US & Canada

A bill laying out plans to return the Indian Ocean archipelago, home to the US-UK Diego Garcia base, has been paused.

The United Kingdom is setting aside a bill to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius amid a lack of support from United States President Donald Trump.

“We have always said we would only proceed with the deal if it has US support,” a UK government spokesperson said in a statement, according to the Reuters and AFP news agencies on Saturday.

This followed reports in the UK media that said a bill laying out plans to cede sovereignty of the 60-plus Indian Ocean islands had been dropped from the next parliamentary agenda.

Last May, the UK and Mauritius jointly announced a deal that would return full sovereignty of Chagos to Mauritius, which is some 2,000 kilometres (1,200 miles) away from the archipelago.

Britain would then pay to lease Diego Garcia – the largest island and a strategic location in the middle of the Indian Ocean between Asia and Africa, which is home to the military base – on a 99-year lease to preserve US operations there.

But Trump opposed the move, calling it an “act of great stupidity” in January.

“Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US. Ensuring its long-term operational security is and will continue to be our priority – it is the entire reason for the deal,” the UK government spokesperson added in his statement.

“We are continuing to engage with the US and Mauritius.”

The statement added that the UK “continue[s] to believe ⁠the agreement is the best way to protect ⁠the long-term future of the base”.

‘Big mistake’

After Trump’s initial opposition, he appeared to momentarily back down in February after speaking with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, saying Starmer had made the “best deal he could make”.

But he then attacked the prime minister again on Truth Social weeks later.

“He is making a big mistake,” Trump wrote, adding that ceding the Chagos Islands would be “a blight on our Great Ally”.

Over the last six weeks, relations between Trump and Starmer have been further strained by the US-Israel war on Iran.

The UK is now leading a coalition of more than 30 countries to protect vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, without US participation in the initial talks.

Britain has controlled the Chagos since 1814, including after Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s. The Diego Garcia base has played a key role in US military operations in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Chagossians – thousands of whom were forcibly evicted to make way for the base – have brought compensation claims to British courts, culminating in a 2019 International Court of Justice recommendation that the archipelago be returned to Mauritius.

Scientists from NASA have hailed the Artemis II mission to send astronauts around the moon as a ‘fantastic feat’ but said there was more work to do, after the crew was safely brought back to Earth on Friday.

Pakistan’s ambassador to the US has told Al Jazeera that weeks of intense diplomatic efforts have led to a shared commitment from all sides to pursue a negotiated settlement, as US-Iran talks are set to begin in Islamabad.

NASA’s Artemis II astronauts have returned to Earth after completing the first crewed lunar mission in more than 50 years, reaching the greatest distance ever travelled by humans. The crew successfully completed a parachute landing in the Pacific Ocean, after a high-speed re-entry through Earth’s atmosphere.

NASA’s Artemis II astronauts have safely splashed down on Earth, completing a landmark mission that carried humans around the Moon and back for the first time in more than 50 years.

Police said the suspect targeted Altman’s San Francisco residence before dawn and fled the scene on foot.

A 20-year-old man has been arrested by San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) after a Molotov cocktail was thrown at the home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman early on Friday morning.

Police in the United States said the suspect targeted the property at about 4am local time (11:00 GMT), allegedly throwing an improvised incendiary device that ignited part of an exterior gate before fleeing the scene on foot.

Authorities did not publicly identify the suspect or confirm the address where the attack took place.

Instead, in a post on the social media platform X, the police department said that a residence in the North Beach neighbourhood was affected.

However, a spokesperson for OpenAI confirmed the incident took place at Altman’s residence.

“Thankfully, no one was hurt. We deeply appreciate how quickly SFPD responded and the support from the city in helping keep our employees safe,” an OpenAI spokesperson said.

Police have not indicated a possible motive behind the attack. The suspect was ultimately located about an hour later near OpenAI’s headquarters, roughly 4.8 kilometres (three miles) away, where he was allegedly threatening to set the building on fire.

