united states

Latest warning comes as Iranian state media reports Tehran has presented new peace proposal to US.

The United States has warned that any shippers paying tolls or other fees to Iran for passage through the Strait of Hormuz risk being sanctioned.

The warning on Friday comes as a US naval blockade of the strait continued for its third week, amid stalled US-Iran ceasefire talks. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has called the ongoing siege on the country’s ports “intolerable”.

Iran’s influence over, and ability to effectively close, the Strait of Hormuz emerged as a key point of leverage shortly after the US and Israel began launching attacks on Iran on February 28.

About one-fifth of the global crude oil and liquefied natural gas maritime shipments pass through the arterial waterway.

In its past proposals to end the war, Iran has proposed charging fees or tolls for vessels seeking to pass through the state. Washington has repeatedly rejected the prospect.

The advisory from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control said Iran may offer shippers fiat currency, digital assets, offsets, informal swaps, or other in-kind payments.

It said those also included payments framed as charitable donations, including to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, Bonyad Mostazafan, or Iranian embassy accounts.

“OFAC is issuing ‌this alert to warn US and non-US persons about the sanctions risks of making these payments to, or soliciting ‌guarantees ‌from, the Iranian regime for safe passage,” it said.

“These risks exist regardless of payment method,” it said.

Both the government of Iran and the International Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) remain under US sanctions.

The advisory on Friday came as Iranian state media reported that Tehran had sent a new proposal for a lasting ceasefire to the Trump administration.

A White House spokesperson said it does not “detail private diplomatic conversations”, declining to confirm receipt of the proposal.

The spokesperson, Anna Kelly, added that “Trump has been clear that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon, and negotiations continue to ensure the short- and long-term national security of the United States”.

Both sides have largely halted attacks since reaching a tentative agreement to pause fighting on April 7. Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume attacks amid the stalled negotiations.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday that Tehran remains open to diplomacy with the US if Washington alters its “expansionist approach” and “threatening rhetoric”.

Poll finds that Americans are concerned about impact of the war on the cost of living and sceptical of success thus far.

A new poll has found that a large majority of people in the United States believe that the decision to take military action against Iran was a mistake, as the war roils the global economy and fuels cost-of-living concerns in the US.

A Washington Post-ABC-Ipsos poll released on Friday shows that 61 percent of respondents believe the use of military force against Iran was a mistake, with just 36 percent saying it was the right decision.

The poll is the latest to find low levels of support for the war launched against Iran by the US and Israel in late February, which has killed thousands of people across the Middle East and sent global energy prices surging.

Asked if they had changed their behaviour due to higher gas prices, 44 percent of respondents said they had cut back on driving, and 42 percent said they had done the same for household expenses. Those figures increased to 56 percent and 59 percent for respondents making less than $50,000 per year.

Those concerns come at a time when President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have dropped to new lows, with voters expressing frustration over economic issues and the cost of living.

The war has also been depicted as a contrast with Trump’s promise to keep the country out of unnecessary foreign wars, and 46 percent of respondents said the decision to attack Iran was inconsistent with the position Trump took during his presidential campaign.

Despite relatively low casualty figures among US forces, the poll found that the war on Iran is as unpopular as the Iraq War was during a period of heightened violence in 2006 and the Vietnam War was in the early 1970s.

Asked whether US military actions against Iran have been successful thus far, 39 percent said they had been unsuccessful, while 19 percent said they had been successful. A plurality of 41 percent said it was too soon to tell.

Support for the war remains robust among members of Trump’s Republican Party, however. Nearly 80 percent of Republicans said that the decision to attack Iran was the correct one, even as they were split evenly between rating operations as successful or stating that it was too soon to tell.

Iran says it will respond with “long and painful strikes” on US positions across the Gulf region if Washington renews attacks, and has restated its claim to the Strait of Hormuz, complicating the plans of the United States for a coalition to reopen the waterway.

Two months into the US-Israel war on Iran, the strait remains closed, choking off 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas supplies. That has sent global energy prices surging and heightened concerns about the risks of an economic downturn.

Pakistan-led efforts to resolve the conflict have hit an impasse. Despite a ceasefire in place since April 8, Iran continues to block the strait in response to a US naval blockade of its ports, preventing oil exports – Tehran’s economic lifeline.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei defended the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. “This is because of the war and the defence of our right – that is, according to international law, it is legitimate, legal, and accepted,” he said on Thursday night, Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported.

He accused the US of “exploiting a waterway” of which Iran is the coastal state. “In such circumstances, you cannot allow this waterway to be misused,” he said.

Baghaei also justified attacks on US assets in Gulf countries.

“Unfortunately, the regional countries also truly acted unjustly; during the holy month of Ramadan, they cooperated with a foreign party in attacking an Islamic country, and this is something that will remain a permanent demand.”

On Thursday, the United Arab Emirates said it had banned its citizens from travelling to Iran, Lebanon and Iraq, and urged those currently in those countries to leave immediately and return home.

Then, on Friday, in response to Iran’s threat to hit targets in the Gulf, the adviser to the UAE’s president, Anwar Gargash, said: “No unilateral Iranian arrangements can be trusted or relied upon, following its treacherous aggression against all its neighbours.”

Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa also condemned what he described as Iranian aggression against Manama and accused Tehran of threatening its security and stability and exposing internal collaborators.

In a statement, the king expressed anger at individuals and some legislators accused of siding with the attackers, warning that traitors could face imprisonment, loss of citizenship and expulsion. He stressed that loyalty to the nation is “paramount”, urging unity and accountability, and said parliament must be “cleansed” of those who support enemies.

New US strikes?

It is unclear whether the US is planning to renew its attacks on Iran.

Friday is the deadline for Congress to approve the war. Without that – or a 30-day extension, which the Trump administration must also justify by the day – the US will have to scale back its offensive significantly under the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

A senior administration official said late on Thursday that, for the resolution, hostilities had ceased with the start of the April ceasefire between Tehran and Washington, effectively resetting the clock.

