be even higher, as that figure excludes the cost of repairing damage to US military bases across the Middle East.

The Congressional Budget Office in September estimated the conflict would carry an additional cost of $2bn-$3bn for each month it continues.

Will Trump actually seek repayment from allies?

Probably not directly, analysts say.

Neil Quilliam, an associate fellow at Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s comments are “best understood as political signalling rather than a serious policy proposal.”

Gulf states in particular are likely to take Trump’s comments “with a grain of salt,” added Bader al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University and associate fellow at Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa programme.

“I think what [Trump] stated on an American news channel was for domestic consumption, and I think that’s how most of the Gulf states will take it,” said al-Saif.

Stefan Lukas, an analyst specialising in Middle East and North Africa security and foreign policy, also pointed to Trump’s domestic political considerations, saying the US president has been “looking for someone to blame … and has been doing everything in his power to divert attention from the midterm election results”.

Lukas told Al Jazeera it is unlikely that Washington’s Arab allies in the region will face large compensation payments “or anything similar”.

However, he suggested that Trump could be more serious about seeking economic concessions from Israel, particularly after announcing that the country would no longer receive US aid after the end of this year.

That is partly because, from Trump’s perspective, “Israel pushed him into a disastrous war with Iran”, Lukas said.

What would compensation look like?

Al-Saif said Trump could be “very innovative” in defining what constitutes repayment for the war, potentially pointing to existing trade agreements or investment from the Gulf.

“There’s many agreements for him to go back to and to claim,” said Al-Saif. “There have been a lot of [Gulf] pledges for investment in the US.”

Farid Boussaid, an assistant professor in Middle East politics at the University of Amsterdam, said Washington could push for further Gulf investment and present it as compensation.

“This will most likely be indirect and take the form of commercial investments in the US, buying of US weapons systems – on top of what has already been ordered – and investments into close associates of Trump’s financial dealings,” said Boussaid.

Trump has repeatedly made misleading claims about foreign investment and trade agreements in the past, portraying them as payments or gifts to the US.

After a July 2025 trade deal with the European Union, Trump claimed the bloc had given the US a $600bn “gift” that could be invested in “anything we want”. However, the framework agreement referred only to an expectation that European companies would invest $600bn across strategic sectors in the US through 2028.

The same month, Trump described a $550bn investment pledge from Japan, under a new US-Japan trade agreement, as being “like a signing bonus that a baseball player would get”.

During Trump’s first term, he repeatedly claimed that Mexico would pay for a border wall – which was never completed and which Mexico did not pay for. Trump later qualified his claim to say that Mexico would reimburse the US for the wall or pay for a “piece” of it, which also never happened. Trump at one point claimed that the benefits of a trade pact he negotiated with Mexico would cover the cost of the wall.

How will US allies react to Trump’s demands?

Having already suffered extensive financial losses during the war, the US’s Gulf allies will not take well to being asked to pay more for a war they did not start, say analysts.

Quilliam said Gulf leaders would likely respond to any demand for direct repayment with “quiet resistance”, arguing that they “already contribute significantly to the cost of regional security through defence cooperation, investment and economic partnerships with the US”.

Gulf states also pay for the maintenance of several large bases that the US uses for military operations in the region.

Boussaid said Gulf states will be particularly averse to such a demand as “the US-Israeli war led to considerable damage to their [civilian] and military infrastructure when Iran struck back”.

Al-Saif added that Trump’s “condescending language does not bode well for partners long invested in the relationship with the US”.

As for Israel, it looks unlikely to “reverse its longstanding role as a recipient rather than a provider of support in its relationship with the US”, according to Marzieh Kouhi Esfahani, assistant professor of politics and international relations of the Middle East at Durham University.

“While Israel and the United States continue to share intelligence and coordinate on regional security issues, any request for Israel to shoulder a meaningful share of the financial burden would run against established practice and Israel’s present resource constraints,” she said.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s intimate relationship with a woman accused of being a Chinese spy has highlighted divisions in Washington over the export of advanced chips to China.

Huang, the head of one of the most critical firms in the global artificial intelligence race, has long been among Silicon Valley’s most powerful voices arguing against restrictions on high-end chip sales.

For years, the tech executive lobbied United States President Donald Trump to loosen export controls, finding allies in sympathetic administration figures such as David Sacks, Trump’s former AI tsar.