OpenAI said it is cooperating with law enforcement as the investigation continues.

Security concerns around OpenAI

The incident comes amid heightened security concerns around OpenAI’s offices, which have faced threats and protests in recent months.

Just last November, a man making violent threats to its San Francisco headquarters briefly prompted an office lockdown.

Altman and the company have increasingly become targets for activists who warn about the risks artificial intelligence could pose to society.

Critics have also raised alarm over OpenAI’s decision to collaborate with the US Department of Defense, a move that has intensified scrutiny of the company’s role in military technology.

Public sentiment towards AI remains mixed. A recent NBC News poll found that the technology is viewed even less favourably than US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal agency responsible for violent immigration raids under President Donald Trump.

Despite the criticism, OpenAI’s growth has accelerated rapidly. The company said last month it was valued at $852bn, following a major funding round that raised $122bn.

Companies like OpenAI, however, face lingering questions about whether they can generate sufficient revenue to cover their high expenses.

One of OpenAI’s signature products, ChatGPT, continues to dominate the consumer AI market, with more than 900 million weekly active users and about 50 million subscribers.

The company also said usage of its search features has tripled over the past year.

Lava shot into the air, illuminating the night sky, as Hawaii’s Kīlauea volcano erupted, with fountains reaching up to 190 metres. The volcano, one of the most active in the world, has been erupting on and off since 2024.

Islamabad, Pakistan – With key differences in the Iranian and American positions seemingly intact, Pakistan is aiming for what officials describe as a realistic – if modest – outcome from the negotiations between the two warring nations set to commence in Islamabad on Saturday.

The aim: to get the United States and Iranian negotiators to find enough common ground to continue talks.

On Friday, US Vice President JD Vance left Washington for Islamabad, where he will lead the American team, which will also consist of President Donald Trump’s chief negotiator Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner. While Iran has not formally confirmed its representatives at the talks, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf are expected to lead Tehran’s team.

These high-level talks follow days after the US and Iran agreed to a Pakistan-mediated two-week ceasefire, and will be held exactly six weeks after the US and Israel launched their war on Iran with the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28.

Experts and sources close to the mediation effort said there was little expectation that a major breakthrough would be reached on Saturday. But by setting a more realistic ceiling – an agreement in Islamabad to continue deeper negotiations aimed at finding a lasting peace deal – Pakistan is hopeful it can help build on a truce that led to a collective sigh of relief globally.

“Pakistan has succeeded in getting them together. We got them to sit at a table. Now it is for the parties to decide whether they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to reach an eventual solution,” Zamir Akram, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United Nations, told Al Jazeera.

Now, he added, it will aim to secure an agreement for the US and Iran to continue dialogue.

The ‘proximity format’

The US and Iranian delegations will land at the Nur Khan airbase outside Islamabad and then drive to the Serena Hotel, where they will stay, and where the talks will be held.

Though the two teams will be in the same hotel, they will not come face to face for the negotiations, officials said.

Instead, they will sit in two separate rooms, with Pakistani officials shuttling messages between them.

In diplomatic jargon, such negotiations are known as proximity talks.

Pakistan’s experience with such a dialogue is not new. In 1988, Islamabad itself participated in the Geneva Accords negotiations on the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, where UN-mediated indirect talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan produced a landmark agreement.

Akram, who has represented Pakistan at the UN in Geneva from 2008 to 2015, said that history was relevant.

“Proximity talks have been used before. Pakistan itself participated in one in Geneva in 1988 on the Afghan issue,” he told Al Jazeera. “If the parties did not trust Pakistan, they would not be here. The metric of success should be an agreement to continue this process in search of a solution. It will not happen in a couple of days.”

Building diplomatic momentum

In the days between the ceasefire announcement on April 7 and the arrival of the delegations in Islamabad, world leaders moved quickly to register support.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres welcomed the ceasefire and expressed appreciation for Pakistan’s role. Kazakhstan, Romania and the United Kingdom also issued statements endorsing Islamabad’s mediation.

