united states

White House hails pledge that seeks to shield consumers from the cost of energy for data centres as ‘historic’.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has said it will expand a voluntary pledge seeking to shield consumers from the energy costs of the rapid expansion of data centres, mostly used by artificial intelligence companies.

The White House announced on Thursday that it would add state governors and electricity companies to the agreement, first announced with tech and AI firms in March. But the US administration stopped short of any enforceable protections.

The White House called the expansion of the pledge “historic”, saying 200 additional utilities, data centre developers and states would join it.

The pledge is a “public commitment that hyperscalers, AI companies, and the utilities and data-center developers behind them will build, bring, or buy every kilowatt their facilities need — and cover every dollar of the infrastructure that delivers it”.

It says consumers would not foot the bill for AI’s energy needs.

In remarks about the pledge at the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, Trump called on the gathered executives and governors to sell the public on data centres, stressing that the cities and towns that have them will be “rich.”

“You have to convince your community. You can’t fight it. You have to go with it,” Trump said.

“If you don’t take all that money, somebody else is going to take it. You might as well do it yourselves.”

The US president has been a strong advocate for AI, which has become an enormous source of investment and a key priority for the country’s powerful tech sector. Trump has approached the sector, which includes some of his close allies, with a light regulatory touch during his second term.

But increased electricity demand from AI data centres could spur an increase in monthly utility bills between 15 and 40 percent by the year 2030, according to an analysis by the consulting and technology services company ICF.

A May Gallup poll suggested that seven out of 10 people in the US oppose the construction of AI data centres in their area, with about 48 percent saying they were strongly opposed. Slightly more than 25 percent said they favoured such efforts, with only 7 percent saying they strongly favoured them.

Concerns over the impact of such centres on the cost of utilities, such as electricity and water, are commonly cited as reasons for opposition, along with quality of life concerns and scepticism about the benefits of AI.

Some elections across the country have seen AI data centre construction emerge as a prominent issue, but the industry has pushed forward with plans to rapidly scale up infrastructure for the technology.

A poll from Johns Hopkins University in June suggested that Americans strongly favour greater regulation of AI, and about 60 percent of respondents said they expected AI to increase inequality over the next decade.

Four in 10 respondents said that AI companies stand to increase their power the most from the expansion of the technology, while just one in 10 said that individuals would gain the most.

Trump says he is considering a ‘massive attack’, as Iran’s Araghchi says ‘mindless aggression’ won’t help a deal.

America’s war on Iran has already cost the US nearly $110 billion. Now, the Trump administration wants another $67 billion, even after declaring victory. Al Jazeera’s Emma Withrow breaks down the growing price tag.

The US president’s threat comes after another day of Iranian attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan.

United States President Donald Trump says he may launch the largest strikes on Iran yet after Tehran carried out another wave of retaliatory attacks on US allies in the Gulf, including hitting a telecommunications tower in Kuwait.

In remarks to US news website Axios on Thursday, Trump said he was “considering a massive attack” that would be “bigger than ever before”.

“I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it,” Trump said.

The threat raises the stakes yet again in a weeks-long military confrontation in which the US has attacked Iran for 12 straight nights, including hitting bridges and tunnels, according to Iranian media reports.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks have rippled throughout much of the Gulf, sparking fears of a worsening energy crisis.

The spiralling conflict has all but destroyed an interim peace deal signed by the US and Iran last month.

‘Eye for an eye’

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi warned on Wednesday that Tehran would retaliate “an eye for an eye” against any future attacks, including those on Iran’s infrastructure.

After another night of US attacks on Wednesday, Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait on Thursday.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attacks in Jordan and Kuwait targeted and hit US military assets.

The IRGC also acknowledged attacking a telecommunications tower in Kuwait, saying it was in retaliation for US attacks on telecommunications towers in Iran.

In a statement addressing the Kuwaiti people directly, the IRGC insisted that the US, not Iran, had breached the Gulf state’s “territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

Later on Thursday, Kuwait said that its Abdali border crossing with Iraq had also come under attack by “hostile drones”.

“The armed forces’ retaliatory attacks will continue as long as the US attacks on the country’s infrastructure and coastal areas continue,” said the Iranian army’s spokesperson, Mohammad Akraminia.

Houthis attack Saudi tankers

Meanwhile, Yemen’s Houthi rebels further expanded the confrontation on Thursday by firing at two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, leading to broad international condemnation and a spike in global oil prices.

“The situation is getting out of control. It is teetering on the edge of the unimaginable,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told a meeting of the Security Council. “One crisis feeds another. One escalation triggers the next.”

The Houthis have declared a blockade of Saudi Arabian ports, destabilising a second key global shipping route: the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut since the US and Israel launched the war on Iran in late February.

Reporting from Sanaa, Yemen, Al Jazeera’s Yousef Mawry cited Houthi sources as saying that the facilities of Saudi Arabia’s national oil company Aramco “could become a future target” of the Houthis if Riyadh does not lift its own blockade on Houthi-controlled ports.

The international oil benchmark Brent crude surged past $100 a barrel on Thursday for the first time in May, in what analysts said could have an even greater impact on the global economy.

“Much of the world’s spare production capacity has already been used, while strategic and commercial oil inventories are lower than when the war began, leaving the market with fewer buffers against a prolonged supply disruption,” said Janiv Shah, vice president of the Rystad Energy consultancy.

Withdrawal is latest instance of government’s efforts to crack down on critical media facing setbacks in court.

