Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Hantavirus-hit cruise ship nears end of voyage, to dock in Rotterdam

    Hantavirus-hit cruise ship nears end of voyage, to dock in Rotterdam

    A polar expedition cruise ship that triggered international concern following a deadly hantavirus outbreak is preparing to conclude its disrupted journey at the Dutch port of Rotterdam on Monday, bringing an end to weeks of uncertainty for global health authorities. The MV Hondius, operated by Netherlands-based Oceanwide Expeditions, is scheduled to dock between 10 a.m. local time and midday, with only 27 people remaining on board: 25 skeleton crew members and two dedicated medical staff, all of whom are currently asymptomatic and under constant health monitoring.

    The vessel first made global headlines when three passengers died from complications of hantavirus, a rare zoonotic pathogen with no licensed vaccine or targeted antiviral treatment. As cases mounted and concerns over human-to-human spread grew, the World Health Organization moved quickly to calm public fears, emphasizing that the outbreak did not represent the emergence of a new pandemic similar to COVID-19. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus confirmed on May 12 that there was no evidence of an emerging large-scale outbreak, though he warned that the virus’ multi-week incubation period meant additional cases could still surface among people who were exposed during the voyage.

    As of the latest official counts compiled by Agence France-Presse, hantavirus has been confirmed in six patients, with one additional probable case recorded. A seventh asymptomatic person in Canada has returned a preliminary positive test result, which is still pending final confirmation.

    The crisis unfolded after the ship departed Ushuaia, Argentina on April 1 for a planned expedition through remote South Atlantic islands, scheduled to conclude in Cape Verde. When cases were first detected, the voyage was thrown into chaos, sparking diplomatic negotiations as multiple nations debated whether to allow the vessel to dock. Cape Verde declined to accept the ship, leaving it anchored off the capital Praia while three infected passengers were evacuated to Europe by air. Eventually, Spain granted permission for the vessel to anchor off the Canary Islands, a decision that drew fierce pushback from the regional government of the Atlantic archipelago.

    On May 10, the ship reached the Canary Islands, where more than 120 passengers and non-essential crew were evacuated and repatriated to their home countries or to the Netherlands, the nation under which the vessel is flagged. Among those evacuated, a 65-year-old French woman developed symptoms during her repatriation flight and was admitted to a Paris hospital in critical condition with a confirmed hantavirus infection. Two other passengers – one Dutch national and one British national – were airlifted directly to the Netherlands for urgent hospital care. Dutch officials now report both are in stable condition, with the British patient well enough to return home to complete self-isolation. All other evacuated passengers who entered the Netherlands have tested negative for the virus; some remain in quarantine in the country, while others have already returned to their home nations.

    Those remaining on board when the ship docks on Monday represent a range of nationalities: 17 crew from the Philippines, four from the Netherlands (including two crew and the two medical staffers), four from Ukraine, one from Russia and one from Poland. All will enter quarantine either at port facilities or in private accommodation after disembarkation. The body of a German passenger who died during the outbreak will also remain on the ship until docking is complete.

    Late Sunday, the WHO reaffirmed its official risk assessment for the outbreak, classifying it as “low risk.” In a statement, the organization noted that while additional cases may still occur among people exposed before public health measures were put in place, the risk of further community transmission will drop significantly once all passengers and crew have disembarked and appropriate control measures are implemented. After docking, the MV Hondius will undergo a comprehensive deep cleaning and disinfection process, with preparations already underway to begin the procedure immediately after the vessel arrives.

    Public health experts note that hantavirus is typically spread through contact with the urine, feces, and saliva of infected rodents, and the pathogen is endemic to parts of Argentina, where the voyage originated. The strain involved in this outbreak is the Andes variant, the only known strain of hantavirus that can transmit between humans, a detail that added to early global concern over the incident.

  • Concussion class action against AFL and clubs by players set for 12-week trial in 2027

    Concussion class action against AFL and clubs by players set for 12-week trial in 2027

    A high-stakes class action lawsuit brought by former Australian Football League (AFL) players over long-term brain damage linked to repeated on-field and training concussions is on track for a landmark 12-week trial, set to commence in the second half of 2025.