French President Emmanuel Macron called Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to congratulate him, while Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also spoke to the Pakistani leader.

Analysts say these calls were not only expressions of goodwill but signals of international backing, aimed at strengthening Pakistan’s hand in pushing both Washington and Tehran to deliver results.

Sharif spoke with eight world leaders, including the emir of Qatar, the presidents of France and Turkiye, the prime ministers of Italy and Lebanon, the king of Bahrain and the chancellors of Germany and Austria.

Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, who is also deputy prime minister, engaged with more than a dozen counterparts over the past two days and held an in-person meeting with China’s ambassador in Islamabad.

In total, Pakistan’s leadership made or received more than 25 diplomatic contacts in roughly 48 hours.

Salma Malik, a professor of strategic studies at Quaid-i-Azam University, said the scale of engagement reflected confidence in Pakistan’s role.

“The two main parties showed confidence in Pakistan to act as a neutral agent, that is the first and most critical litmus test for any mediating country, and Pakistan passed it,” she told Al Jazeera.

The Lebanon problem

The most immediate threat to Saturday’s talks lies outside the negotiating room.

Iran has framed Israeli strikes on Lebanon as a direct challenge to the ceasefire. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who spoke to Sharif earlier this week, warned that continued attacks would render negotiations meaningless.

Hours after the ceasefire was announced, Israel launched its most widespread bombardment of Lebanon since the start of the conflict, killing more than 300 people across Beirut and southern Lebanon in a single day.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran could abandon the ceasefire entirely if the strikes continued.

Sharif, in a call with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on April 9, strongly condemned Israel’s actions.

Whether Lebanon is covered by the ceasefire remains contested. Pakistan has maintained that the truce extends across the wider region, including Lebanon, as reflected in Sharif’s statement earlier this week.

Washington has taken a different view. US Vice President JD Vance, who will lead the American delegation, said in Budapest that Lebanon falls outside the ceasefire’s terms, a position echoed by President Donald Trump and the White House.

Seema Baloch, a former Pakistani envoy, said the issue ultimately rests with Washington.

“Lebanon is key and Israel will use it to play the spoiler role,” she told Al Jazeera. “It is now the US decision whether it will allow Israel, which is not seated at the negotiating table, to play that role.”

There are, however, signs of limited de-escalation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that Israel was ready to begin direct negotiations with Lebanon “as soon as possible”, focusing on disarming Hezbollah and reaching a peace agreement.

The announcement followed US pressure. Trump told NBC he had asked Netanyahu to “low-key it” on Lebanon.

However, Netanyahu made clear there was no ceasefire in Lebanon, saying Israel would continue striking Hezbollah even as talks proceed.

Salman Bashir, a former Pakistani foreign secretary, said Lebanon remains within the ceasefire’s scope.

“Lebanon is very much part of the ceasefire, as was mentioned in the prime minister’s statement,” he told Al Jazeera. “The Israelis may be inclined to keep the pressure on Lebanon, but not for long if the US is keen on a cessation of hostilities, as it seems.”

Stumbling blocks

Beyond Lebanon, several other obstacles remain.

Washington is expected to push for verifiable restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme, including limits on enrichment and the removal of stockpiled material.

Tehran, in turn, is demanding full sanctions relief, formal recognition of its right to enrich uranium and compensation for wartime damage.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes in peacetime, remains a key pressure point, with Iran retaining the ability to disrupt maritime traffic.

Bashir said there could be movement on some of these issues.

“There may be an opening on the Strait of Hormuz, under Iranian control. Iran will not give up on the right to enrichment. If nothing else, there should be an extension of the ceasefire deadline,” he told Al Jazeera.

Muhammad Shoaib, a professor of international relations in Islamabad, said progress would depend on movement on core issues.

“Both parties agreeing on the need to continue or even extend the ceasefire, while in principle agreeing on crucial points such as the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s right to enrichment and respect for sovereignty, will suggest that the first round is meaningful and successful,” he told Al Jazeera.