President Donald Trump received a briefing from officials on Thursday on plans for a series of further military strikes to pressure Iran to negotiate an end to the conflict, US publication Axios reported, quoting sources.

US Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal told CNN on Thursday that he had the “impression from some of the briefings”, as well as from other sources, that “an imminent military strike is very much on the table”.

He added that this prospect was “deeply disturbing” because it could “well involve American sons and daughters in harm’s way” and lead to “potential massive casualties”.

Bracing for attack

Meanwhile, Iran has been bracing itself for likely attacks. Air defence activity was heard in some areas of the capital, Tehran, late on Thursday, Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency reported, and the Tasnim news agency said air defences were engaging small drones and unmanned surveillance aerial vehicles.

A senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said any new US attack on Iran, even if limited, would usher in “long and painful strikes” on its regional positions. Iranian media reports, quoting the aerospace force commander, Majid Mousavi, said: “We’ve seen what happened to your regional bases, we will see the same thing happen to your warships.”

Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said in a written message to Iranians that “the enemies’ abuses of the waterway” would be eliminated under the new management of the strait, indicating that Tehran intended to maintain its hold over it.

“Foreigners who come from thousands of kilometres away … have no place there except at the bottom of its waters,” he said.

Multiple scenarios

Reporting from the White House, in Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna said: “There’s no doubt that there have been various scenarios laid out for him [Trump] by his military advisers and by his intelligence advisers as to what to do should the ceasefire no longer be extended.”

“Obviously, that would involve some form of armed action, some form of intensified economic action.”

“There’s absolutely no doubt that President Trump has all sorts of scenarios that have been laid out in front of him, but very clearly as well, it’s going to be him and him alone who will choose what to do next,” Hanna added.

The Minnesota Timberwolves eliminated Nikola Jokic’s Denver Nuggets while the New York Knicks put on one of the most dominant displays in NBA playoff history, destroying Atlanta to advance, and the surging Sixers beat the visiting Celtics again to force a decisive Game 7

Sixth-seeded Minnesota will play the San Antonio Spurs in the Western Conference semifinals after completing a 110-98 win on Thursday for a 4-2 series upset defeat of third-seeded Denver.

Three-time NBA Most Valuable Player Jokic top-scored for Denver with 28 but it was not enough to fend off the dogged Timberwolves, who were playing without star man Anthony Edwards due to injury.

The clash in Minneapolis was tight throughout, with no team gaining a double-digit lead until the game’s dying moments.

The Timberwolves edged the first half, leading 57-50 at the break.

Jokic roared to life. The Serbian superstar scored 14 points in the third quarter alone to ensure a nail-biting finish.

Having already been ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct from game four after a shoving match, Jokic enraged the home crowd by sparking another brawl, with Jaylen Clark.

With his Timberwolves leading by five with 90 seconds remaining, Jaden McDaniels sank a long jump-shot for two to rouse the home fans and force a Nuggets timeout.

When play resumed Denver could only turn over the ball again. McDaniels closed out the win with two free throws, ending his night with a career-high 32 points, to top-score overall.

“It’s a great night. It’s a great victory for us. Hopefully … we’ve got 12 more to go,” said Minnesota coach Chris Finch.

“We came into these playoffs not trying to beat Denver, but trying to win a championship.”

A visibly crestfallen Jokic, whose side last won the NBA championship just three years ago, said they “just didn’t do a good job”.

“I needed to play better. I must play better,” he added.

Edwards – out with a bone bruise and hyper-extended left knee – could return for the Timberwolves’ series with the high-flying Spurs.

Knicks crush Hawks in record-setting rout

Elsewhere on Thursday, the Knicks routed the Atlanta Hawks 140-89.

It was the most points scored and the biggest win by the Knicks in a playoff game, setting up an Eastern Conference semifinal with either the Celtics or the 76ers, who are tied 3-3 after a Philadelphia win.

The Knicks wrapped up their 4-2 series victory in emphatic style, leading the Hawks by as many as 61 points before benching their starters for the final quarter.

New York’s 47-point half-time lead, at 83-36, was the widest in NBA postseason history.

OG Anunoby top-scored with 29 points, including 26 in the first half, before he was rested. None of New York’s starters played more than 29 minutes.

“We can’t just meet the moment, we’ve got to exceed it, and I thought we did a great job of doing that tonight,” said Karl-Anthony Towns, who recorded a triple-double with 12 points, 11 rebounds and 10 assists.

Having finished third in the Eastern Conference, the heavily favoured Knicks had been down 2-1 early in the playoff series, before roaring back.

They are the first team to advance to the East’s semifinals – their fourth straight year of reaching that stage.

The Hawks briefly led at the start of the game, going up 11-9 before the wheels dramatically came off. They trailed 40-15 at the end of the first quarter.

The final 51-point margin of defeat was not quite the largest in playoff history, which stands at 58 points.

“Obviously you hate to lose anything. And to lose the way we did, I think, particularly given the enthusiasm and support that we’ve had from the people in this building … disappointed on a lot of levels,” said Hawks coach Quin Snyder.

Sixers dump Celtics again to send series to Game 7

The Celtics-76ers playoff series is headed for a decisive game seven in Massachusetts after Philadelphia beat Boston 106-93.

The Celtics had held a 3-1 series lead, but the 76ers proved dominant on their home court to make it 3-3.

Tyrese Maxey top-scored with 30 points. Paul George added 23, and 2023 Most Valuable Player Joel Embiid poured in another 19, plus 10 rebounds and eight assists.

It is the 23rd playoff series between the two historic rivals – an NBA record.

American Airlines has resumed flights as Donald Trump moves to rebuild ties following the abduction of Nicolas Maduro.

The first direct commercial flight between the United States and Venezuela has landed in Caracas, ending a seven-year suspension imposed by the US Department of Homeland Security over security concerns.