    First launched in 2023 by Max Rooke, a former defender for the Geelong Cats who played 125 top-flight games for the club between 2002 and 2010, the legal action has already grown to include nearly 100 former players as participating claimants. Rooke serves as the lead plaintiff in the case, which was brought before Victorian Supreme Court Justice Andrew Keogh for a procedural hearing on Monday, where the trial timeline was formally set.

    Per the court’s scheduling order, the 12-week trial will get underway on July 26, 2025. Alongside the trial date, the court also scheduled a directions hearing focused on pre-trial mediation for September 30 this year, with a specialized expert conclave — a closed-door meeting where independent medical and industry specialists will discuss technical issues central to the case — also planned to take place ahead of the trial.

    In his claim, Rooke alleges he sustained permanent, life-altering brain damage from repeated concussion injuries sustained during his playing and training career. He further claims that both the league and his club failed to provide reasonable care after he suffered head impacts, and never adequately warned him of the long-term health risks associated with repeated concussions.

    The class action is not limited to Rooke and the current group of claimants. It is brought on behalf of all AFL players, their families, and their estates who played in the league at any point between 1985 and March 2023, and who have since developed permanent brain injuries stemming from in-game or training head impacts. The core allegation of the lawsuit is that the AFL as the governing body, and individual participating clubs, systematically failed to properly manage and mitigate the risk of concussion injuries for players over the 38-year period covered by the claim.

    The legal battle has already seen one major pre-trial ruling. In September 2023, Justice Keogh rejected an application by the AFL and Geelong Football Club to split the class action into hundreds of separate individual claims, a move that would have significantly delayed proceedings and increased legal costs for the plaintiffs. The league and the named clubs have maintained their defense against the claims throughout the procedural process.

  • Four takeaways from Musk vs OpenAI trial

    Four takeaways from Musk vs OpenAI trial

    After three weeks of heated courtroom proceedings, one of Silicon Valley’s most consequential legal battles centered on the artificial intelligence industry is drawing to a close. The civil suit filed by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk against OpenAI and its co-founders, widely labeled as the tech hub’s first major AI industry trial, is set to go to the jury for deliberation as early as Monday. As the legal process wraps up, four standout moments have come to define the clash between two of the founding factions of one of the world’s most valuable AI companies.

    First, Musk has framed his own role in OpenAI’s founding as that of a naive, altruistic pioneer who poured resources into a project for the public good, only to be pushed aside by the co-founders who built a multi-trillion-dollar business from his initial investment. Opening his case on April 28, the SpaceX and Tesla CEO positioned himself as a Good Samaritan focused on safeguarding humanity from unregulated superintelligence that could pose existential risks if controlled by bad actors. “I came up with the idea, the name, recruited the key people, taught them everything I know, provided all of the initial funding,” Musk told the court of OpenAI’s 2015 launch. He added: “I gave $38 million essentially for nothing, which they used to build a company worth $800 billion. I was literally an idiot,” blaming his own early lack of suspicion for the current conflict. Throughout his testimony, Musk displayed clear frustration, accusing OpenAI’s legal team of asking loaded questions designed to trap him. In response, OpenAI lead counsel William Savitt leaned into pointed cross-examination, wrapping his aggressive questioning in polite language that began with the line: “Mr. Musk, you are a brilliant man.”

    The second defining moment came when OpenAI CEO and co-founder Sam Altman took the stand to deliver his sharp counterattack, trading his signature casual attire of T-shirts, jeans and sneakers for a formal dark suit and tie. For most of the trial, Altman sat expressionless in the front row of the Oakland courtroom, but when his turn to testify arrived on May 12, he did not hold back. Musk’s lead attorney Steven Molo opened by asking Altman if he had always told the truth throughout his life, to which Altman replied candidly: “I’m sure there have been times in my life when I didn’t.” But he quickly pivoted to strike back at Musk’s claims, alleging that as early as 2017, Musk demanded 90% of OpenAI’s total equity and refused to put a power-sharing agreement in writing. Altman explained that the remaining co-founders had no choice but to push back on the demand, arguing that artificial general intelligence — the superintelligent system OpenAI initially set out to build — should never fall under the exclusive control of a single individual.