Whereas hawkish voices argued that Beijing should not have access to cutting-edge US technology on national security grounds, Huang and like-minded executives argued that China already had the computing power to make strides in AI and that wider uptake of US technology would help maintain its dominance in the field.

Jensen Huang’s lobbying now faces intense scrutiny following claims that former Megaspeed executive Alice Huang — with whom he had an affair — was an intelligence agent recruited by China’s Ministry of State Security.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has denied the allegations, calling them “entirely groundless, speculative and intended to smear and malign China”.

Alice Huang has not publicly commented on the claims, which The New York Times and the Financial Times first reported, citing unnamed US intelligence officials.

Nvidia’s board of directors on Sunday launched an inquiry into Jensen Huang’s relationship, pledging to examine “all available information” while also expressing confidence in the CEO.

Jensen Huang, who cofounded Nvidia in 1993, has pledged to cooperate fully with the inquiry and expressed his commitment to protecting Nvidia and US national security.

Trump has meanwhile said the FBI too is investigating whether Huang’s affair led to any compromise on US national security.

Already, US lawmakers have invoked the controversy to push for tighter restrictions on China’s access to US chips.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and Republican Senator Jim Banks on Monday called on the US Congress to take “decisive action” and pass their AI Overwatch Act, which would empower lawmakers to scrutinise and potentially halt exports of advanced chips to China and other adversaries.

“The Commerce Department should complement these efforts with immediate action to close export control loopholes and ensure that advanced AI chips are not going to China’s military,” Warren and Banks said in a joint statement.

Democratic House Representative Bill Foster also cited Jensen Huang’s relationship in a statement on Monday in which he called on his fellow lawmakers to get his Chip Security Act “across the finish line”.

The legislation, cosponsored by Republican House Representative Bill Huizenga, aims to prevent illicit smuggling to countries such as China by implementing measures to track the location of chips sent overseas.

Advocates of tighter restrictions now have a “much stronger political argument” and are likely to make use of it, said Rui Ma, a tech industry consultant and founder of Tech Buzz China.

“Chip exports to China have been deeply divisive in Washington, and Huang has been one of the strongest advocates for keeping that market open,” Ma told Al Jazeera.

“If his influence is diminished by this investigation, regardless of its eventual findings, those pushing for tighter restrictions will be in a much stronger position,” she said.

Trump, who has forged a close relationship with Jensen Huang since returning to the White House, has taken several actions to make it easier for chip makers to do business with China, while also maintaining significant export controls.

In May last year, the US Department of Commerce announced that it would scrap the previous Biden administration’s “AI Diffusion Rule”, which would have imposed caps on chip exports to more than 100 countries, including some US allies.

In December, Trump said he had granted Nvidia approval to sell its second-most powerful chip, the H200, to China under an arrangement that would see 25 percent of sales paid to the US government.

Nvidia, which controls an estimated 80 to 90 percent of the market for graphics processing units (GPUs) used to run frontier AI, welcomed the decision at the time, saying it would “support high-paying jobs and manufacturing in America”.

On the other hand, Trump has resisted calls to allow exports of Nvidia’s top-of-the-line Blackwell chips, which deliver about 2.5 times the performance of the H200.

“I think recent events likely increase attention on export control loopholes, and add momentum to bills already being discussed in Congress, like the Chip Security Act,” Erich Grunewald, a senior researcher at the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, told Al Jazeera.

While export controls have spurred contentious debate, their effectiveness has been called into question amid China’s steady advances in AI development.

Authorities and analysts have documented widespread smuggling of restricted chips into China, mainly through Southeast Asia.

Chips with compute power equivalent to 1.6 million Nvidia H100s made their way to China in violation of export restrictions up to the end of 2025, according to an estimate by Epoch AI.

Chinese companies have also been able to bypass US law by remotely accessing compute capacity supplied by Nvidia-powered data centres in countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand.

Gabriel Wildau, managing director at global business advisory firm Teneo, said claims that Huang had been ensnared in an espionage campaign deserved to be treated with skepticism given the anonymous leaks and motives to discredit him and his company.

