worried

I thought I had all the time in the world, but it turns out I needed even more.

For over a year, I’ve been writing articles about the new Entry/Exit system introduced at European borders. This system, which mandates UK travellers to provide biometric data when entering or exiting the Schengen area, began its phased implementation in October 2025.

It’s expected to be fully operational across all airports by 10 April 2026. I’ve extensively covered the rollout and its potential to cause delays for travellers. However, when my partner and I flew back from Paris last month, it completely slipped my mind.

We were returning to London, and since we both prefer lounging in the airport rather than outside, we had some time to spare. We enjoyed a drink, a meal, and then decided it was time to meander towards our gate.

We had been awaiting the gate announcement, and as soon as it was made, we set off to locate it. Imagine my astonishment when we turned the corner to find a queue of people waiting for gate access.

I had entirely forgotten about the additional security checks. Even though I believed we had ample time, that time was now rapidly slipping away.

Only one kiosk was open, with a queue of at least 30 people, and the clock was ticking down to our flight’s departure. As we stood there, another 40 individuals joined the queue behind us, yet still, only one kiosk was operational.

Passengers were slowly allowed through, with groups permitted to approach the kiosk together to have their passports verified, fingers and faces scanned, before being sent on their way.

The process was painfully slow. The queue barely seemed to budge, and more people continued to join behind us. From the snippets of conversations I caught, everyone appeared as taken aback — and stressed — as I was.

I heard more than one person mutter something along the lines of “surely they won’t let us miss our flight?” Another responded: “I wouldn’t put it past them to be honest.”

Fortunately, my partner and I had started relatively close to the front, so we managed to reach the gate just in time. As for the people behind us, I have no clue.

This wasn’t even peak season, and it more than doubled the time it took to board our plane. We were flying at the end of February — very much the off-peak period. I can only envisage the chaos as the rollout completes across all of Europe, and summer travel commences.

Travelling during peak season is already stressful, and if my experience is anything to go by, it’s about to become even more so. All I can suggest is even if you think you have enough time at the airport, add more.

A group of Democrats in the United States Senate is demanding public hearings on the country’s war against Iran after receiving a series of classified briefings from officials in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the US entered the conflict, what its goals are, or how long it may last.

Republicans currently hold a narrow, 53-47 Senate majority, which gives them the power to control what legislation comes to the floor for debate.

Some Democrats have expressed frustration after the latest closed-door briefing. Trump has not ruled out sending US ground ⁠troops into Iran.

“I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war,” Senator Chris Murphy from the state of Connecticut said on Tuesday. “It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent.

“I think this is pretty simple: if the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorisation for this war, he wouldn’t get it – because the American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no,” he added.

Here is what we know:

What has happened so far?

Since the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have held several closed-door meetings to brief Congress members on the military campaign and its progress.

Because the meetings are classified, lawmakers are restricted in what they can publicly disclose about the information they received.

What are Democrats saying?

Several Democratic senators have said they left the briefings frustrated, arguing that the administration had not provided clear answers about the war’s objectives, timeline or the long-term strategy guiding their approach to the conflict.

Earlier this week, six Democratic senators also called for an investigation into a strike on a girls’ school in Minab, in southern Iran. Reports indicate the attack, which investigators say involved US forces, killed at least 170 people, most of them children.

“There seems to be no endgame,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said. “The president, almost in a single breath, says it’s almost done, and at the same time, it’s just begun. So this is kind of contradictory.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts raised concerns about the cost of war.

“The one part that seems clear is that while there is no money for 15 million Americans who lost their health care, there’s a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran,” Warren said on Tuesday.

“The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse,” she added.

Others seem worried that a ground deployment could take place.

“We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here,” Blumenthal, of Connecticut, told reporters after Tuesday’s classified briefing.

“The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform and the potential for ⁠further escalation and widening of this war,” he added.

What are Republicans saying?

Republicans, who have slim majorities in both houses of Congress, have almost unanimously backed Trump’s campaign against Iran, with only a handful expressing doubt about the war.

Some Republican leaders say the strikes are necessary to curb Iran’s military capabilities, missile programme and regional influence.

They have also argued that the operation is limited in scope and designed to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten US forces and allies in the region.

Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, last week publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” posed by Tehran.

But some Republican members of Congress have voiced concerns.

Representative Nancy Mace from South Carolina said she did “not want to send South Carolina’s sons and daughters into war with Iran”, in a post on X.

Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, accused the Trump administration of changing its narrative and rationale for the war on a daily basis.

“We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran—none convincing,” he wrote on X. “‘Free the oppressed’ sounds noble, but where does it end? We’ve been told for decades Iran is weeks from a nuke. War should be a last resort, not our first move. A war of choice is not my choice.”

Why does the debate matter?

The dispute has revived a long-running debate in Washington, DC, about the limits of presidential war powers.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has the authority to declare war, but modern presidents have frequently launched military operations without formal congressional approval, often citing national security or emergency threats.

The law allows the president to deploy US forces for up to 60 days without congressional authorisation, followed by a 30-day withdrawal period if Congress does not approve the action.

Some lawmakers and legal experts say the war on Iran highlights the need for stronger congressional oversight of military action.

“In the 1970s, we adopted something called the War Powers Resolution that gives the president limited ability to do this,” said David Schultz, a professor in the political science and legal departments at Hamline University.

“And so, either you could argue that what the president is doing violates the Constitution by… not [being] a formally declared war; or b, it exceeds his authority, either as commander-in-chief or under the War Powers Act,” he added.

“And therefore, you could argue that domestically, his actions are illegal and unconstitutional,” Schutlz said.

The Trump administration has argued that the February 28 strikes were justified as a response to an “imminent threat”, a rationale often used by presidents to justify military action without prior congressional approval.

However, US intelligence agencies had themselves said before the start of the war that they had no evidence of an imminent Iranian threat to the US or its facilities across the Middle East.