The regional atmosphere has also been shaped by sharp rhetoric from some of Iran’s Gulf neighbours.

The United Arab Emirates, which faced hundreds of missile and drone attacks during the conflict, has been among the most vocal.

Its ambassador to Washington wrote in The Wall Street Journal that a ceasefire alone would not be sufficient and called for a comprehensive outcome addressing Iran’s “full range of threats”.

Bahrain, meanwhile, presented a United Nations Security Council resolution on April 7 calling for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The measure received 11 votes in favour but was vetoed by Russia and China, with Pakistan and Colombia abstaining.

Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Egypt are not expected to have a formal presence at the talks, despite being closely involved in pre-negotiation diplomacy. The four countries held meetings in Riyadh and later in Islamabad aimed at securing a pause in hostilities.

Israel, a party to the conflict, will also not be represented. Pakistan, like most Muslim-majority countries, does not recognise Israel and has no diplomatic relations with it.

A slight easing

There are, however, tentative signs of easing tensions ahead of Saturday’s talks.

On Friday, as he was departing from Washington, Vance said that the US team was “looking forward to the negotiations”.

“We think it’s going to be positive. We’ll, of course, see. As the president of the United States said, if the Iranians are willing to negotiate in good faith, we are certainly willing to extend an open hand,” the US vice president said. “If they try to play us, they’re going to find that the negotiating team is not that receptive. So we’ll try to have a positive negotiation.”

He also said that Trump had given the US team “some pretty clear guidelines”.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister spoke with his Iranian counterpart for the first time since the war started.

And Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said on April 8 that discussions could continue for up to 15 days, suggesting readiness for a prolonged process.

Akram, the former envoy, said the benchmark for success was clear.

“What they need to agree is that they will find a solution, and that in itself would be a step in the right direction,” he told Al Jazeera. “Finding a long-term solution will take time. It will not happen in a couple of days.”

Malik, the academic in Islamabad, said Pakistan’s expectations remained modest.

“What Pakistan expects is breathing space, an opportunity for peace. It is not expecting anything big. It is a small wish, but realising it will be very difficult,” she told Al Jazeera.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even though a fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States and Israel has been announced, it’s going to be a long time before prices of oil and gas come back to pre-war levels, experts say.

In response to the US-Israeli attacks, Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel linking the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas exports pass from the Middle East, mainly to Asia and also to Europe.

It also attacked energy infrastructure in several Gulf countries, leading to soaring prices of not just energy but also of byproducts like helium, used in a range of products like tiles used in homes and semiconductor equipment. Fertilisers that rely on some of these inputs were hit too, impacting sowing seasons.

As a result, consumers the world over, but particularly in developing countries of Asia and Africa, have felt the brunt of those shortages and soaring prices. The question on many minds: Now that there is a ceasefire in place, how quickly will prices normalise?

“Anyone who tells you they know the answer to that question is lying,” said Rockford Weitz, professor of practice in maritime studies at The Fletcher School at Tufts University. “It’s too early to tell when we return to normal.”

There needs to be a predictable and stable flow of cargo through the strait before markets can stabilise, experts say.

“What we’re seeing is the biggest disruption in the history of global oil markets,” said Weitz.

Before this conflict, approximately 120-140 ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz every day. On Wednesday, only five vessels crossed the strait, while seven passed through the waterway on Thursday.

That shows why “to get back to normal is going to be a while”, Weitz told Al Jazeera. “And it’s too complicated to know at this stage when that will happen, as it requires collaboration with the great powers [US, China and Russia], but also regional powers [UAE, Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan]. It’s hard to say when it will end, as there are so many parties who can make it not happen.”

There is also some concern that developments, like Iran charging a toll fee to allow ships to pass through and skyrocketing insurance fees, will keep oil prices high.

“There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait,” US President Donald Trump wrote on TruthSocial Thursday.

“They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now.”

But experts agree that those fees, rumoured to be about $2m per vessel, are not enough to move the needle on oil prices.