Attorneys for the United States government have withdrawn subpoenas seeking to compel three New York Times reporters to testify about their sources for a story about an Air Force One jet gifted to US President Donald Trump by Qatar.

Judge Arun Subramanian slammed the government’s lawyers for what he deemed sloppy legal work in an exchange in court on Thursday.

“Subpoenas are not the first thing you do; they are the last thing you do,” an irritated Subramanian said.

“When you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I would normally do is ask the parties to show causes why sanctions should not be issued,” he added.

The Trump administration had sought to keep the proceedings secret as it pressured the reporters to reveal their sources for a story, a request that raised alarms for US press freedoms as the president and his allies continue to aggressively target critical media and political opponents.

Such efforts, however, have largely been rejected in court. The US government recently withdrew similar subpoenas that sought to compel testimony from reporters with the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

Lawyers for the New York Times challenged the legitimacy of the grand jury subpoenas along with subpoenas for the phone records of several journalists and their relatives. The paper’s managing editor and general counsel sat in the gallery during proceedings on Thursday.

The government has said that it is pursuing those who have leaked material to reporters for a story about Trump taking an older model Air Force One jet back from a summit in Turkiye, rather than the one gifted from Qatar.

The Secret Service reportedly advised that the new jet, which the government has spent $400m to retrofit and upgrade, lacks important security features such as antimissile capabilities.

“Reporters are not the targets; those leaking classified information are,” the Department of Justice said of the subpoena requests.

Obtaining information from government sources is a cornerstone of journalism, and national security reporting in particular and is considered essential to press freedom. Efforts by the US government under both Democratic and Republican administrations to compel reporters to disclose their sources have been viewed as an effort to weaken those protections.

United States President Donald Trump agreed to a 30-year nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia on Wednesday that would see Washington transfer nuclear technology to the Gulf kingdom.

This has drawn concerns that if the deal comes to fruition, it could spark a nuclear arms race across the Middle East amid reports that Riyadh would be able to enrich its own uranium, a necessary step in acquiring nuclear weapons.

US officials have stressed the proposed deal would serve civilian nuclear purposes, although exact details of the agreement have not been made public.

It has now been tabled in the US Congress for a review, but is expected to survive resistance from Democrats.

Here’s why some are concerned about the agreement:

Could this spur a nuclear arms race in the region?

Analysts have raised concerns about whether the proposed deal could lead to Saudi Arabia seeking to develop military-grade uranium, which the US Energy Department has not yet confirmed.

Some analysts have warned this could open the door to spurring an arms race with other regional powers.

Saudi Arabia has long voiced its intention to use nuclear energy for power generation, but in 2018, de facto leader Mohammad bin Salman told CBS that Riyadh would “without a doubt” develop a nuclear weapon if Iran did the same.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted on Thursday that the deal would not lead to nuclear proliferation, as US contractors would handle the project, allowing Washington to monitor it. US nuclear reactor designer Westinghouse is believed to be a major contractor.

Former Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman said in a post on X on Wednesday that Israel must oppose the deal with “all our might.”

“We must all understand that Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear programme will end in nuclear weapons and lead to a mad arms race across the entire Middle East,” he posted.

Israel, which developed a nuclear arsenal in the 1960s, has long sought to stop Arab countries and other regional countries from gaining their own nuclear weapons.

Is there a risk of nuclear reactors being attacked in strikes?

Some others have also raised concerns over possible nuclear leaks amid the tensions in the Middle East.

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, for example, has seen some of its outer facilities hit in the US and Israel’s war on Iran. Iran too has hit the perimeter of the United Arab Emirates’ Barakah nuclear power plant in a drone strike.

None of these strikes hit the nuclear plants’ reactors, but analysts say allowing more such facilities in the Middle East when tensions are so high is a mistake.

Damage to a reactor’s core could release highly radioactive gases, causing immediate catastrophic damage within a 20- to 30-kilometre (12- to 18-mile) radius.

Nuclear accidents at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011 and Chornobyl in Ukraine in the former Soviet Union in 1986 are cautionary stories.

Could Saudi Arabia have access to sensitive material?

That’s unclear for now.

Highly enriched uranium and spent nuclear reactor fuel are key components of nuclear bombs.

According to US media, the agreement includes a clause providing for a “black box” uranium enrichment facility that would be situated in Saudi Arabia but run by US companies.

A joint study by the two countries, set to last two years, will determine whether such a facility is needed, or if Saudi Arabia should import commercial-grade low-enriched uranium.

“That’s really the concern,” Matthew Kroenig, a fellow with the Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera, saying there’s been no such arrangement anywhere else in the world.

“What does the US really mean by a ‘black box’? So will the US bring its engineers there full time, forever? Realistically, the Saudis will be involved, they will learn the tech, and they could kick out the US in the future,” Kroenig said.

Washington could be seeking to model Moscow’s agreement with Turkiye and Egypt, where Russian contractors manage active nuclear power plants, including the needed uranium and the highly radioactive spent fuel from the reactors.

The difference, Kroenig pointed out, is that Russia does not enrich the uranium in those cases.

On the other hand, the UAE, which runs a civilian nuclear programme that has been held up as a gold standard for non-proliferation, imports all of its low-enriched uranium from France, the United Kingdom and Russia among other countries.

Kroenig suggested that the US could be using the two-year study as a negotiating tactic, noting that the same claims of impact studies have been used to stall South Korea’s requests to enrich its own uranium.