Flight AA3599, operated by Envoy Air, a regional subsidiary of American Airlines, departed Miami at 10:11am ET (14:11 GMT) on Thursday, five minutes ahead of schedule, according to airport data.

It arrived in the Venezuelan capital roughly three hours later and was due to return to Florida later in the day. Earlier, the airline said that a second daily flight between Miami and Caracas would start on May 21.

The return of nonstop flights comes months after a dramatic shift in US-Venezuela relations, following Washington’s January operation that led to the abduction of former President Nicolas Maduro, and marks the first direct air link between the two countries since diplomatic ties were severed in 2019. For years, travellers had used indirect routes through other Latin American hubs.

Translation: “For nearly seven years, there were no direct commercial flights between the United States and Venezuela. Under President Trump, we are changing that today. Flights between Miami and Caracas have resumed,” The US State Department posted on X. 

Coffee and arepas in the aeroplane

At Miami International Airport, American Airlines marked the occasion with a small ceremony, decorating the departure gate with Venezuelan flags and balloon displays in the country’s yellow, blue and red colours.

Passengers were served coffee and arepas, a traditional Venezuelan dish, on board the flight.

Thursday’s service was operated by an Embraer E175 regional jet with a capacity for about 75 passengers.

US Transportation Secretary Sean P Duffy said the flight signalled more than the return of an air route.

“Today is about more than just another flight, it’s a critical milestone in strengthening the United States relationship with Venezuela and unleashing economic opportunity in both countries,” Duffy added.

He added that the resumption followed extensive work by the department and praised American Airlines for restoring a route he described as vital, saying more flights are expected in the coming months.

High ticket prices

Despite the celebratory mood, high ticket prices remain a key barrier, alongside strict US visa requirements that have left many potential travellers without the documentation needed to fly.

Recent searches on the airline’s website show return fares for early May starting at more than $1,200, before dropping to just more than $1,000 later in the month, suggesting prices may ease as services expand.

By comparison, flights via Bogota typically range from $390 to $900 round-trip, with Avianca among the main carriers.

American Airlines was the last US carrier operating in Venezuela before suspending flights in 2019, while Delta and United had already withdrawn in 2017 amid a deepening political crisis that drove millions to leave the country.

“Parents will be able to reconnect with children, grandparents with grandchildren, and families with the place they once called home,” Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava said before the departure. “Miami-Dade is home to the largest Venezuelan community in the United States.”

Palestine and Israel representatives had been lined up close together at the FIFA Congress in Canada.

Palestinian football federation president Jibril Rajoub refused to stand alongside Israel FA ⁠Vice-President Basim Sheikh ⁠Suliman in a heated moment at the 76th FIFA Congress.

Both men were called to the stand by FIFA President Gianni Infantino at the event on Thursday, but Rajoub ⁠declined to be brought closer to Suliman, a Palestinian citizen of Israel.

Infantino put his hand on Rajoub’s arm and invited him with a gesture to come closer to Suliman, but in ⁠vain.

Asked what Rajoub said when he refused, Palestinian FA Vice President Susan Shalabi, who was in the room, told Reuters: “I cannot shake the hand of someone the Israelis have brought to whitewash their fascism and genocide! We are suffering.”

Israel has denied committing genocide in Gaza.

Infantino ‌then took the stand and said: “We will work together, President Rajoub, Vice President Suliman. Let’s work together to give hope to the children. These are complex matters.”

Speaking to the Reuters news agency after the congress ended, Shalabi said Infantino’s attempt to have Suliman and Rajoub shake hands showed little consideration for the Palestinian FA chief’s speech, in which he made yet another plea for Israeli clubs not to base teams in ⁠the West Bank settlements.

“To be put in a position ⁠where to have a handshake after everything that was said, this negates the whole purpose of the speech that the general [Rajoub] was giving,” she said.

“He spent like 15 minutes trying to explain to everyone how ⁠the rules matter, how this could easily become a precedent where the rights of member associations are violated with impudence, ⁠and then we’ll just wrap this under the carpet. ⁠It was absurd.”

Last week, the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against FIFA’s decision not to sanction Israel over clubs based in West Bank settlements.

The PFA has long argued that clubs ‌based in settlements in the West Bank – territory Palestinians seek as part of a future state – should not compete in leagues run by the Israel Football Association (IFA).

FIFA said ‌last ‌month it would take no action against the IFA or Israeli clubs, citing the unresolved legal status of the West Bank under public international law.

Price of petrol in US jumps by nearly 30 cents in one week amid Strait of Hormuz blockade and Iran diplomatic deadlock.

The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of gasoline in the United States has reached $4.30, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), up from less than $3 before the February 28 start of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Thursday’s prices come as US President Donald Trump insists that time is on his side in the standoff with Iran, even as he refuses Tehran’s offers of a preliminary deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

According to AAA, prices for gas or petrol went up by 27 cents over the past week amid the deepening impasse, with Iran blocking the strait and the US imposing a naval siege on Iranian ports.

“The national average is $1.12 higher than it was this time last year, as oil prices surge above $100/barrel with no indication of when the Strait of Hormuz will reopen,” AAA said in a brief report on Thursday.

“Gas prices are the highest they’ve been in four years, since late July 2022.”

California, home to nearly 40 million people, saw petrol prices hit more than $6 per gallon on Thursday.

The spike in energy prices has been fuelling inflation and economic uncertainty, adding to Trump’s political woes.

The US president’s approval rating is hitting record lows amid growing discontent with the conflict with Iran, recent public opinion polls show.

Since the start of the war, Trump and his allies have been trying to frame the hike in petrol prices as a temporary price worth paying to achieve the aims of the military campaign.

The US president reiterated that argument on Thursday when asked about the latest price increase.

“And you know what? And we’re not going to have a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran,” the US president told reporters.

“The gas will go down. As soon as the war is over, it’ll drop like a rock.”

However, oil prices do not drop automatically after hostilities stop. Despite the ceasefire reached on April 8, the cost of gas in the US has continued to climb.

Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon.