“What is causing oil prices to rise is not insurance. It’s about getting tankers through. Tolls won’t be the cost driver,” said Weitz.

‘Signs of strain’

Some of that reality was on display with the reopening of the strait, showing “signs of strain just hours after the ceasefire was announced”, said Usha Haley, W Frank Barton Distinguished Chair in international business at Wichita State University.

Compounding that problem was the fact that some countries, including Iraq, had shut down production because of limited storage capacity, further taking oil supplies offline.

“That will take weeks and months to reopen,” Haley added.

“It’s going to be a contested reopening … LNG [liquefied natural gas] will take months to rebalance because of the hits to infrastructure, and can take three to six months to normalise if everything else remains normal. And it’s not.”

Slower growth

On Thursday, International Monetary Fund managing director Kristalina Georgieva warned that the fund will downgrade its forecast for the world economy next week from the current expectation of 3.3 percent. “Growth will be slower – even if the new peace is durable,’’ Georgieva said.

While the war has hit most economies, “it hasn’t really affected the two primary [US] targets – Russia and China. Russia, in fact, has benefitted enormously, and Chinese ships have been allowed to go through,” said Haley.

The US has hit Russia with multiple sanctions for its war on Ukraine, including capping sales of Russian oil to undercut its income stream. Similarly, the first Trump administration put tariffs on China and curbed US exports of certain high-end technology, measures that were held up under the administration of former US President Joe Biden and further ratcheted up by Trump last year with his tariffs blitz.

But amid the war on Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the US temporarily eased some sanctions on Russian oil, and countries desperate for crude have since paid far higher prices to Moscow than the subsidised energy that President Vladimir Putin’s government was previously offering them.

“We [the US] really need to decide what we want to do long-term, who our targets are. There’s got to be some coherence to what we want to do.”

For now, “an overhang of greater risk premium of supplies out of the Gulf means oil prices will remain higher than what they were before the attack started”, said Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

While it’s possible that some of the blocked oil and oil products could be released soon, providing a short boost of supplies in the coming days and weeks, “that would be a temporary support” and is still conditional on the ceasefire holding and converting to a broader deal, said Ziemba.

For now, she’s keeping an eye on Iraq to see if it strikes a side deal with Iran. Iraq, long a proxy battleground between the US and Iran, can produce at least 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, production that it had shut off because of limited storage capacity, said Ziemba.

Should that come back online, it will help oil flows and, eventually, prices. But the uncertainty of the truce and the history of attacks on Iraq mean that the future of the country’s oil production remains unclear. “In that environment, who wants to invest in scaling up production?” Ziemba wondered.

Iranian state TV has read out a message from new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei which says Iran ‘does not want war’ but will ‘not renounce legitimate rights’ in the face of threats from the US and Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US drives ‘three-quarters of the decline’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Turning their backs’

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States and Iran may have agreed to a ceasefire for now, but the world’s supply chains will continue to feel the effects.

Beyond oil and gas, Iran’s near closure of the Strait of Hormuz has blocked shipments of critical raw materials from the Gulf.

Petrochemicals, helium and aluminium are just some of the products that have not been able to reach manufacturing hubs around the world.

Many everyday items are affected, from plastic packaging to the advanced semiconductors in our smartphones.

How will our supply chains recover, and can they become more resilient to global shocks?

What exactly is stagflation, and why do some economists and investors believe the global economy could be heading toward it? Al Jazeera’s Yasmeen ElTahan explains.

The Masters is one of the most prestigious events in sport. But the story behind The Masters Tournament is also tied to the history of segregation in golf. From the PGA’s “Caucasian-only clause” to the Black caddies who knew Augusta better than anyone. And why Tiger Woods’s victory in 1997 changed the image of the game forever. Al Jazeera’s Samantha Johnson looks at the tournament’s complicated past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rutte did not answer directly when asked about that report.

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

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

It’s not clear under what legal authority Trump can tack on this tariff, and analysts called it an ’empty threat’.