    Third, decades-old personal notebooks kept by OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman became a central piece of evidence in the case. Throughout the trial, Brockman has been a consistent presence in court, filling yellow notepads with detailed notes on every day’s proceedings. But during his May 4 cross-examination, it was his old private journals from the early days of OpenAI that took center stage. Musk’s legal team pulled out embarrassing excerpts that appeared to show Brockman was focused from early on on growing his personal wealth and pushing Musk out of the organization. One entry asked: “financially, what will take me to $1B?” Another noted Brockman’s goal to convert OpenAI to a benefit corporation without Musk’s involvement, and a third entry even described a plan to take control of the original non-profit foundation from Musk as “pretty morally bankrupt.” Brockman pushed back firmly against the attempt to frame him as unethical, telling the court: “There’s nothing in there I’m ashamed of.” He added that the journal failed to record details of a 2017 explosive confrontation with Musk, where Brockman said he genuinely believed Musk was about to physically assault him. While Musk never touched him, Brockman testified that Musk ripped a Tesla painting — a gift to the company from one of the co-founders — off the wall and stormed out of the room. Today, Brockman’s stake in OpenAI is valued at roughly $30 billion.

    The final high-profile moment of the trial came with the testimony of Shivon Zilis, a shadowy figure with close ties to both Musk and OpenAI who rarely appears in public. Zilis, who is the mother of four of Musk’s children, conceived via in vitro fertilization, served on OpenAI’s board of directors from 2020 to 2023, and also holds a senior role at Musk’s neurotechnology firm Neuralink. Her dual role put her in the awkward position of being a close colleague to Musk and a personal friend to Altman, and OpenAI has accused her of acting as a secret mole for Musk during her time on the board. When her relationship with Musk was brought up in court, Zilis responded with dry sarcasm, saying: “Relationship is a relative term,” before acknowledging that “there have been romantic moments.” While her in-court testimony drew intense media curiosity, the greater impact on the case may come from the content of private text messages Zilis sent to both Musk and Altman. Those communications could lead the jury to conclude that Musk was fully aware of OpenAI’s strategic shift toward for-profit development long before he filed his 2023 lawsuit. If the jury agrees that Musk had this information years earlier, his entire case could be dismissed before jurors even begin deliberating on the core legal claims.

  • Jury to decide fate of Musk’s blockbuster suit against OpenAI

    Jury to decide fate of Musk’s blockbuster suit against OpenAI

    Three weeks of dramatic, star-studded testimony in one of the most consequential Silicon Valley legal battles in recent memory drew to a close this week, with jurors set to begin deliberations Monday on Elon Musk’s blockbuster lawsuit against OpenAI and its chief executive Sam Altman. At the heart of the dispute is a bitter clash over the original founding mission of the AI firm that kicked off the global generative AI boom: Musk alleges Altman and other early leaders betrayed the organization’s founding promise to develop open, non-profit AI for the public good, instead steering it toward profit-driven growth that has turned it into an $850 billion private sector powerhouse.

    The trial, held in Oakland, California just outside the global tech hub of San Francisco, has seen dozens of Silicon Valley’s most prominent figures take the stand to testify about the behind-the-scenes clashes that have roiled OpenAI for years. Musk, the world’s richest person who helped launch OpenAI in 2015 before stepping down from the board in 2018, argues that the company’s radical transformation from a small, scrappy non-profit research lab to the creator of ChatGPT, the product that ignited today’s global AI race, amounts to a breach of the founding agreement and a misuse of his $38 million original donation.

    Musk’s legal team centered its closing argument, delivered Thursday, on challenging Altman’s personal credibility. Lead Musk attorney Steven Molo attacked the OpenAI chief’s integrity, arguing that the company’s leadership abandoned the core non-profit mission that convinced Musk and other early donors to back the project. “A non-profit devoted to the safe development of artificial intelligence, open sourced as practical, for the benefit of humanity. You know, we’re supposed to buy that,” Molo told the nine-member jury.

    OpenAI’s legal team fired back with a direct assault on Musk’s own claims, pointing out that even close associates of the billionaire have failed to back his version of events. OpenAI attorney Sarah Eddy highlighted testimony from Shivon Zilis, a business partner of Musk who is also the mother of four of his children, who acted as an intermediary between Musk and Altman in years after Musk left OpenAI. “Even the people who work for him, even the mother of his children, can’t back his story,” Eddy argued.