“The deal doesn’t immediately speak about uranium enrichment, so my hope is that this is a negotiating tactic and that after two years the US will say ‘oh no, this doesn’t make sense right now’”, he said.

The Senate was also expected to vote on War Powers resolution, in largely symbolic move attempting to reign in Trump.

Four Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have again joined Democrats in voting to constrain President Donald Trump’s power to wage war against Iran.

The resolution passed on Thursday, nearly a week after three US military personnel were killed by an Iranian attack on a base in Jordan, with a 214-208 vote. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said Democrats will also force a War Powers vote in the Senate on Thursday.

Both the House and Senate had previously passed a resolution in June that called on Trump to seek congressional approval before launching further attacks. However, because the resolution was passed as a so-called “concurrent resolution”, it was not sent to Trump’s desk.

Even if the measure had been passed as a joint resolution, requiring it to be sent to Trump for approval, the president could veto it. Overriding such a veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Democrats have said the latest resolution sends an important message that lawmakers oppose Trump’s approach to the war, which has re-escalated after a ceasefire broke down in early July.

Both the US and Iran have traded 12 days of consecutive attacks, with some analysts warning an even greater US escalation may be on the horizon, as Trump has repeatedly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure and a possible ground invasion.

“This is a vote that requires us to find the strength to do what is right for the American people, and to send the clearest, even stronger message to this president of the United States that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, is reasserting our authority over war,” Representative Pramila Jayapal said from the House floor on Wednesday.

“This war must end,” she said.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war, something it has not done since World War II, although presidents can commit forces in instances of pressing self-defence.

Trump has argued that the culmination of Iran’s actions since 1979 represents such an imminent threat, a claim many constitutional law experts have rejected.

Under the 1973 War Powers Act, presidents must receive congressional approval within 60 days of committing troops. While the US-Israel war with Iran began on February 28, the Trump administration claimed that hostilities had “terminated” following a temporary pause in fighting reached in April.

War powers experts and some members of Congress have said the attempted workaround flouts the law. The administration again notified Congress that fighting had resumed before the most recent round of attacks.

In a statement on Thursday, David Janovsky, acting director of The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), said the House vote “reaffirmed what people across the country have been saying all along: We want no part in an illegal war”.

“Contrary to the administration’s claims, the latest hostilities are not a new war. We’re now months past the constitutional deadline for the administration to end this unauthorised war,” he said.

He also noted that the House on Tuesday approved a sprawling $1.15 trillion defence bill that includes tens of billions more in funding for the war. The Senate has not yet voted on the package.

“If Congress is serious about bringing an end to this prolonged conflict, it must also refuse the administration’s request to fund it,” he said.

Is the Trump administration actually stealing from Venezuelans?

The Financial Times estimated the “likely value” of Venezuela’s oil revenues since January, when those income streams (not only from oil and gas, but also from gold and other minerals) came under the direct control and supervision of the US government. Using data from Kpler and Argus Media, the newspaper put the figure at $13 billion. 

Let’s assume that one figure is accurate or at least comes close to the real number. The key question here, which neither the United States nor Venezuelan authorities have bothered to answer, is how much of that has been trickling back to the Venezuelan economy.

American officials, in press conferences and hearings, have given remarks about how the revenue repatriation framework is supposed to work under the current arrangement. There was a temporary framework immediately after the gringo takeover (the famous Qatar fund we reported in January). Now, it allegedly works like this:

1) Oil revenues flow into accounts managed by the US Treasury. Crude buyers, such as India and Spain, route payments into US-controlled “Foreign Government Deposit Funds.” 

2) Secretary of State Marco Rubio (empowered by Executive Order 14373) provides instructions to the Treasury for disbursements to Venezuelan entities, particularly the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV).

3) The funds land in BCV accounts.

4) One chunk of that pays pensions, public workers’ salaries, the military and the police apparatus, i.e. the basic components of the State.

5) Another part of those dollars is channelled to the domestic banking system through a select group of private banks—here’s where things start to get tricky. Rather than holding competitive auctions or floating currency rates on a free market, the BCV distributes capped quotas of dollars to these banks at the strictly controlled official exchange rate.

6) At the final stage, from commercial banks to the private sectors, the transaction is a direct cash sale: to purchase dollars, Venezuelan companies must have the full equivalent in bolivars ready in their accounts. Banks immediately debit the buyer’s bolivar account at the day’s official rate and credit the equivalent dollars into the company’s local foreign-currency account. It works as a rationing mechanism, since major corporations (e.g. those in key sectors like food and medicine) are prioritized, and smaller companies acquire USD on a first-come, first-served basis through online banking platforms until daily dollar quotas run out.

Good. So now we know how the repatriation framework is supposed to work.

Let’s go back to the $13 billion figure, and the stage of the sequence connecting the US Treasury and the BCV. The US calls itself de facto custodian of Venezuelan money (remember EO14373 speaks of the “Custodial Nature of United States Possession”), so it should showcase full transparency over those transactions and demand accountability from the Delcy Rodríguez government. How much money has the US disbursed? Has it published anything about those disbursements? What about the Delcy government?

The fundamental question is not only how much revenue the US and the Rodríguez administration are processing, but who ultimately benefits from these flows and whether they contribute to genuine economic recovery.