United States President Donald Trump has said imports from countries supplying Iran with military weapons will face immediate 50 percent tariffs with no exemptions, announcing the threatened duty in a social media post just hours after agreeing to a two-week ceasefire with Tehran.

Trump’s Truth Social post on Wednesday did not specify which legal authority he would invoke to impose such tariffs, as the Supreme Court in February struck down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] to impose broad global tariffs, prompting a lower court to order refunds of some $166bn collected over the course of a year.

The 1977 IEEPA law has been used extensively for decades to back financial sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea, but the court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in using it to impose trade tariffs.

“A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed, on any and all goods sold to the United States of America, 50%, effective immediately. There will be no exclusions or exemptions! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

However, “it’s a lot more complicated to do that after IEEPA was struck down”, Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera. “There’s no immediate policy lever and authorisation that is available for the US to do that. So they need either an act of Congress or need to adapt some other trade tool, and there isn’t really a national security-oriented trade tool.”

Trump did not name any countries that could face punitive tariffs. China and Russia have helped Iran build military capacity to counter US and Israeli pressure, supplying missiles, air defence systems and technology intended to bolster deterrence.

But that support appeared capped during the US-Israeli attacks on Iran. Both Beijing and Moscow have denied supplying any weapons recently, although allegations against Moscow have persisted.

The Reuters news agency has previously reported that Tehran was considering a purchase of supersonic antiship cruise missiles from China. In March, Reuters reported that China’s top semiconductor maker, SMIC, has sent chipmaking tools to Iran’s military, according to two senior Trump administration officials.

“This is a China-related threat, the way I read it. And China will read it that way,” said Josh Lipsky, vice president and chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council.

Although drone and missile parts routinely flow from Chinese entities to Iran, evading US sanctions, Lipsky said Trump was unlikely to follow through with new tariffs in the near term because that would derail his planned trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in mid-May.

“US tariffs on Chinese products have gone down a lot since the court ruling,” said Ziemba, “and slapping on 50 percent tariffs now would be very expensive, especially for US importers and consumers.”

Moreover, with the Trump-Xi meeting looming, “this is kind of an empty threat, but shows that when push comes to shove, Trump comes back to tariffs”, Ziemba said.

Trump does have active “Section 301” unfair trade practices tariffs on Chinese goods from his first term, to which he may be able to add duties and similar pending cases related to excess industrial capacity and China’s compliance with a 2020 trade deal. But these would require a public notice period before they could take effect.

Trump also may be able to invoke Section 232 of the Cold War-era Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows sector-specific tariffs to protect strategic domestic industries on national security grounds, but using this law would require a new months-long investigation and public comments.

Russia has been another source of arms technology for Iran, but US imports of Russian goods have fallen sharply since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the wave of financial sanctions imposed on Moscow as a result.

US imports from Russia, one of the only countries not subject to Trump’s now-cancelled “reciprocal” tariffs, jumped 26.1 percent to $3.8bn in 2025. These are dominated by palladium used in automotive catalytic converters, fertilisers and their ingredients, and enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. The US Department of Commerce is already moving to impose punitive tariffs on Russian palladium after an anti-dumping investigation.

Hundreds of vehicles have driven through Istanbul to condemn the ‘lawless aggression’ of the US and Israel. The convoy, carrying Palestinian and Turkish flags, is calling for international accountability in light of relentless attacks on Lebanon, Iran and Gaza.

Protesters have blocked roads outside the Israeli embassy in London, condemning Israel’s violent strikes on Lebanon which killed hundreds across the country on the day the US-Iran ceasefire was announced. Many demonstrators also expressed solidarity with Iranians and Palestinians who have all suffered under Israeli bombardment.

US Vice President JD Vance says Lebanon is not part of the US-Iran ceasefire, stressing that neither Washington nor Israel agreed to that. After Pakistan said Lebanon was included, Israel killed hundreds of people when it carried out around 100 strikes across Lebanon in just 10 minutes.