    The trial has also brought renewed public attention to long-swirling allegations about Altman’s leadership style. The OpenAI CEO was unexpectedly ousted by the company’s board in November 2023 over claims he lacked candor with leadership, only to be reinstated days later after massive pressure from OpenAI employees and major investors. Allegations of behind-the-scenes manipulation and a toxic internal culture dogged Altman throughout the three weeks of testimony.

    Before the jury can rule on the core claims of the lawsuit, it must first resolve a critical threshold question: whether Musk, who filed the suit in 2024, four years after his last financial contribution to OpenAI, brought the claim within the state’s statutory deadline for legal action. If jurors find the suit was filed too late, the case will be dismissed immediately. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has ruled that the jury’s decision on this timeline question will be advisory, but she has indicated she will almost certainly follow the jury’s recommendation.

    If the case moves forward, jurors will then weigh whether Altman and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman improperly misused Musk’s $38 million donation, which Musk says was earmarked to keep OpenAI operating as a public-benefit research lab, and broke binding promises to retain the non-profit structure to pursue personal profit and commercial growth.

    Musk’s requested remedy is extraordinary: he is demanding that OpenAI reverse its transformation and return to full non-profit status. Such a ruling would force OpenAI to scrap its planned initial public offering, unwind its multi-billion dollar partnerships and investment ties with major tech backers including Microsoft, Amazon and SoftBank, and rewrite its entire corporate structure. The jury will also consider whether Microsoft, OpenAI’s largest single backer which has committed $13 billion to the company, knowingly facilitated OpenAI’s shift away from its original non-profit mandate.

    Since leaving OpenAI in 2018, Musk has built his own competing AI initiatives, first through his rocket company SpaceX and more recently through dedicated AI startup xAI, which has so far struggled to compete with OpenAI and other leading AI players like California-based Anthropic. As Judge Rogers noted during the trial, the entire dispute ultimately boils down to a fundamental question for the nine jurors: which side of this battle between two of tech’s most high-profile billionaires can they believe? A win for Musk could deliver a fatal blow to OpenAI, upending the global AI race that the company helped launch with the 2022 release of ChatGPT.

  • Treasurer orders investors dump shares of WA rare earths miner over Chinese control fears

    Treasurer orders investors dump shares of WA rare earths miner over Chinese control fears

    Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers has issued binding divestment orders compelling six investors linked to China to sell their entire 17.5% stake in Northern Minerals, the ASX-listed developer of a strategically critical rare earths project in remote Western Australia, over national security and foreign investment rule compliance concerns. The forced sale, which impacts nearly 1.68 billion shares valued at around AU$40.4 million, marks the latest escalation in a months-long regulatory battle over control of the Browns Range project, which is set to produce heavy rare earth elements critical to global semiconductor manufacturing, defense supply chains, and clean energy technologies. The investors subject to the orders include three companies registered in Beijing, Hong Kong, and the British Virgin Islands, as well as two individual Chinese citizens, all of whom have been given a 14-day deadline to complete the full divestment of their holdings. In a public statement released Monday, Chalmers emphasized that Australia maintains a rigorous, even-handed foreign investment regulatory framework designed to protect core national interests. “We operate a robust and non-discriminatory foreign investment framework and will take further action if required to protect our national interest in relation to this matter,” Chalmers said. Northern Minerals, which has already received full regulatory approval to bring the Browns Range mine into production, paused trading on the Australian Securities Exchange shortly before market open on Monday before publishing full details of the divestment orders in an official filing an hour later. When operational, the project will produce two of the most strategically vital heavy rare earths globally: dysprosium, where China controls roughly 60% of total global supply, and terbium, where China dominates approximately 90% of global refining capacity. Both elements are irreplaceable components in high-strength permanent magnets used for everything from electric vehicle motors to advanced defense weapons systems. Breakdown of the required divestments, as outlined in Northern Minerals’ ASX filing, shows the largest single stake to be sold is the 619 million shares held by British Virgin Islands-registered Real International Resources, which accumulated the holding between 2023 and early 2025. Hong Kong-based Qogir Trading and Service Co. is ordered to offload 523.5 million shares, while Beijing-registered Vastness Investment Group and Chinese national Chuanyou Cong have each been directed to sell 130 million shares. Hong Kong’s Ying Tak must dispose of 93 million shares it acquired last November, and a second Chinese national, Zhongxiong Lin, has to sell 39.8 million shares. This latest action builds on prior regulatory enforcement against non-compliant foreign investors in the project. Back in June 2025, Chalmers took two other investors to the Federal Court of Australia over alleged breaches of the country’s Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. One of those entities, Indian Ocean International Shipping and Service Company, and its sole director, Chinese national Jing Tian, had already been ordered to divest their Northern Minerals stake a year prior, but failed to comply. The Federal Court ultimately imposed a combined AU$14 million fine for the violation, one of the largest penalties ever issued for foreign investment non-compliance in Australia. Vastness Investment Group, which already holds a 7.7% stake in Northern Minerals, escalated tensions earlier this year when it called for an extraordinary general meeting to vote on the removal of independent director Adam Handley. The legality of that move has been contested in court, with a ruling requiring the meeting to be held no later than June 30, 2025. The ongoing regulatory dispute dates back to 2024, when Chalmers issued his first round of divestment orders covering 613 million Northern Minerals shares. In April 2025, Northern Minerals disclosed to the ASX that roughly 60% of those ordered shares had been transferred to Ying Tak, prompting Chalmers to immediately issue a separate order barring the company from recognizing Ying Tak’s voting rights on any of its holdings.

