Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Created as IDs, dog tags became a crucial link between military families and fallen troops

    Created as IDs, dog tags became a crucial link between military families and fallen troops

    For grieving military families across the United States, a small pair of worn metal rectangles often holds more weight than any memorial. Many survivors clench these items in their palms, as if they can still feel the hand of the service member they lost gripping back. Even battle-hardened fellow troops have broken down in tears reading the engraved names and details etched into their surfaces.

    More than a century after an Army chaplain first advocated to make these identification tokens – universally known as dog tags – standard issue for all American service members, they have evolved far beyond a practical tool for battlefield identification to become one of the most sacred and tangible links between fallen troops and their loved ones left behind.

    Stationed at Dover Air Force Base, the facility where the remains of U.S. service members killed overseas are repatriated to American soil from conflicts ranging from Afghanistan to recent tensions in the Middle East, Air Force Major and Chaplain Benjamin Quintanilla Jr. has witnessed this connection firsthand. “What families are searching for when they hold these tags is a connection to the person they lost,” Quintanilla explained. “That is what makes these dog tags such a sacred symbol for them.”

    From the brutal trenches of the World Wars to the jungles of Vietnam and decades of ongoing conflict across the Middle East, military dog tags have also stood as a quiet, enduring emblem of the sacrifice American service members have made in global engagements. Even so, Pentagon historians note that the origin of the common term “dog tags” for these identification tokens remains unconfirmed to this day.

    The urgent need for standardized battlefield identification first emerged into public consciousness during the American Civil War, when tens of thousands of troops were buried in unmarked graves as “unknown” soldiers. National Park Service data underscores this gap: at Vicksburg National Cemetery alone, 75% of the 17,000 Union troops interred there are recorded as unknown.

    It was not until the end of the Spanish-American War, the 1898 conflict that cemented the United States’ status as a rising global power, that a formal push for standard issue identification tags began. Serving as morgue director in the Philippines following the conflict, Army Chaplain Charles C. Pierce became the first official to formally request that all Army service members be issued individual identification tags.

    By the time the United States entered World War I, mandatory dog tag wear was required for all combat troops. The small metal tokens were officially integrated as a required part of the standard military uniform by World War II, a policy that remains in place today.

    In the modern era, dramatic advances in forensic science and biometric identification have reduced the historical reliance on dog tags for confirming the identity of fallen service members. Even so, the small tokens still hold critical practical value for military chaplains deployed to combat zones: the standard listing of religious affiliation allows chaplains to deliver appropriate, respectful end-of-life care and funeral rites for dying and fallen troops, according to Quintanilla.

    It is the deep symbolic meaning of connection, however, that makes dog tags irreplaceable for military communities. Surviving family members treasure the dog tags their loved ones wore during their service, as well as the honorary tags placed on fallen troops’ caskets during formal dignified transfer ceremonies. So profound is this attachment that many survivors choose to wear their loved one’s tags daily, or even get permanent tattoos replicating the engraved text.

    For currently serving troops, dog tags also act as the simplest, most immediate marker of shared belonging. Quintanilla, who originally joined the Air Force as a dental technician before becoming a chaplain, explained this bond: “I can trust somebody who is wearing the same identification as me. It’s a reminder that I was part of something bigger than myself.”

    This story is part of *American Objects*, a recurring series marking the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States that explores the stories of ordinary objects that shaped the nation’s history.

  • Bam! Pow! Krakoom! The everlasting allure of the American comic book

    Bam! Pow! Krakoom! The everlasting allure of the American comic book

    BARCELONA, Spain — From their glossy eye-catching covers to depictions of impossibly muscular heroes clad in skintight costumes, American superhero comics draw readers in instantly with the promise of high-stakes battles, triumph over villains and thrilling adventure. For decades, these slim, serialized publications have carved out a one-of-a-kind space in global pop culture, often contrasted sharply with other regional sequential art forms.

    Against Europe’s more literary, substantive graphic novels, traditional American superhero comics are often dismissed as flimsy, juvenile entertainment. When stacked against Japanese manga’s sprawling, genre-spanning narratives with complex thematic layers, American superhero stories read as earnest and uncomplicated, rooted in a bygone era of American cultural identity. Once sold for mere nickels and dimes before climbing to quarter price points, today single issues typically cost as much as a coffee shop latte — a clear marker of their place as a product of American consumer capitalism, widely labeled as junk-food literature: eye candy for casual readers, light entertainment that requires little deep engagement. But this surface reading overlooks the deeply American identity that has been baked into these 32-page monthly stories for generations.

    The turning point for modern American superhero comics came in 1961, when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby launched the Fantastic Four. In the team’s origin story, a fateful unplanned space journey exposes four explorers to cosmic radiation, leaving them with extraordinary abilities they never asked for. This origin rewrote the rules of superhero storytelling: for the first time, all-powerful heroes were also reluctant, relatable figures, shaped by the unintended consequences of scientific progress and random chance — flawed, modern people first, heroes second.

    This blueprint shaped countless iconic characters that followed. Spider-Man, the Hulk, Wolverine, and dozens more were marked by their otherness: their incredible powers turned them into outcasts, casting them as imperfect, burdened messiahs rather than perfect, unflappable paragons. Tied to a core thread of the American cultural psyche, nearly all of these characters abide by Peter Parker’s iconic moral mandate: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Like a distinctly American reimagining of the Greek myth of Sisyphus, they are bound to an endless cycle of sacrifice, repeatedly stepping forward to save the world even when victory offers them no personal reward.

    What could be more fundamentally American than this core belief: that when raw power is anchored to a commitment to justice, it will ultimately prevail? It is a worldview that is simultaneously deeply honorable and unapologetically naïve, a reflection of the national identity that has shaped the country for centuries.