Here’s where the news is worse. Washington has not disclosed anything concrete. What we know is limited to what US officials tell journalists (mainly foreign correspondents) off the record, which is very vague, and very little. Most recently, a “senior US official” told reporter Stephania Taladrid (who wrote this 11-pager about Maria Corina Machado) that the Trump administration “authorized the disbursement of more than six billion dollars to Rodríguez’s government.” Officials had given some accounts of the amounts disbursed in the first days of the arrangement. For instance, Rubio mentioned that $300m were disbursed through the Qatari fund during a Senate hearing in late January. In early February, an anonymous US official confirmed that Venezuela received its first $500 million post-Maduro. That was the first full disbursement, the last one that the US addressed, though without offering any form of paper trail.

You could say things are equally opaque on Delcy’s front, with the caveat that we are used to this defining feature of the chavista regime. I should add something else about the US-Venezuela framework explained above: according to public statements from American officials, Caracas should submit monthly budget requests to the US, so Rubio can keep authorizing cash transfers with peace of mind. The State Department (through Western Hemisphere chief diplomat Michael Kozak, who is playing an important role in Venezuelan politics) said in April that the accounting firm KPMG was hired to produce quarterly audits of how Venezuelan oil revenues are being spent. He also claimed that, by then, $3 billion had been “moved through” to Venezuela.

Three months later, those reports do not exist. Or are not public at least. It seems that our friend El Kenedi was right when he warned Venezuela will never show you the money, but that’s the Viceroy’s fault, not just Delcy’s.

The Financial Times, which ran the story that ignited the controversy, is playing an interesting role in shaping the conversation about the value of Venezuelan assets and liabilities. Right before the devastating earthquakes, an FT scoop said the Delcy government would reveal a $240 billion debt pile (“much higher than expected”). The latest article might not paint the full picture (as a New York Times reporter suggests) but it’s perhaps the first major broadsheet to lambast Trump for his irresponsible (and misleading) remarks, and his team for the lack of transparency over the handling of Venezuelan money. This issue is nothing new, although the recent catastrophe makes full disclosure much more urgent. Other prominent figures and organizations had raised their voice before the quakes.

On June 2, Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann wrote a column in Project Syndicate titled “The Rape of Venezuela” where he addresses this issue and others, including the politics of the looming debt restructuring and the lack of a democratic recovery. In it, he accuses the Trump White House of viewing Venezuela not as a democratic reconstruction project, but as a strategic hydrocarbon asset in the service of American power. A day later, the Council on Foreign Relations (a leading liberal-leaning US think tank) broke down how US control of Venezuelan oil remains murky. That has served as a valuable source for much of the stuff we mention here.

Going back to yesterday’s story, it quotes Venezuelan economist Alejandro Grisanti noting clear indications of large dollar inflows over the past few months. While Grisanti had initially expected economic growth to accelerate in the fourth quarter of this year, he noted that the recent earthquake is now likely to push that recovery back into the middle of next year.

These “indications of large dollar inflows” provide a clear clue as to how the Delcy Rodríguez administration is spending the oil revenues disbursed by the US Treasury. The BCV continues to deploy significant foreign currency reserves to artificially stabilize the official exchange rate. As Juan Comella observed in May, Rodríguez’s monetary policy differs little from that of the Maduro regime. Grisanti and Ecoanalítica remain sharp critics of this interventionist model, the very mechanism that wrecked Venezuela’s economy in the first place by turning privileged access to official-rate dollars into a primary driver of systemic corruption and economic inefficiency.

In an April report, Ecoanalítica criticized the rigid framework governing the domestic private sector’s acquisition of foreign exchange. Only entities with foreign bank accounts (which can be cleared through the SWIFT network) can buy dollars from the select group of major Venezuelan banks, effectively excluding emerging firms and SMEs. Consequently, local businesses receiving US dollars often cannot execute international transactions (such as paying overseas vendors) because they lack the proper banking infrastructure or because their local financial institutions lack correspondent banks abroad. Furthermore, the report highlights that retail accounts held by natural persons capture 20-30% of total FX allocations. This reflects the classic playbook of rewarding cronies while perpetuating market distortions: privileged individuals purchase dollars cheaply at the official BCV rate and immediately offload them on the parallel market at a premium.

We may not know the exact figures, but funds are trickling through the system. The fundamental question is not only how much revenue the US and the Rodríguez administration are processing, but who ultimately benefits from these flows and whether they contribute to genuine economic recovery.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Iran will continue to ‘pay the price’ for what he said was the failure to stick to agreements, telling reporters that President Trump’s policy is ‘a head for an eye’.

The United States continued to hit Iran for a 12th consecutive night early on Thursday, and Iran retaliated, striking targets across the Gulf, particularly in Kuwait and Jordan.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Thursday that an explosion set a tanker ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz after it attempted to navigate the southern route off the coast of Oman.

Here is a recap of what happened on Wednesday night and Thursday.

Where did the US attack Iran?

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said at 02:30 GMT on Thursday that it concluded the latest round of strikes against Iran.

It targeted Iranian military targets, including maritime capabilities, missile and drone storage facilities, coastal surveillance sites and air defence assets, CENTCOM said, without specifying what areas in Iran were struck.

A local official told the Mehr news agency that US missiles struck the area around a passenger terminal in Shalamcheh, a western city near the Iraqi border. Two people were killed in the attack, the deputy governor of Iran’s Khuzestan province told the state broadcaster IRIB on Thursday. Local media also reported that 11 people were injured.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assidi reported from Iranian capital Tehran that overnight strikes targeted at least three cities in the southwestern province of Khuzestan. This included the city of Ramshir, where an asphalt facility was reported to have been targeted.