  • An Australian journalist turns her harrowing China prison ordeal into a memoir and play

    An Australian journalist turns her harrowing China prison ordeal into a memoir and play

    Almost eight months after being deported from China following three years of detention, Australian journalist Cheng Lei is methodically rebuilding her life in her current home of Melbourne, turning her experience of imprisonment into creative work and a platform to advocate for others still detained under China’s justice system.

    Cheng first moved to Australia from China with her parents as a 10-year-old, eventually becoming a naturalized Australian citizen. At 25, she left a career as an accountant to pursue her passion for bilingual journalism, and over two decades of work across Asia, rose to become a high-profile anchor for the English-language *Global Business* program on Chinese state broadcaster CCTV.

    That stable, public career came to an abrupt end in August 2020. At CCTV’s Beijing headquarters, state security agents took Cheng into custody, accusing her of leaking state secrets to foreign organizations. She was blindfolded and transferred to an unknown detention location. In October 2023, a Beijing court convicted her of the charges and handed down a sentence of two years and 11 months — a term she had already nearly completed behind bars by the time the ruling was issued.

    According to Cheng’s memoir, the offense that led to her conviction amounted to a seven-minute premature release of data from former Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s 2020 annual government work report. The early disclosure revealed that China would not set a formal GDP growth target that year amid uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a decision that was already unusual. Cheng maintains she had no knowledge of any media embargo surrounding the report at the time of the incident.

    The journalist says she believes her detention was a case of hostage diplomacy, linked to Australia’s call for an independent international investigation into the origins of COVID-19. In April 2020, then-Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne publicly called for the inquiry; Chinese state security opened its investigation into Cheng just four days later. “Why me? Why that time? All these questions I’m still asking,” Cheng told the Associated Press in a recent interview.

    Relations between Canberra and Beijing had already been tense before the pandemic, but the global health crisis plunged the fraught bilateral relationship to its lowest point in decades. After Australia called for the COVID origins probe, Beijing halted direct communications with senior Australian government ministers and imposed official and unofficial trade bans on a range of Australian exports, including wine, coal, barley and lobster. Tensions only began to ease after Australia’s conservative government, which had drawn Beijing’s ire, was voted out of power and replaced by the current center-left Labor government in 2022, after which most trade restrictions were gradually lifted.

    Long before Cheng’s arrest, the Australian government had issued official warnings to its citizens about the risk of arbitrary detention in China. In the months after she was taken into custody, all Australian journalists based in China ultimately left the country, following high-stakes diplomatic standoffs in 2020.

    Since her release and deportation in October 2023, Cheng has thrown herself into multiple creative pursuits to process her experience and amplify the voices of people who cannot speak for themselves. She has published a memoir about her detention, and is currently preparing for the world premiere of her autobiographical play *1154 Days*, scheduled to open in Melbourne on May 28. The play explores how the mind adapts, resists, and creates connection even under extreme conditions of deprivation and surveillance. Cheng says during her months in isolation, she built entire television programs in her mind, invented memory games, and found small ways to connect with her cellmates and even her captors.

    “When your life gets shattered and you lose so many things that used to define you, you do have a kind of freedom to reorganize your atoms and create a new you,” Cheng explained during rehearsals for the production. “For me, it’s a fuller appreciation of life and much more adventurousness and also a serene sort of quiet fearlessness.”