Although the US is one of the largest oil producers and is not heavily reliant on energy products from the Middle East, global prices affect what Americans pay at the pump.

On Thursday, Trump stressed that Iran is all but vanquished militarily and economically – a claim he has been repeating since the early days of the conflict.

“Iran is dying to make a deal,” he said, calling the naval blockade against the country “incredible”.

Tehran has projected defiance, refusing to hold direct talks with the US until the siege is lifted, even after Trump announced last week that he was dispatching his top envoys to Pakistan to negotiate with Iranian officials.

Earlier on Thursday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian suggested that Iran is running out of patience with the current situation of no war and no peace amid the US siege.

“The world has witnessed Iran’s tolerance and conciliation. What is being done under the guise of a naval blockade is an extension of military operations against a nation paying the price for its resistance and independence,” Pezeshkian said in a social media post.

“Continuation of this oppressive approach is intolerable.”

The United States has fallen to a “historic low” in the Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), or Reporters Without Borders, annual press freedom tracker, continuing a decade-long decline, the organisation has said.

The report on Thursday recorded a global drop in press freedom indicators in 2025, with, for the first time, more than half of the world’s countries labelled as “difficult” or “very serious”.

While the US, during the first year of US President Donald Trump’s second term, remained in the “problematic” category, it dropped seven spaces from 57th in the world to 64th. Norway led the list, with Eritrea ranked lowest among 180 countries.

In a statement, Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF’s North America office, said the US was experiencing a “press freedom crisis”.

“Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come,” he said in a statement.

“Our message is clear: Protect legal rights, ensure accountability for attacks on media professionals, and support independent media to restore American press freedom.”

The report pointed to both Trump administration policies and the wider consolidation of media companies in the US, which critics say opens the door to stifling certain points of view.

That has included Skydance Media’s acquisition of Paramount Global, which includes CBS News. Skydance is owned by David Ellison, whose father, Larry Ellison, is a confidant of Trump’s.

Paramount Skydance is also currently acquiring Warner Bros, which owns CNN.

All told, just six companies control most US media: Comcast, Walt Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount Skydance, Sony, and Amazon.

While Trump has long had an adversarial relationship with journalists, press freedom observers say the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has accelerated pressure on media figures and journalists during the president’s second term.

In March, FCC chair Brendan Carr said he would revoke the licences of broadcasters that are “running hoaxes and news distortions”, and that do not “operate in the public interest” in their reporting on the US-Israel war with Iran. Trump said he was “thrilled” by Carr’s statements.

Carr has also threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcasters for their coverage of Trump’s immigration policies, which critics say can have a chilling effect on local news organisations.

The effort has extended to television talk show hosts, who have been threatened by the FCC over jokes.

Most recently, Carr announced an investigation into several ABC channels.

That came days after the network’s flagship late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, made a joke about the White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD).

Kimmel had quipped that First Lady Melania Trump had the “glow of an expectant widow” before the event.

Days later, a gunman attempted to storm the WHCD in Washington, DC, which Trump was attending for the first time. The Trumps later connected Kimmel’s joke to the attack, calling for Kimmel’s firing.

Kimmel has said the joke was about the 79-year-old president and the 56-year-old first lady’s “age difference” and not a call for violence.

Critics of the FCC’s move included Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who said he does “not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police”.

The White House has repeatedly called Trump the most “transparent” president in US history, pointing to his regular news conferences.

European leaders are seeking to clarify a little-used mutual defence clause in the European Union treaty as questions grow over Washington’s long-term commitment to NATO during a deepening rift with the United States.

NATO, founded in 1949, is a military alliance of North American and European countries built on the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. But years of tension between Washington under President Donald Trump and its European allies have pushed European governments to place greater emphasis on their own defence capabilities.

The shift has come as Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO members over their defence spending. He has also questioned the value of the alliance and clashed with European leaders over Ukraine and Iran while threatening to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark. The latest tensions escalated after the US and Israel began their war on Iran when Trump accused allies of failing to support Washington and dismissed NATO as a “paper tiger”.

Media reports have said that the Pentagon has also prepared a memo examining options to punish allies viewed as insufficiently supportive during the Iran war. Those options reportedly include exploring the suspension of Spain, which has been particularly critical of the war, from NATO and reviewing the US position on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands. NATO has no formal mechanism to expel a member, but the episode has cast doubt over the alliance’s unity and revived questions about Europe defending itself without Washington.

At the heart of Europe’s bid to look for alternative security arrangements beyond NATO is Article 42.7 of the European Union’s founding treaty.

What is Article 42.7?

Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union is the bloc’s mutual defence clause. It says that if an EU member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states are obliged to provide aid and assistance by all means in their power in line with the United Nations Charter.

By comparison, Article 5 in NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is supported by common planning and joint exercises and is underpinned by the military weight of the US.

Unlike NATO’s Article 5, however, the EU clause is not backed by an integrated military command structure, standing defence plans or a permanent force able to respond automatically and the US has no obligation to intervene.

That means it is often seen as less credible as a military guarantee in practice although it remains an important political commitment.

Who is calling for Europe to turn to Article 42.7?

Cyprus, which is an EU member but not a NATO member, has been especially eager to strengthen the clause after a drone struck a British airbase on the island during the Iran war last month. While such an incident may not have been enough to invoke NATO’s Article 5, it could raise questions about Article 42.7, particularly at a time of growing strain between the US and Europe.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides said leaders had agreed it was time to define how the provision would work in practice if it were triggered.

“We agreed last night that the [European] Commission will prepare a blueprint on how we respond in case a member state triggers Article 42.7,” he said on Friday at an EU summit.

French President Emmanuel Macron has also stressed that the clause should be treated as a binding commitment rather than a symbolic gesture. “On Article 42, paragraph 7, it’s not just words,” he said during a weekend visit to Greece. “For us, it is clear, and there is no room for interpretation or ambiguity.”

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, said the bloc was drawing up a “handbook” for the use of the clause.

And EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Europe must step up its defence efforts after Trump has “shaken the transatlantic relationship to its foundation”.

“Let me be clear: We want strong transatlantic ties. The US will remain Europe’s partner and ally. But Europe needs to adapt to the new realities. Europe is no longer Washington’s primary centre of gravity,” she said at a defence conference in Brussels.

“This shift has been ongoing for a while. It is structural, not temporary. It means that Europe must step up. No great power in history has outsourced its survival and survived.”

Has the article ever been invoked?

The clause has been used only once before when France invoked it after the 2015 Paris attacks claimed by ISIL (ISIS), in which 130 people were killed and hundreds wounded.

The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II. After Article 47.2 was invoked, other EU states shared intelligence aimed at helping French authorities unravel the conspiracy that led to the attacks.

NATO’s Article 5 has also been invoked just once – after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

But NATO’s help to the US wasn’t limited to intelligence sharing. Allies contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the US-led war in Afghanistan. The operations lasted two decades, and more than 46,000 Afghan civilians were killed alongside 2,461 US personnel and about 1,160 non-US coalition soldiers, according to Brown University’s Cost of War project.

Can countries be kicked out or leave NATO?

Europe’s debate over its defence comes amid a string of disputes inside NATO. The reports that US officials have considered punitive measures against allies have revived questions over the alliance’s future cohesion.

Pablo Calderon Martinez, head of politics and international relations at Northeastern University London and a specialist in European affairs, told Al Jazeera that Spain cannot legally be removed from NATO.

“There is no legal mechanism to remove a member. There is, however, a mechanism through which a member can withdraw itself from the organisation,” he said.

He added that some countries have long fallen short of NATO commitments but that does not provide grounds for expulsion. A more likely scenario, he said, would be the US choosing to leave.

Carne Ross, a former British diplomat and founder of Independent Diplomat, a nonprofit diplomatic advisory group, said the deeper issue is whether Europe and Washington still share common values.

“It is abundantly clear that we do not. Trump is anti-democratic. He tried to subvert democracy, challenged the 2020 election result and whipped up a violent crowd to storm the Capitol,” Ross said.

“What more evidence do we need that the values of Europe are not shared in Washington?”

Is Europe preparing for a future without the US?

European countries have pledged to sharply increase their defence budgets with many aiming to spend 5 percent of their gross domestic products each year on their militaries.

Trump cannot withdraw the US from NATO without congressional approval, but doubts over Washington’s commitment have already unsettled many European capitals.

That has created new urgency around strengthening Europe’s own defence capabilities and building a more credible European pillar inside, or alongside, NATO.

Ross said Europe’s major powers should begin planning seriously for greater self-reliance.

“The Europeans themselves, particularly the most powerful countries – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – need to be talking about how to defend themselves without the US,” he said.

Hundreds of Iranians have rallied in Tehran to demand an end to US threats and the ongoing blockade of Iranian ports. The blockade is causing Iran’s already devalued currency to sink further.

Standoff in the Strait of Hormuz is pushing global oil prices above $120 per barrel, with average gas prices in the US hitting a four-year high.

The decades-old football book craze will comprise 980 unique stickers, including 68 ‘special’ ones in a 112-page ​album.

For generations of ‌football fans, no World Cup would be complete without the thrill of opening ⁠a packet of ⁠Panini stickers and discovering Zico, Franz Beckenbauer, Diego Maradona or Lionel Messi staring back.

Since Italian company Panini’s first sticker collection at the 1970 World Cup ⁠in Mexico, trying, and usually failing, to complete the set has been an obsession for young fans around the globe, with playground swapping mandatory.

This year’s World Cup in ⁠the United States, Canada and Mexico will present the biggest challenge yet, though, and will require a considerable amount of pocket money.

With 48 nations heading for the tournament in June and July – the largest edition ever – 980 unique stickers, including 68 “special” ones, will be required to ‌fill the 112-page album that will be available from Thursday.

Individual packets of seven stickers retail at 1.25 pounds ($1.69) in the United Kingdom, meaning that even with impossibly perfect luck and no duplicates, 140 packets would be required, costing 175 pounds.

Statistically, however, more than 1,000 packets may be required to acquire every player in the album, meaning an outlay in the region of 1,000 pounds ($1,351).

Panini’s biggest-ever collection was launched at a ⁠special event at Wembley Stadium on Tuesday, with former England players ⁠David James, John Barnes and Gary Cahill reliving their sticker-hunting days.

“As someone who grew up collecting Panini stickers, swapping with friends in the playground and trying to complete the album every tournament, the album has always ⁠marked the real start of a World Cup for me!” former Chelsea defender Cahill said.

“Seeing myself in the collection during my ⁠playing days was a surreal and proud moment, and ⁠a reminder of how these stickers become part of the story of every World Cup.”

Panini say they will be hosting a live “swap shop” in May around the UK, giving collectors the chance to find their must-have players while a “Sticker ‌Box” will travel up and down the country, giving away sticker packets and albums.

When the dust has settled on the World Cup, it might also be prudent to store ‌duplicates ‌in the loft as there is a burgeoning market in vintage stickers.

In 2021, a 1979 Panini sticker of Maradona, then aged 19, sold for 470,000 pounds (about $556,000 at the time) at auction.

King Charles III has hailed US-UK ties at a state dinner in the White House after speaking at a joint session of Congress in a rare appearance by a British monarch. The visit marks 250 years since American independence, and comes amid strains over the war on Iran.

China has detained nearly 70 Panamanian-flagged ships after a Supreme Court ruling on the Panama Canal, US officials say.

Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States have released a joint statement in support of Panama, while criticising Chinese economic retaliation, after a Hong Kong-based conglomerate lost a legal dispute over the management of ports on the Panama Canal.

Panama’s Supreme Court in late January annulled contracts that had allowed a subsidiary of Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison to administer the Balboa and Cristobal port terminals on the Panama Canal after deeming the decades-old agreements unconstitutional.