In Hormozgan province, explosions were heard in the city of Sirik, which overlooks the Strait of Hormuz, Assidi reported.

He added that the governor confirmed an overnight attack in Bushehr on a power substation near the city’s nuclear power plant. This resulted in a few hours of power outage in the city.

IRIB also reported that explosions were heard in Iran’s Jask.

The Tasnim news agency reported that a US missile hit a location on the outskirts of the city of Andimeshk.

Two naval search and rescue vessels were hit and seriously damaged in a US attack on Iran’s Hormozgan, the ISNA news agency reported, citing the province’s Ports and Maritime Administration.

Where did Iran hit back?

Kuwait

The IRGC claimed attacks on US assets in Kuwait on Thursday.

It said it had “attacked and destroyed a large warehouse of military equipment, a Patriot missile defence system, and a hangar of American MQ9 drones” at Ali Al Salem airbase.

Addressing the Kuwaiti people, the IRGC insisted that it was the US, not Iran, that had “violated your territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

It said its attacks were aimed at US bases, territory it described as beyond the control of Kuwait’s own border guards.

“So it is America that has violated your territorial integrity and sovereignty, not us. We are attacking lands occupied by the American army, an army that knows nothing but crime,” the IRGC said.

Jordan

Later on Thursday, the IRGC claimed attacks on US assets in Jordan, saying it had “destroyed a radar of the American THAAD missile defence system with lightning strikes”.

“A Patriot system and a C-RAM radar were also targeted and destroyed, and the fuel tanks of the American base were set on fire,” it said.

The IRGC added that “a large helicopter equipment warehouse and a helicopter repair and maintenance shed were also set on fire and destroyed”.

Addressing the Jordanian people, it insisted that its actions did not violate Jordanian sovereignty, arguing that the US military presence infringes on local authority and that targeting US forces was a legal and necessary response.

What happened in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea?

The IRGC said an explosion set a tanker on fire in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a statement carried by Iranian media, it said two other vessels quickly turned back following the explosion.

The IRGC claimed the three ships were acting under US orders and had “intended to pass through the mine-laid route south of the Strait of Hormuz”.

“The powerful IRGC Navy emphasises that the Strait of Hormuz is under our control and that as long as America’s evil deeds in the region continue, it is completely closed and no oil tanker will enter or exit [the strait],” it warned.

“Any ship that is deceived by America and intends to pass through without coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran will suffer the same fate.”

The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre said a ship was targeted 70 nautical miles (130km) off the Saudi coast, causing a fire on board. There was no mention of casualties among the crew.

The Houthis, meanwhile, claimed a major operation against two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, called the Encelia and the Layla. The Saudi SPA news agency confirmed the Encelia was hit.

The Houthis said they targeted those two tankers with cruise and ballistic missiles as well as drones, causing huge balls of fire and devastation.

The Houthis framed the attack as part of a tit-for-tat campaign against Saudi Arabia. They are calling it a “siege-for-siege”. They said it has been 12 years since Saudi Arabia has been imposing a siege on the Yemeni people, and that it is now time for Yemen and the Houthis to respond in kind. Riyadh has rejected Houthi claims that it had besieged Yemen.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov ‘reaffirmed ​readiness’ for a political ​and diplomatic settlement to Russia-Ukraine war.

The top United States and Russian diplomats have discussed the war in Ukraine on the sidelines of an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in the Philippines.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Thursday in Manila, with Russian media reporting that the meeting was just over half an hour long.

The sit-down came as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he had spoken with US envoys in a bid to revive stalled talks aimed at ending the years-long war.

Lavrov “reaffirmed Russia’s readiness for a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict”, a statement from Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, adding that the minister told Rubio that ⁠Moscow remained committed ⁠to proposals put forward by presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir ⁠Putin at their August 2025 meeting ⁠in Alaska.

Lavrov also “stressed that it was unacceptable to continue supplying weapons to the Kyiv regime”, the ministry said. The minister condemned “a destabilising policy by European countries, which are still seeking to inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia,” it added.

The US State Department offered few details about the meeting, with a spokesperson only saying that Rubio and Lavrov “discussed the US-Russia relationship and the need to end the Russia-Ukraine war”.

The two were also expected to discuss the conflict in the Middle East, which has seen Moscow condemn Washington’s strikes on its ally Iran.

“The war in Ukraine, I think, has in many ways impeded the ability of Russia and the United States to find areas of agreement on other topics,” Rubio told reporters on Wednesday.

“That doesn’t mean we won’t seek to find other areas of potential cooperation. But by the same token … we’d like to see that war come to an end,” he added.

Rubio said the US remained open to playing a role in ending the conflict “if that opportunity presents itself”.

For his part, Lavrov earlier indicated the meeting would “be useful in any case”.

“It’s good to ask questions and get answers,” Lavrov said to reporters on Wednesday, adding that he would ask Rubio about the latest statements by Trump predicting that a settlement is getting close.

Discussions aimed at ending the conflict in Ukraine have been at a standstill, with US attention now focused on the Middle East and Moscow maintaining its demand that Kyiv cede territory.

On Thursday, Zelenskyy said in a post on X that he had “a good, important conversation on how to reinvigorate diplomacy” with US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

Rubio spoke briefly with Lavrov at a gala dinner on Tuesday, and the two participated in a meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum on Thursday morning.

Trump has voiced support for Ukraine’s campaign of long-range drone strikes targeting Russian energy infrastructure, saying it could “help bring about an end” to the conflict.