    Beyond theater and writing, Cheng has also branched out into stand-up comedy, making her first stage appearance in Melbourne in June 2024 alongside Chinese-Australian writer and activist Vicky Xu, eight months after her release. She performed a five-minute set at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival’s RAW competition for new performers earlier this year, and says humor was a critical tool for survival during her detention. “If you can’t joke about incarceration, then you have no sense of humor,” she told the *Australian Financial Review*. “Humor got me through much of it and brightened the cell for me and my cellmates.” She now jokes that she has more source material for her comedy than most performers: “Life is a tragic comedy and we should mine it. I just have a bit more material than others.”

    Cheng now lives in Melbourne with her two teenage children, who were stranded in Australia visiting family when China closed its borders at the start of the pandemic, months before her arrest. For Cheng, her new creative projects are not just a way to heal — she says she has a responsibility to speak out for other detainees still held in China, including fellow Australian citizen Yang Hengjun, a Chinese-born democracy blogger who was sentenced to a suspended death penalty for espionage in 2024. Yang has been in detention since he returned to China from the United States in 2019, and his supporters warn his failing health means he is unlikely to survive a life sentence, which a court is expected to greenlight in the coming weeks.

    Australian officials have repeatedly raised Cheng’s case at high-level bilateral meetings with Beijing, and continue to push for Yang’s release. Cheng says her own experience of the Chinese prison system has given her a unique window into its harsh, opaque practices. The hardest part of her detention was the first six months, spent under Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL), a system where detainees are held in complete isolation, under constant surveillance, with strict limits on movement and enforced silence, designed to break suspects to force guilty pleas. Even after six months in that system, Cheng only received credit for three months toward her eventual sentence.

    “I know people who are still going through RSDL, or unfair, unjust, arbitrary detention in China. Or being sentenced to ludicrous, harsh sentences for standing up for other people, for standing up for human rights,” Cheng said. “They would want this story to be told because they don’t have a voice. And for the people who are too scared to talk because their families are hostages in China, this is for them too.”

    The play *1154 Days* seeks to cut through official narratives, Cheng explains, allowing audiences to see beyond Beijing’s public framing of itself as a rule-of-law society and reliable global partner. “It’s about how it feels to have everything taken away from you. How it feels to be with three other people all the time in the same little cell for three years, how it feels to be watched every minute of the day and how it feels to finally regain your freedom,” she said.

  • Moment two fighter jets collide mid-air at US air show

    Moment two fighter jets collide mid-air at US air show

    A dramatic mid-air collision between two fighter jets unfolded at a United States air show over the weekend, leaving onlookers stunned but avoiding what could have been a catastrophic loss of life. The two aircraft involved in the incident belonged to the US Navy, and each carried two crew members aboard at the time of the crash.

    In what emergency officials are calling a remarkable turn of events, all four crew members successfully ejected from their damaged aircraft before the jets crashed. Immediately following the collision, local emergency response teams rushed to the scene to provide medical care and secure the crash site.

    As of the latest official update from military authorities, all four ejected personnel are receiving medical treatment, and their conditions are listed as stable. Investigations are already underway to determine the root cause of the collision, with officials set to review air show footage, interview witnesses, and examine the wreckage of the two jets to piece together exactly what led to the mid-air incident. No injuries to spectators on the ground have been reported so far.

  • Fighter jet crews parachute safely after collision at US air show

    Fighter jet crews parachute safely after collision at US air show

    A shocking mid-air collision between two U.S. Navy EA-18G Growler fighter jets has disrupted the final day of a popular Idaho air show, leaving military officials and event attendees shaken but relieved after all four crew members escaped before the crash. The incident unfolded Sunday afternoon approximately two miles northwest of Mountain Home Air Force Base, on the second and closing day of the biennial Gunfighter Skies air show.

    Military spokespersons confirmed that all crew members on board both jets safely ejected from their aircraft immediately following the collision. In an official social media statement posted Sunday, Mountain Home Air Force Base Gunfighters confirmed that all aircrew involved are currently in stable condition, with responding emergency personnel transporting the team for mandatory medical evaluations. U.S. Navy Commander Amelia Umayam told CBS News that the crew remains in the care of on-base medical staff for routine checks, adding that it has not yet been confirmed whether any crew sustained injuries during the ejection or collision.