In their joint statement on Tuesday, the six countries claimed that following the court ruling, China has retaliated against Panama with “targeted economic pressure” on Panamanian-flagged ships.

China detained nearly 70 Panamanian-flagged ships in March, according to the US Federal Maritime Commission, a number “far exceeding historical norms”.

“These actions – following the decision of Panama’s independent Supreme Court regarding the Balboa and Cristobal terminals – are a blatant attempt to politicise maritime trade and infringe on the sovereignty of the nations of our hemisphere,” the signatories said.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said separately on X that Washington was “deeply concerned” by China’s economic pressure on Panama.

“We stand in solidarity with Panama. Any attempts to undermine Panama’s sovereignty are a threat to us all,” he said.

China has previously accused the US of “bullying” and trying to smear its reputation in Latin America, while it described the Panamanian Supreme Court ruling as “absurd” and “shameful”.

US Federal Maritime Commission head Laura DiBella said last month that Beijing’s detention of Panamanian ships had repercussions for both Panama and the US.

“These intensified inspections were carried out under informal directives and appear intended to punish Panama after the transfer of Hutchison’s port assets,” DiBella said.

“Given that Panama‑flagged ships carry a meaningful share of US containerised trade, these actions could result in significant commercial and strategic consequences to US shipping,” she said.

‘States know how vulnerable shipping is’

Panama’s decision to invalidate the contracts held by CK Hutchison’s subsidiary Panama Ports Company was made at a time of heightened media attention around the Panama Canal amid threats by US President Donald Trump to seize the strategic waterway.

Trump had made the approximately 80km (49-mile) waterway a focus of his second administration, alleging in his inaugural address in January 2025 that China was “operating” the canal and pledging that the US would “take back” control.

US officials allege that, in addition to targeting Panama and its interests, China has also retaliated against shipping giants Maersk and the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), whose subsidiaries were granted 18-month contracts to administer the Balboa and Cristobal terminals after CK Hutchison was removed.

Representatives of Maersk and MSC were both summoned by China’s Ministry of Transport for “high-level discussions”, the Federal Maritime Commission said in March, while Chinese shipping giant COSCO has suspended operations at the Balboa terminal.

CK Hutchison, through its Panama Ports Company subsidiary, is separately pursuing international arbitration against the government of Panama and seeking more than $2bn in damages.

David Smith, an associate professor at the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre, said that the Panama Canal dispute and China’s retaliation were the latest example of how shipping has become a political target, from Latin America to the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea in the Middle East.

“We have taken for granted that the world runs on container ships just freely sailing around the world,” he told Al Jazeera.

“What we’re seeing now is that states know how vulnerable shipping is. They know they can cut shipping lanes off if necessary. It should not surprise us from now on if ships and shipping in general become pawns in international politics.”

The passports are part of broader plans to celebrate the milestone anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence.

United States President Donald Trump will feature on a new, limited-edition US passport being issued to mark the country’s 250th anniversary in July, officials said, the latest area of public life to receive Trump’s personal branding.

The commemorative passports are part of broader plans to celebrate the milestone anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence, with events planned across the country next July.

Images released by the White House and the Department of State on Tuesday show Trump’s portrait incorporated into the design, set against elements of the Declaration of Independence and the US flag. The rendering also includes the president’s signature in gold.

Another page will feature an illustration of the Founding Fathers signing the Declaration of Independence.

“As the United States marks its 250th anniversary in July, the State Department is preparing to release a limited number of specially designed US passports to commemorate this historic occasion,” said Tommy Piggott, a spokesperson for the US State Department.

The commemorative passports will be available to US citizens applying through the Washington Passport Agency, with distribution set to begin this summer and continue while supplies last.

Current US passports feature images tied to the country’s history and identity. The inside front cover shows a painting of Francis Scott Key after the Battle of Fort McHenry, when he saw the US flag still standing after an attack. This moment inspired him to write a poem that later became the US national anthem, with lines from it printed alongside the image.

Other pages include moments from American history, such as the Apollo 11 Moon landing, and symbols like the Statue of Liberty.

Trump links branding push to 250th anniversary plans

The passport redesign is the latest example of efforts by Trump and his administration to place his name, image or signature on institutions and initiatives across Washington and the country.

Some of those efforts have already been implemented. This year’s national park passes, for example, display Trump’s image alongside George Washington, a departure from the programme’s traditional focus on natural landscapes.

The United States Mint has also released draft designs for a $1 coin featuring Trump’s profile as part of the 250th anniversary commemorations.

Proposed imagery for the coin redesign includes his portrait alongside inscriptions such as “Liberty” and “In God We Trust”. The reverse depicts him raising a clenched fist in front of an American flag with the phrase “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT”, referencing a chant he used after a 2024 assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Trump has pushed Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer to rename New York’s Penn Station after him, linking the idea to the release of federal infrastructure funding, but the effort has failed to gain traction.

Trump has also placed his face on government buildings around Washington, DC, in the form of long banners.

Even the architecture of the US capital city is changing to reflect his tastes: Last October, he tore down the White House’s East Wing to build a massive ballroom, and he has plans to build a triumphal arch in the capital, similar to the one in Paris, France.

In December, Trump’s name was added to the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, just one day after his hand-picked board members controversially voted to rename the art venue, the first time a national institution has been named after a sitting US president.

Within days, workers had added metal lettering to the building’s exterior, renamed as “The Donald J Trump and the John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts”.

In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.

In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.

Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.

That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.

In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.

“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.

Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.

The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.

“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just ⁠reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.

US president says Iran has reached out and asked Washington to lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Britain’s King Charles III has used a speech in front of the United States Congress to pledge NATO unity and call for support for Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

The address on Tuesday came during the royal’s four-day visit to the US, with the US-Israel war with Iran, US President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO, and trade tensions between the longtime allies looming large.

But Charles avoided any reference to specific frictions during his speech at the US Capitol, instead striking a light tone in his joke-heavy opening.