Ukraine has been escalating its drone strikes, hitting refineries, oil depots and cargo ships at sea, which has caused fuel shortages in Russia.

In late June, a massive barrage of Russian missiles and drones killed at least 30 people in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv.

US and Iran trade new threats as more explosions are reported in Iranian cities, including Sirik, Ahvaz and Bushehr.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has met his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi at a gathering of southeast Asian foreign ministers, to discuss how to manage bilateral tensions ahead of a planned summit between US President Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jinping.

The meeting on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) gathering of foreign ministers in Manila on Wednesday came amid tensions over China’s conduct in the disputed South China Sea and the US war against Iran. ASEAN countries have expressed concerns about both issues at the meeting.

Relations between Washington and Beijing have also been complicated by Trump’s accusations that China meddled in US elections, allegations Beijing has dismissed as “pure fabrication”.

Rubio said the US and China have “great differences” that are likely to persist “for the foreseeable future”, but that he and Wang discussed the need to manage those disagreements to ensure Xi has a “very positive visit” to the US. Xi is expected to visit in September.

Wang said the US must “respect China’s core interests … effectively manage differences and disagreements, and address China’s legitimate concerns”, according to an official Chinese summary of their meeting. It described the talks as “pragmatic, positive and constructive”.

The two sides agreed to “make sound preparations for the next stage of high-level exchanges,” China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

‘Commerce as geopolitical weapon’

Wednesday’s meeting came two days after a confrontation between Chinese and Philippine vessels in the South China Sea left a Philippine sailor injured, leading both countries to summon each other’s ambassador.

The incident this week took place on Monday at the disputed Second Thomas Shoal. The Philippines ⁠said Chinese coastguard struck one of ⁠the Philippine navy staff on the head with a wooden baton, while China said the Philippine personnel were the first to attack and accused Philippine vessels ⁠of ramming a Chinese patrol boat.

Rubio said the altercation benefited nobody, adding that Washington had ⁠reiterated in all its meetings that it was bound by a defence treaty to stand up for Manila.

“We intend to live up to our treaty obligations, and I think we’ve done so, and will continue to do so,” he said.

Rubio’s remarks echo an opinion piece he published in Philippine media on Tuesday about Beijing’s conduct in the South China Sea. Rubio warned of “dire new threats” if those waters were to “fall under the control of a power willing to use commerce as a geopolitical weapon”.

Beijing claims sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea via a line on its maps that cuts into the exclusive economic zones of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, and is at the centre of long-running disputes over a multitude of islands.

Disputes between the Philippines and China have increased in recent years as Manila takes a bolder stance while pursuing closer defence ties with the US, Australia and Japan.

The US has increased military financing for the Philippines to $100mn for the 2026 fiscal year and is providing an additional $9mn to expand a coastguard pier on the island of Palawan “to enhance Philippine maritime ⁠law enforcement presence and sustain operations in the South China Sea”, the State Department said in a fact sheet.

Discussing the US relationship with ASEAN member states, Rubio said the security and prosperity of the US and southeast Asia were closely interconnected.

“I believe very much that the future and the story of the 21st century will be written in this region and by how events unfold here,” he said.

Iran ‘not serious about talks’, says Rubio

Rubio also addressed the situation with Iran in a meeting with ASEAN foreign ministers, claiming that Tehran was responsible for the latest escalation.

“The problem we’re having right now is that they’re not serious about talks,” Rubio said. “If they’re serious, we’re serious. If they’re not, then we will do what’s necessary to protect our interests, and also the interests of our allies.”

The US has carried out strikes on Iran for eleven consecutive nights, including targeting roads, bridges and power plants in recent attacks, all but shattering an interim peace deal agreed by the two sides last month.

Rubio stressed that Iran could not be allowed to control the Strait of ‌Hormuz, as it could set a dangerous precedent for other parts of the world.

The top US diplomat also confirmed he would meet on Thursday with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to discuss the Ukraine war, saying that Washington remained open to playing a constructive role in ending the conflict.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program, a watershed moment following a years-long effort to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Middle East.

The announcement comes as President Trump has vowed to continue executing a war against Iran over its own nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, the president warned he would target a bridge or power plant for every commercial vessel Iran fires upon in the Strait of Hormuz, after earlier this week threatening to strike a new facility Tehran is reportedly building to conceal its continued nuclear work.

The Saudi deal stoked surprise and immediate concern across Washington, where lawmakers are expected to have a vote on the matter, as well as in Israel, itself a nuclear power that has long feared an atomic arms race could grip the region.

A Saudi nuclear program has long been tied to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear work, which successive U.S. administrations have said extends beyond civilian purposes. After Iran struck a nuclear deal with world powers in 2015, Saudi Arabia vowed to match whatever nuclear capabilities Tehran was allowed to keep.

In the decade since, U.S. officials had tried to keep Saudi Arabia from developing its own program, fearing it would fuel nuclear competition across the Middle East. But it became a consistent and central point of negotiation between the two allies.

Both the Trump and Biden administrations ultimately offered to support a limited, monitored program as part of a broader deal to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, hoping that a diplomatic breakthrough would mitigate the risks of an arms race.

But the agreement secured this week left skeptics in Washington and the region unclear what the United States had secured in return.

The deal comes after Trump told reporters this week that the goal of resuming war with Iran was to prevent them from ever obtaining nuclear weapons, a challenge that has vexed the international community since the outset of the century.