    The collision sparked a post-crash fire at the crash site, prompting base officials to enact a brief lockdown as emergency response teams worked to secure the area. Following the incident, event organizers made the immediate decision to cancel all remaining activities for the 2026 Gunfighter Skies air show. In their statement, base officials thanked attendees for their cooperation during the emergency response, noting that public patience allowed first responders to work quickly and effectively to contain the situation.

    The two aircraft involved in the crash are assigned to an electronic attack squadron based out of Washington state. According to U.S. Navy data, each EA-18G Growler carries an approximate price tag of $67 million, meaning the collision resulted in an estimated $134 million in military aircraft losses. Kim Sykes, a representative for Silver Wings of Idaho—the local organization that co-organized the event—confirmed that no base personnel, event staff or attendees on the ground suffered any injuries in connection with the crash.

    This is not the first fatal accident linked to the Gunfighter Skies air show: the event was last held in 2018, when a glider pilot lost their life in a separate accident during demonstration activities. As of Monday, military officials have launched a formal investigation to determine the root cause of Sunday’s collision, with no further details on potential contributing factors released to the public. The BBC has reached out to both Mountain Home Air Force Base and event organizers for additional comment on the incident.

  • AFL 2026: Melbourne forward Bayley Fritsch on contract talks, moments against Hawthorn and Steven King

    AFL 2026: Melbourne forward Bayley Fritsch on contract talks, moments against Hawthorn and Steven King

    As the Melbourne Demons mount an unexpected on-field resurgence under new head coach Steven King, star goalkicker Bayley Fritsch has opened up about progressing contract extension talks and his unshakable belief that his top AFL performances are still to come.

    The 29-year-old forward, currently in the final season of the contract he signed following his breakout 2021 campaign, confirmed that negotiations on a new deal to stay at the club have reached a productive phase. Fritsch, a left-footed sharpshooter, was dropped from the senior side last season but earned his place back after just one week out, and has since become a key fixture in the rejuvenated Demons line-up.

    For Fritsch, there is no question of continuing his career anywhere other than Melbourne. “It’s something that’s obviously playing out behind the scenes, I think we’re in good conversations with the club,” he told reporters. “I don’t see myself anywhere else. Hopefully, we can get something sorted pretty soon.”

    A late bloomer in professional AFL ranks, Fritsch was not drafted until he was 19, and he argues that late start means he still has plenty of high-quality playing years left in him. “I started pretty late, so I’d like to think I can play well into my 30s,” he explained. “I feel I’ve got a lot of good footy ahead of me. There’s still plenty of things to work on in my game and I think I’m still improving every year.”

    Fritsch’s mixed performance in the third quarter of Saturday’s clash against Hawthorn laid bare the fluctuating nature of his 2024 form so far. After pulling off a desperate match-winning tackle and nailing a long-range goal, he made a selfish call to shoot for goal again instead of playing a simple handball to an unmarked Latrelle Pickett. Looking back on the mistake, Fritsch admitted he let the roar of the 70,000-strong home crowd get the better of him. “If I had my time again, I would’ve heard him, I would’ve handballed it, but that’s footy,” he said.

    The Demons have emerged as one of the form teams of the 2024 season under first-year coach King, notching seven wins from their opening 10 matches with an attacking style of play that marks a stark shift from the club’s recent game plans. King has set his side an ambitious target: to become a must-watch “box office” team capable of scoring 100 points every week.

    Fritsch has heaped praise on the new coach, crediting King for instilling unwavering belief in the playing group from his first day in charge. “The sky is the limit,” Fritsch said. “That’s one thing Kingy said on day one: ‘If you don’t have an eye on the premiership, what’s the point of playing?’ It’s not saying we think we’re going to win the premiership, but you’ve got to have a goal and obviously that’s everyone’s goal. If you don’t have the goal to win the premiership coming into day one of pre-season, then I think you’re in the wrong mindset. We’ll keep taking it week by week, as cliche as it is, (and) keep working on our game, but I think we’re in a really good spot.”