He praised what he called the shared history and values of the two countries, quipping at one point that Washington, DC was “a tale of two Georges”, the first US President George Washington and his ancestor, the UK’s King George.

He assured lawmakers, to laughs, he was not in the US “as part of some cunning rearguard action” in a delayed continuation of the Revolutionary War.

“I am here on this great occasion in the life of our nations to express the highest regard and friendship of the British people to the people of the United States,” the sovereign said to repeated standing ovations.

But amid broad themes of unity, more pointed messages lurked.

Charles did not directly address the US-Israel war with Iran or Trump’s outspoken criticism of NATO allies who have rejected joining Washington’s war efforts.

Instead, he praised support for NATO and the alliance’s invocation of its Article 5 collective defence treaty in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

“We answered the call together, as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan and moments that have defined our shared security,” he said.

He then turned to funding for Ukraine, an increasingly pointed issue in the Republican-controlled US Congress.

“Today, Mr Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people,” he said, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In one instance, Charles hailed the “$430 billion in annual trade that continues to grow, the $1.7 trillion in mutual investment that fuels that innovation”.

Last week, Trump threatened to impose a “big tariff” on the UK if it did not drop a digital services tax on US tech companies.

At another point, Charles pointed to global environmental concerns.

“We ignore, at our peril, the fact that these natural systems, in other words, nature’s own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security,” he said.

Trump has called climate change a “con job” and withdrew from the landmark Paris Agreement climate accords during his first and second terms. His administration has since pursued deregulation of fossil fuels and pivoted away from green energy, an approach embraced by many members of the president’s Republican party.

Other messages appeared to gently reference political trends in the US, where critics have accused Trump of using the Department of Justice for political retribution and of overturning long-standing norms of presidential authority.

Charles described the “common ideals” of the US and UK: “The rule of law, the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary, resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice”.

He also drew a throughline between the Magna Carta, the 13th-century document that established that the British king was subject to law, and constitutional and legal precedent in the US, calling it “the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances”.

The address came shortly before Trump was set to host Charles and his wife, Queen Camilla, for an official state dinner.

The pair were then set to visit New York and Virginia, before an official farewell ceremony at the White House on Thursday.

US President Donald Trump hailed the “cherished bond” between the United States and the United Kingdom as he welcomed King Charles III and Queen Camilla to the White House, seeking to mend a rift over issues including the war on Iran.

Only 22 percent of US voters back the president’s performance on the cost of living, Reuters/Ipsos survey suggests.

United States President Donald Trump’s approval rating has dropped to its lowest point since he returned to the White House, sinking to 34 percent amid economic uncertainty and the US-Israel war on Iran, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests.

The poll, released on Tuesday, also showed that only 22 percent of respondents back Trump’s performance on the cost of living. Affordability has been a top issue for US voters.

The Iran war, which saw Tehran block most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, has sent energy prices soaring across the world and fuelled inflation in the US.

The Reuters poll was conducted April 24-27, and it surveyed 1,014 US adults.

It comes months before the midterm elections in November when Trump’s Republican Party will have to contend with the US president’s abysmal job approval ratings as it tries to retain control of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Trump continues to enjoy near-unanimous support from Republicans in Congress despite growing criticism of the war on Iran by some right-wing commentators and podcasters.

The conflict has also been unpopular with US voters, including a sizeable Republican constituency.

A Marquette Law School survey released last week suggested that only 32 percent of voters approve of Trump’s handling of the war.

The number rose to 65 percent among Republican respondents, but it still showed significant dissent within the party on the issue.

A separate Associated Press-NORC poll last week reported similar findings – Trump’s overall approval rating at 33 percent, support for the war at 32 percent and his handling of the economy at 30 percent.

The US and Iran reached a two-week ceasefire on April 8 that Trump extended indefinitely, but tensions remain high in the region.

Duelling blockades in the Gulf – Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and the US laying a naval siege on Iranian ports – have caused global energy supply issues to persist despite the truce.

In the US, the average price of 1 gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol is currently at $4.17, up from less than $3 before the war.

Still, Trump has suggested that he is comfortable with the status quo, claiming repeatedly that the Iranian economy is crumbling and that time is on his side.

“Iran has just informed us that they are in a ‘State of Collapse,’” the US president wrote in a social media post on Tuesday.

“They want us to ‘Open the Hormuz Strait,’ as soon as possible, as they try to figure out their leadership situation (Which I believe they will be able to do!)”

It’s not clear how or why Iran, which is currently refusing to hold direct negotiations with the US without it lifting the naval blockade, would inform Trump that its own economy is collapsing.

One day Delcy Rodríguez calls for a reform to the justice system after announcing the sudden revocation of the amnesty law her brother sponsored. The other, rumors suggest she’ll reshuffle the country’s higher court without providing any indication of who the new magistrates are going to be. The central bank president she recently named prepares to disclose figures to the IMF for the first time in decades.

The public does little else than follow the news, as if things were normal. Futile debate has emerged on social media over whether the new US chief of mission in Caracas is more hawkish than his predecessor. Or if the opposition has racist tendencies because a singer (once popular in the 2000s) called Delcy an ape in the opposition’s largest rally in years.

The picture of the country in recent weeks is one of Delcy Rodríguez calling the shots with near-total freedom. She has been enjoying a clear head start over a potential presidential election, as she crisscrosses Venezuela on what amounts to an unofficial campaign tour. In Caracas, she keeps changing everything so that nothing really changes. She is intent on controlling government offices in the next four years through newly promoted loyalists and a clean inflow of petrodollars. The chavista elite has looked more confident in the meantime, touring with Delcy in sky-blue outfits, leading cartoonish chants for peace and national union as if the internal contradictions that surfaced two months ago were now less important, because the possibility of survival looks clearer.