“President Trump shows no sign that he intends to disrupt the current US-China rapprochement, but he may face new pressure from Congress and hawkish voices inside his administration to address the remote access issue,” Wildau, who focuses on political risk analysis in China, told Al Jazeera.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have already met twice this year: The US president visited Beijing in May, and the Chinese leader reciprocated with a state visit to Washington in September. They are scheduled to meet again next week when Trump visits Shenzhen for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. And they are expected to meet a fourth time in 2026 in December, when Trump hosts the G20 summit in Miami.

“The risk is that Washington acts to close this loophole [in the aftermath of the Huang controversy], and Beijing regards the action as a violation of the bilateral truce,” Wildau said, referring to the trade truce Trump struck with Xi during their summit in South Korea last year.

Chris Clague, an associate fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said the revelations about Jensen Huang would inevitably undermine the “legitimate” argument in favour of allowing tech transfers between the US and China.

“This has made it a little bit easier for his detractors to poke holes in that,” Clague told Al Jazeera. “It’s indicative of the tensions that exist between the US and China, which are never going away, but it shouldn’t derail efforts at finding some sort of compromise.”

The toy industry has a new favourite consumer and its grownups. Adults with no children have more disposable income to spend and are propping up the market through the nostalgia economy. Al Jazeera’s Yasmeen ElTahan explains.

A YouGov poll completed on the eve of the 2026 midterm elections has found that Americans were far less likely to back candidates who supported the US-Israel war on Iran.

The poll, released on Monday, found that 44 percent of people said they were less likely to support candidates who backed the war, while just 13 percent said they were more likely.

That means a candidate’s support for the war was more than 3 times as likely to put people off as to win them over.

Another 26 percent, meanwhile, indicated the Iran war would not make much of a difference in their vote.

The economics of the war also factored into people’s choices. Some 56 percent of those surveyed said that the US should prioritise avoiding higher prices domestically over achieving US President Donald Trump’s military goals in Iran.

Meanwhile, 22 percent said the opposite: that the Trump administration should prioritise the war over higher costs.

The poll also asked who should decide when the war ends. A majority, 53 percent, said Congress should have the final say, while 29 percent said that the president should decide.

The US and Israel jointly launched the war against Iran on February 28. But Trump’s decision to bypass congressional authorisation for the war has raised constitutional concerns in the US.

Jonathan Guyer, the programme director at the Institute for Global Affairs at Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy firm, told Al Jazeera that the poll – which was conducted on his organisation’s behalf – indicated Americans were looking to Congress to be more assertive.

“The story of the [economic] tradeoff is really important, and then there’s this other story of where Congress has been: Why haven’t lawmakers, not just over the last year but over the last decade, played a bigger role as a backstop on reckless wars launched by presidents?” said Guyer.

“And I think these numbers show the public really wants Congress to play a bigger role and expects their lawmakers to hold power to account.”

Anti-war lane

The survey is the latest to underscore the unpopularity of the US-Israel war on Iran, which has killed thousands of people in Iran and contributed to surging prices, a top issue in the November 3 midterm elections.

Trump’s Republican Party suffered one of the most significant electoral setbacks in modern US history, with Democrats reclaiming both chambers of Congress with strong majorities.

Democrats also flipped key offices in states like Texas, once seen as a conservative stronghold.

Those results have advanced a debate over the war that is playing out in both parties, often pitting more hawkish establishment figures against newcomers opposed to foreign intervention and support for Israel.

In the wake of the “blue wave”, analysts have argued that Democratic voters may expect the party’s leadership to take firmer steps to rein in the president and bring the fighting with Iran to an end.

On Monday, Trump himself said “Iran militarily is effectively over”, though he declined to rule out any further military action. A US naval and land blockade around Iran also remains in effect.

Guyer said he anticipates that foreign policy and, in particular, US support for Israel is likely to emerge as a key dividing line for candidates in future elections, particularly the upcoming 2028 presidential election.

“I think it does create a lane for people like Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, for the wing of the [Democratic] party represented by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who have a very strong position on this war and on the role of the US in the world that traditional Democrats have been largely silent on,” said Guyer.

A similar debate is also taking place on the political right.

Following the midterms, US Vice President JD Vance shared a lengthy social media post blaming his party’s implosion on the war.

Figures such as Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene have also criticised the war as a betrayal of Trump’s promise to end conflicts around the world.

While the YouGov poll found that Republicans were the only group more likely to vote for a candidate if they supported the president’s war, Guyer says that support has been “softening”.