  • White House mass prayer event seeks to reclaim US Christian roots

    White House mass prayer event seeks to reclaim US Christian roots

    On a Sunday on Washington’s National Mall, thousands of conservative Christian supporters gathered for a high-profile mass prayer rally organized by the Trump White House, kicking off a controversial event tied to the United States’ 250th anniversary celebrations that has reignited fierce national debate over the intersection of faith and government. The gathering was framed by organizers as a mission to revive what they frame as the nation’s forgotten founding principles rooted in Christianity, but critics immediately decried it as a blatant embrace of Christian nationalism that erodes the constitutional separation of church and state.

    The day-long outdoor event featured a lineup of political leaders and prominent evangelical figures, mixing religious worship with overt political messaging. Attendees filled the open green space of the Mall, singing contemporary Christian hymns and listening to a series of addresses from both pastors and top Trump administration officials. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered pre-recorded video remarks to the assembled crowd, while former and current President Donald Trump made a brief video appearance, reading a well-known biblical passage promising divine healing for nations that turn to God. House Speaker Mike Johnson opened the event with a prayer targeting what he called “sinister ideologies” spreading across the country, arguing that the nation’s core moral and spiritual identity had come under sustained attack. “We’ve witnessed attacks on our history, on our heroes and the cherished moral and spiritual identity of this great nation,” Johnson told the gathering. “We turn to you once again to save us from these afflictions.”

    The event comes as muscular Christian nationalism – an ideology that binds American national identity explicitly to Christian faith – has gained unprecedented access to power following Trump’s return to the presidency, with white evangelical voters remaining one of the president’s most loyal and vocal base of support. Hegseth, one of the most high-profile evangelical figures in the cabinet, is a member of an ultra-conservative evangelical congregation and has drawn attention for framing ongoing U.S. conflicts including the Iran war through bellicose religious rhetoric. Speaking to the crowd, Virginia pastor Gary Hamrick doubled down on this framing, framing the moment as an existential spiritual conflict for the nation’s future. “Today, friends, we are in a spiritual war,” Hamrick said. “This is a battle for the very soul of America.”

    The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment explicitly prohibits the federal government from establishing an official national religion, while also guaranteeing the free exercise of all religious beliefs, a balance that has been at the center of debate around the event. Ahead of the rally, Johnson pushed back against critics during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, arguing that the term “Christian nationalism” is nothing more than a pejorative label invented by opponents seeking to censor Christian voices in public life. For many attendees who traveled from across the country to attend the rally, the event was a long-overdue correction to what they see as decades of declining religious influence in American public life. Jeana Dobbins, a 67-year-old retiree who made the trip from North Carolina, told Agence France-Presse she came to “rededicate our country back to God. Our country has fallen away in so many areas.” Sarah Tyson, who traveled from New York with a church group and held a hand-painted “Jesus Saves” sign, echoed that sentiment, saying she believes Trump was divinely chosen to lead a national spiritual revival. “God ordained him for a time like this, because these United States needs to wake up,” Tyson said.

    While every modern U.S. administration has hosted or attended faith-based gatherings to mark national holidays or moments of national significance, Sunday’s event stands out for its massive scale and the direct involvement of nearly the entire top tier of the Trump administration. Of the 20 scheduled “faith leader” speakers, nearly all were evangelical Protestant, with only a single rabbi and one retired Catholic archbishop included on the roster. Religious studies scholars note that while blending conservative Christianity and nationalist rhetoric is not a new tactic in American politics, the scope of official government backing for the event marks a significant shift.

    “It’s not unprecedented to have a group of evangelical pastors or conservative clergy come together for something like this and blend a certain kind of nationalism with a certain kind of conservative Christianity,” said Sam Perry, a professor at Baylor University, a prominent Christian higher education institution in Texas. But “the Trump administration taking the lead on this celebration at this scale is different than previous events,” Perry added. Julie Ingersoll, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Florida, argued that the narrow lineup of speakers reveals an underlying vision of American identity that excludes non-Christians and people of color. While the event’s official website claims it welcomes “Americans of every background,” Ingersoll said the speaker list reflects “an idea of American identity that is rooted in whiteness and Christianity.” The event, she added, “sends a specific message… that they are the mainstream Americans, and the rest of us are sidelined.”

    The rally took place on the National Mall, the iconic stretch of federal parkland between the U.S. Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial that has hosted decades of defining mass gatherings for American democracy, most notably the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where 250,000 people gathered to hear Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his historic “I Have a Dream” speech.