Back in February, optimists would discuss the scope of Washington’s coercion capacity over the “caretaker” regime, the boundaries that (if crossed) would trigger a “second wave” of attacks, the disappearance of Alex Saab as a prelude of a broader purge against other “untouchables” that overtly normalized the commission of terror. Now, lunatics like Diosdado Cabello’s nephew, Alejandro Rondón, claim on social media that “the recess is about to end” the same day Delcy says the amnesty scheme ran its course and Cabello recounts an unlikely justice system crackdown.

What followed January 3^rdwas a paradigm change with positive practical consequences for society that chavismo quickly learned to manage if not reverse.

Alejandro doesn’t look like the brightest dude. He’s another chavista nepo-kid working for the other Cabello uncle that controls Venezuela’s taxing authority, Jose David, though Alejandro made a name for himself with rage-baiting tweets that celebrated Maduro’s “victory” in 2024 and claimed the opposition were terrorists who falsified the official voting records (i.e. Diosdado’s talking points during the tun-tun operation).]

But an emboldened member of the Cabello Rondón clan is a troubling sign for those who fled the country after being placed on “treason” blacklists. It also undercuts the very notions of pluralism and national reconciliation that Marco Rubio invoked three months ago when outlining his vision for Venezuela’s democratic transition before US senators. Shortly thereafter, Rondón drove the point home by publicly wishing Donald Trump well after the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The message seems clear: the arrangement with Team Trump is comfortable enough that, however fraught the geopolitical backdrop, they can afford to be flippant—even in public. They remain, unmistakably, the bullies in town. 

The long wait for elections (or just a calendar?)

What followed January 3^rd was a paradigm change with positive practical consequences for society that chavismo quickly learned to manage if not reverse. Allies of Maria Corina  Machado who spent the past two years jailed or hiding are back in the street, even providing testimonies about their imprisonment. The student movement has undergone a revival, liaising with human rights groups to set up carefully-controlled protests. Censorship isn’t what it used to be, so journalists have tried to take advantage of that opening. Pensioners and public workers have perhaps become the loudest actor in confronting Rodríguez, despite having to face colectivos and National Guards whenever they hit the streets.

Repression has become less intense, but the lack of a clear electoral calendar keeps the opposition on the sidelines, waiting for the arrival of Machado, which is no less paralyzing. The amnesty law passed on February 19 effectively funneled the release of political prisoners, shattering expectations of a “landmark outcome” that would speed up the process. 

Indeed, the statute’s contents make more than 180 supposed military rebels ineligible, although the release of a handful of FANB officers in recent days reinforces the idea that a law wasn’t necessary to get people out of jail. Nearly 300 civilians are still imprisoned, and we haven’t seen significant breakthroughs in the past few weeks.

According to figures from NGO Foro Penal (based on documented cases), the political prisoner population fell by 40% in the two months following the US military intervention—dropping from 863 detainees in late December to 526 by March 2. The pace has clearly slowed since then. Chavismo released 36 people between March and April, and 17 over the past 18 days (about 6% of the pre–January 3 total). The regime still resorts to sporadic arbitrary arrests and intimidation. Alexis Paparoni, an opposition figure in Mérida (and brother of Carlos Paparoni), was briefly detained while traveling and later released under precautionary measures. A similar incident occurred last weekend with a government employee in Guárico, who was detained for having a note on his desk bearing the now-infamous slur directed at Delcy.

“These prisoners are currently incarcerated because POTUShas chosen to appease and praise the perpetrators instead of supporting their victims,” Burelli recently told Senator Scott.

The White House appears satisfied with results so far. Venezuela is now subject to sweeping sanctions relief across oil, gas, minerals, and fertilizers, while OFAC has issued waivers allowing operations with public banks. Most notably, Delcy Rodríguez has been removed from the Specially Designated Nationals list—effectively unfreezing her US-based assets and clearing the way for financial dealings under American jurisdiction. 

The opposition leadership has largely stuck to its 2025 strategy of projecting trust and patience toward Donald Trump. María Corina Machado continues to argue that Trump is the head of state who has done the most to advance Venezuela’s liberation and maintains that the Rodríguez government is dismantling the Maduro-era “structures of corruption and repression.” However, she acknowledged last week that a bout of political instability cannot be ruled out. 

“The risk is that if people feel the path [toward freedom and democracy] is beginning to close, they may start to push back in a disorganized and potentially anarchic way,” she told esRadio hosts in Madrid. “That’s why a clearly defined electoral calendar is a guarantee of peace and stability. That would help people accept that this process will last a bit longer, as institutions must be strengthened and we need to take time to prepare for a truly impeccable election.”

Running out of patience

Criticism of the Trump administration’s handling in Venezuela continues to grow among groups of scholars and foreign policy observers, while opposition parties remain largely quiet and prefer to let Machado formulate their stance.

But in general, there’s a tense awareness that the waters are getting muddy. Some in journalism, and other opposition allies are starting to lose their patience.

Venezuelan journalist Sebastiana Barraez, an outspoken critic of chavismo and popular source on repression, told her audience that Venezuelan people have no guarantees about their future. Two days ago, she admitted the overthrow of Nicolás Maduro had raised hopes of a new democracy and true institutional recovery.

“It turns out none of that is happening,” Barráez said. “In Venezuela, Trump is promoting the interests of the United States. The problem is that those interests are not compatible with what we Venezuelans are looking for.”

Pedro Mario Burelli, an independent advisor for the opposition, is among the few figures to be pressing Washington over its ties with Delcy Rodríguez, calling Trump’s decision to elevate her an “incoherent strategy.” He has warned that doing business with Minerven makes the US an effective enabler of environmental crimes in Venezuela’s south. In March, he told The Atlantic that the remaining political prisoners now belong to Trump and Rubio.

“These prisoners are currently incarcerated because POTUS has chosen to appease and praise the perpetrators instead of supporting their victims. Constantly praising Delcy is disgraceful and an insult to the vast majority of Venezuelans”, Burelli told GOP Senator Rick Scott on Sunday.“Faulting her, as you and some of your colleagues do, is disingenuous. Venezuelans rightfully expect, and deserve, much more from democratically elected US officials.”