U.S. presidents have long sought to prevent Middle Eastern countries from acquiring technologies that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq over false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs prompted Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi to abandon his nuclear work. Over the next two decades, the United States and Israel also targeted Syria’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs under Bashar al-Assad.

But Iran’s slow march to nuclear weapons capability, enriching uranium near to weapons-grade with no clear civilian or scientific ends, has prompted other countries in the region to question whether they, too, might need similar capabilities to counterbalance a historic foe. Israel, which views the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program as existential threats, is widely believed to possess its own nuclear weapons.

Hours after the nuclear deal was reported by the Wall Street Journal, the White House was silent on the details and Trump administration officials were left scrambling when asked by lawmakers and reporters for answers.

While traveling in Manila, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters he was aware of the news reports, but deferred to the White House to provide more public information.

When pressed about the risks of such a deal, Rubio said he would not “opine directly on the agreement,” but said the United States “is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation.”

The White House confirmed the deal Wednesday afternoon.

Back in Washington, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he has not yet seen the agreement with Saudi Arabia.

The deal, which would last 30 years and involve American firms developing the program, is expected to be submitted for review to Congress. Lawmakers will consider the deal as they grow increasingly uneasy about the Trump administration’s handling of an expanding Iran war, which Trump and Israel launched, arguing for the need to wipe out Tehran’s capabilities to build nuclear weapons.

As the war enters its fifth month, Trump has continued to defend the military efforts and has dismissed the idea that war is unpopular among Americans as they feel the economic effects.

“Americans aren’t against the war,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “Americans don’t want high gasoline prices but they’re not against the war.”

Trump’s remarks were made as he traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to attend a dignified transfer of U.S. service members killed in the war. Asked what he would say to the families who lost their loved ones, Trump said he’d tell them they’re loved.

“All I’m going to say is, we love you. We love your child, and that’s what they are to them. They’re their children. There’s no games, no nothing,” Trump said. “That’s their child, and all you can do is throw out your heart.”

Earlier in the day, Trump said the United States will destroy a bridge or power plant in Iran each time it shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the global energy supply.

Trump’s threat to target bridges and power plants would mark yet another escalation that could affect civilians in the region.

Hasan Ghashghavi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, denied Trump’s claim on Tuesday that Iran was requesting negotiations, saying in a statement on X that it was “in no way consistent with the facts.”

“It seems that Trump, in order to extricate himself from the quagmire he’s trapped in, should seek better paths,” he wrote. “Repetitive lies no longer even bring about short-term market relief.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

US Secretary of State says Iranian control over Strait of Hormuz sets ‘dangerous precedent’, as attacks continue.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio says his country is willing to negotiate an end to the war on Iran but accuses Tehran of not being “serious” about talks.

“The United States remains open and willing to engage in positive and constructive negotiations and discussions, provided that the commitments made are honoured,” Rubio said about Iran at an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in Manila on Wednesday.

“The problem we’re having right now is that they’re not serious about talks. If they’re serious, we’re serious. If they’re not, then we will do what’s necessary to protect our interests and also the interests of our allies,” he added in the Philippine capital.

This comes as the US launched attacks against Iran for an eleventh consecutive night, with explosions heard in several parts of the country.

As the war continues to disrupt two of the world’s most important routes for the transport of energy, Rubio stressed that he was against Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.

“If we create a precedent in the Middle East where a nation state can decide that they are going to control an international waterway, charge a toll, and if you don’t pay them blow up your ships, we have created a very dangerous precedent, which will repeat itself in other parts of the world, including in this region,” he said.

“At its core, it’s very simple. Iran demands the right, which they do not have under any existing legal mechanism, to control the transit of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

“There is a fundamental principle about freedom of navigation that is threatened,” he added. “That cannot be allowed to happen.”

Rubio also discussed the US’s relationship with ASEAN member states, saying it is a matter of national interest for Washington and that the security and prosperity of the US and Southeast Asia are closely interconnected.

“I believe very much that the future and the story of the 21st century will be written in this region and by how events unfold here,” he said.

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump renewed his threats to, again, attack Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz “pretty soon”. Iran promised it would retaliate.

Iran’s Khatam Al-Anbiya military command said in a statement on Tuesday that it would “consider it as an expansion of war in the region” if such an attack were carried out. The statement said it could lead to strikes on “all the interests of America, its allies and supporters”.

Fifty people have been killed and 500 wounded in the recent US attacks on Iran, a health ministry official said.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani releases a video statement calling for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to face trial for war crimes, citing the ICC’s arrest warrant. But, after days of speculation, Mamdani says New York does not have the power to arrest Netanyahu.

ChatGPT maker says an autonomous agent escaped a controlled test and accessed AI firm Hugging Face’s servers.

ChatGPT creator OpenAI has said that two of its most advanced artificial intelligence models broke out of a controlled test and hacked another AI company.

OpenAI said on Tuesday that the “unprecedented cyber incident” took place during an internal exercise meant to test its models’ cyber capabilities.

Instead, an autonomous agent powered by the AI models – the newly released GPT 5.6 Sol and an unreleased “even more capable” model – escaped the test environment and reached the open internet. It then used stolen login details and found a previously unknown security flaw to access Hugging Face servers, the company said.

OpenAI claims that the hack represented the agent going to “extreme lengths” to retrieve information that would help satisfy the testing goals.

Hugging Face cofounder Clement Delangue said the company had suspected that a frontier lab was behind the attack, and that he believed there was no malicious intent on OpenAI’s part.