“A third of Republicans say that backing the war made a candidate appealing, so it’s kind of small,” he said. “And 40 percent shrugged and say it made no difference.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

US President Donald Trump has said the FBI is probing Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s relationship with a woman accused of working for Chinese intelligence services.

Speaking at the White House on Monday, Trump said law enforcement had began inquires following Jensen’s admission that he engaged in an extramarital relationship with a Chinese executive named Alice Huang.

“We’ll look into it. I know the FBI is looking into it in terms of something else,” Trump told reporters in a news conference.

“I think he will be in good shape.”

Trump said Huang told him earlier that he had “absolutely no idea” that the woman was an alleged intelligence agent.

“He said I had no idea that she was a spy, and I really believe him,” Trump said.

Asked when he first become aware of concerns about the relationship, Trump said it was “not too long ago.”

“I have been hearing about it and I have been reading a little bit about it over a period of time,” the US president said.

Nvidia, one of the world’s most valuable companies, on Sunday announced that it had opened a probe into its CEO’s relationship with the woman following media reports that US intelligence officials had determined that she was working for China’s Ministry of State Security.

Nvidia’s board of directors said it had no reason to believe that national security or company secrets were compromised, but that an independent inquiry overseen by outside counsel would examine “all available information”

More to follow…

A court in Honduras has delayed a verdict in a sex-trafficking case linked to the 2022 disappearance of Angie Pena, a case that has raised concerns about impunity in transnational crimes.

On Monday, Honduras’s judiciary cited the need to review evidence and wait for the return of a court interpreter, who was out of the country. The decision has been delayed until November 20.

The verdict was expected that same day. Critics framed the unexpected delay as yet another hurdle in a case that has drawn comparisons to the crimes of the late Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender in the US accused of running a sex-trafficking ring.

Four men, including two US citizens, are on trial for crimes related to Pena’s disappearance four years ago.

Harold Green and William James Murdock, both from the US, face human-trafficking charges. Another US citizen, Gary Lee Johnston, and Honduran citizen Gustavo Trejo are accused of criminal association.

Honduran authorities have also sought an Interpol notice for another suspect, US citizen Antony Frank Grayson.

The Honduran public prosecutor’s office said the suspects are part of a network involved in crimes including drug trafficking and sex trafficking involving minors.

It alleges police and at least one judge helped facilitate the criminal network, without naming the officials.

Defence lawyers, however, have denied the men’s involvement and requested an acquittal.

Pena went missing on January 1, 2022, after setting out on a jet ski from West Bay on the Honduran island of Roatan, while vacationing with her family.

Authorities initially focused on a rescue mission at sea, treating her disappearance as a possible accident.

But the case expanded into a trafficking investigation after Pena’s jet ski was found in Belize, some 170km (90 nautical miles) away.

In August 2022, authorities investigating the disappearance found a minor in the Roatan house occupied by Johnston, who was later sentenced to 32 years for commercial sex trafficking and child pornography in a separate case.

An analysis by Honduran media found that the country was mentioned more than 100 times in the Epstein files, including multiple references to Roatan, from where Pena disappeared.

“There are many more women and girls who have been victims of trafficking networks, and those cases are silenced, they go unpunished,” said Kenia Paz, a lawyer for the Legal Team for Human Rights, which represents Pena’s family.

Lawyers representing the family have questioned the lack of transparency in the investigation and in the trial, which was not open to the press or the general public.

Postponing the verdict “fuels the perception of impunity, increases public distrust in state security institutions, and prolongs the suffering and vulnerability of affected families”, said former Honduran Vice Minister of Security Julissa Villanueva in a post on X.

Dereck McNeil, a key protected witness, was killed in August, spurring further concerns about the case.

In videos made public after his death, McNeil alleged corruption within a special unit of the public prosecutor’s office known as the ATIC.

He accused the unit of leaking information about the case and being linked to drug-trafficking networks.

The ATIC director has denied any corruption and said that the unit has not been involved in investigating Pena’s disappearance.

Villanueva, the former vice minister, told The Associated Press that she believes prosecutors mishandled the case from the start, pushing a “tunnel vision” explanation of what happened.

“There are connections with other larger networks, and only by making them public will this family be able to get justice,” said Villanueva.

“It’s not just Angie. It’s all those women around Angie. There are many.”