“It’s quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously!” he wrote, adding that it “might be the first incident of its kind”.

Greg Casar, a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas, called the incident “alarming”.

“AI is developing extremely fast with no real regulations to keep us safe,” he said, calling for mandatory independent safety testing, mandatory disclosure of security incidents, and international cooperation.

The disclosure comes weeks after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order creating a framework to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems before their public release.

Experts have repeatedly sounded the alarm over AI-enabled cyberattacks and models slipping beyond human control. Last month, AI developer Anthropic urged the industry to pause development of its most powerful systems.

A former Biden official tells Al Jazeera that Lebanon’s pilot zones will only create an environment for Hezbollah to continue its armed resistance. Former State Department official, Jennifer Gavito, says she has a difficult time imagining Israel fully withdrawing from Lebanon.

Latest cost comes as Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Caine ask for $1.5 trillion budget, including $70bn for Iran war.

United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has put the latest official price tag on the US-Israel war on Iran at $37.5bn.

Hegseth confirmed the figure during a hearing before the Senate appropriations committee on Tuesday, in which he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine were questioned about their request for a $1.5 trillion US defence budget, including nearly $70bn for the war with Iran.

Still, the number is significantly lower than other estimates, especially those that include knock-on expenses for US consumers. For instance, Moody’s Analytics has estimated the domestic cost of the war to be up to $150bn, accounting for factors such as higher US energy prices.

“The estimate we have as of today is $37.5bn,” Hegseth said upon questioning from Democratic Senator Dick Durbin.

Hegseth added that the price includes some operations and maintenance costs extending through the end of September, but did not provide specifics.

The latest quote is about $8bn higher than the previous figure released by the administration of President Donald Trump of $29bn in May.

Hegseth appeared before the committee as fighting between the US and Iran continued to rage, after a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that had seen a halt in attacks since June 17 collapsed last week.

On Monday, ahead of the 10th consecutive night of US strikes, Trump said Iran would “pay” after two more US soldiers were killed over the weekend.

Over the last week, Trump has threatened to target energy plants and bridges in Iran; send ground forces to seize Iran’s Kharg Island; and bomb a deep-underground nuclear-linked site known as Pickaxe Mountain.

Attacks have so far targeted sites Iran uses to assert influence over the Strait of Hormuz, its key point of leverage in the conflict.

Iran, meanwhile, has pledged to continue to strike US assets in the region. The latest round of strikes saw desalination and power plants set ablaze in Kuwait, as well as other sites hit in Bahrain and Jordan. The Houthis in Yemen, close allies of Iran, have also declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia.

During his opening statements, Hegseth referenced strains on the US weapons stockpile from the war, which the US and Israel launched on February 28.

He said funding was needed “to expand production lines and accelerate delivery of high-demand munitions. We’re talking about solid rocket motors, JDAMs [Joint Direct Attack Munition], hypersonics, and counter-drone capabilities”.

The Pentagon chief also pointed to a pending budget crunch amid the war, saying that “training in the future would have to be curtailed if we do not get our budget needs met and met urgently, and yes, some of that has to do with the current budget cycle and how things come together”.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray questioned the sprawling budget request, which also included funding requests for the National Guard deployment in Washington, DC, US operations against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean, and military patrols of the US border.

“So I’ll be blunt,” she said. “The truth is, your request does not make a lot of sense.”

The order prevents thousands from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine from losing work authorisation while lawsuit proceeds.

A United States federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration of US President Donald Trump from revoking work permits for tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), preventing a policy that was set to take effect as early as Wednesday.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Nathaniel Gorton sided with immigrant rights groups and labour unions challenging a series of new US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies that implement immigration restrictions passed by Congress last year.

In the five-page order, he wrote, “The consequences faced by plaintiffs are potentially severe.” The order will stay in place while he considers whether to issue a longer-term injunction, with a decision expected by August 5.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month by a coalition of organisations represented by the legal group Democracy Forward, challenged a number of recent USCIS policy changes. Those include a new policy allowing the agency to reject pending asylum applications and revoke work permits if applicants don’t pay a newly created annual asylum fee, as well as its decision to scrap a decades-old rule requiring initial asylum work permit applications to be processed within 30 days. The lawsuit argued USCIS made the changes without public input, as required by law.

It also challenged the retroactive application of the new rules to people from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine, who are still protected by TPS, which allows people from countries affected by war, natural disasters or other major crises to live and work legally in the US until it is considered safe for them to return home.

“This decision protects thousands of asylum seekers and TPS holders from immediate and irreparable harm while this case moves forward,” said Democracy Forward president, Skye Perryman, in a statement. “Without this relief, families who have followed the law and relied on longstanding humanitarian protections faced the sudden loss of their employment authorisation and ability to support themselves through no fault of their own.”

The ruling means thousands of TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine will be able to keep working while the legal challenge moves forward.

While the judge didn’t block the collection of the asylum fee on Tuesday, he did temporarily block the consequences of not paying it, including having an individual’s application rejected or work permit terminated.

The controversial provisions were introduced as part of Trump’s signature tax and spending law, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in July 2025.

The Trump administration has made ending TPS protections a central part of its immigration agenda, moving to take the status away from people from more than a dozen countries. Last month, the US Supreme Court allowed the administration to end protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants.

USCIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Reuters news agency.

Meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun at the White House, US President Trump said he is open to direct talks with Hezbollah if requested by Lebanon. He pledged continued US support for the country.