    Today, even as storytelling has grown grittier and more complex, the two giants of the American comic industry — Marvel and DC — continue to reimagine what American character looks like for new eras. Long sidelined as supporting players to white male lead characters, female fan-favorites including Gwen Stacy, Jean Grey, and Susan Storm have emerged as central leaders in recent years, breathing new life into iconic sagas for Spider-Man, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four. DC’s *Absolute Wonder Woman* has pushed creative boundaries with groundbreaking, cinematic artwork, while half-Latino, half-Black Miles Morales has become the Spider-Man for a new, more diverse generation of readers.

    Even with these evolutions, the core tensions that have long defined American superhero stories remain unchanged. Bruce Wayne, the Batman, is unable to form deep meaningful connections with anyone beyond his longtime butler Alfred — a perfect portrait of the isolated individual in modern, atomized American society. Steve Rogers, Captain America, carries the weight of representing the World War II “Greatest Generation,” forever an outsider out of time even in his own country. And Lex Luthor, Superman’s villainous megalomaniacal nemesis, stands as one of the most iconic depictions of a power-hungry tech tycoon meddling with humanity’s future for his own gain — a trope that feels just as relevant today as it was decades ago, leaving readers to joke that the modern world could use a mild-mannered Clark Kent keeping watch on powerful elites, just in case.

    This feature is part of the recurring series “American Objects,” created to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, exploring the everyday and cultural items that have shaped the nation’s identity over its history.

  • Suspect in killing of Israeli embassy staff members to face death penalty

    Suspect in killing of Israeli embassy staff members to face death penalty

    On a quiet spring evening in downtown Washington D.C., hundreds gathered across from the White House on May 22, 2025, holding flickering candles to honor the lives of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, two young Israeli embassy employees killed in a targeted attack months earlier. Now, federal prosecutors have formally notified the court they will pursue the ultimate legal punishment for the man accused of their murder, in a case that intersects with the Trump administration’s sweeping reversal of Biden-era restrictions on the federal death penalty.

    Thirty-one-year-old Elias Rodriguez, the suspect in the May 2024 shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum, has entered a plea of not guilty to all 13 charges filed against him. Among those counts are three capital offenses: murder of a foreign official, discharge of a firearm during a violent felony, and second-degree murder by firearm, for which US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro confirmed Friday her office will seek execution if Rodriguez is convicted. Additional charges against Rodriguez include federal hate crime violations and counts related to acts of domestic terrorism.

    Prosecutors have laid out a detailed account of premeditation tied to ideological anti-Israel sentiment. According to their filings, Rodriguez traveled from his home in Chicago to Washington D.C. armed with a handgun, after researching a scheduled networking event for young Jewish professionals to be held at the downtown museum. Lischinsky, 30, and Milgrim, 26, were leaving the museum when Rodriguez opened fire, discharging 20 rounds that killed both victims immediately. Multiple law enforcement and media reports confirm the pair were in a committed relationship, and Lischinsky had purchased an engagement ring with plans to propose during an upcoming trip to Israel.

    After the shooting, prosecutors allege Rodriguez entered the museum, displayed a red keffiyeh, and openly stated he carried out the attack “for Palestine” and “for Gaza.” During his arrest, he shouted “Free Palestine,” and court documents show he left behind a written manifesto titled “explication,” where he expressed explicit support for violence against Israelis, claimed Israel was carrying out an extermination campaign against Palestinians, and attempted to justify his violent actions to encourage future copycat attacks. Multiple social media posts attributed to Rodriguez in the months before the shooting contain the slogan “Death to Israel” and repeated endorsement of violent targeting of Israeli civilians.

    FBI Assistant Director Darren Cox, head of the bureau’s Washington Field Office, emphasized the severity of the attack in a February 2025 press statement, noting “In addition to allegedly murdering two innocent people and terrorizing the survivors of his attack at the Capital Jewish Museum, Rodriguez wrote and published a manifesto attempting to morally justify his actions and inspire others to commit political violence.”

    Pirro reiterated her office’s commitment to full accountability in comments earlier this year, saying “My office will not rest in our efforts to hold Elias Rodriguez accountable for this horrific, and targeted act of terror against Yaron Lischinsky, Sarah Milgrim and our Jewish community.”

    The decision to pursue the death penalty comes amid a sweeping reversal of federal justice policy under the second Trump administration. During Trump’s first term in office, the White House reinstated federal executions after a 17-year informal moratorium, only to see the Biden administration roll back those policies and impose a formal halt on all federal executions after taking office in 2021.

    On his first day back in the White House following the 2024 presidential election, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to prioritize capital punishment in eligible cases, speed up execution schedules, and expand legal methods of execution beyond lethal injection to include practices such as firing squad. Department of Justice records confirm the administration has already resumed federal executions and streamlined court processes to reduce delays in death penalty cases.

    The case has sparked renewed national conversation about political violence targeting Jewish communities in the U.S., tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict spilling over into domestic attacks, and the future of the federal death penalty under the current administration.

  • Scientists find climate change is reducing oxygen in rivers worldwide

    Scientists find climate change is reducing oxygen in rivers worldwide

    A groundbreaking new research published in *Science Advances* on Friday has uncovered a quiet, growing threat to global river ecosystems: human-caused global warming is driving a steady decline in dissolved oxygen levels across the world’s waterways, putting fish populations and entire aquatic habitats at severe risk. The research, led by environmental scientist Qi Guan from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Nanjing, combines decades of satellite data and artificial intelligence analysis to deliver one of the most comprehensive assessments of river deoxygenation to date.

    Guan’s team tracked changes in oxygen content in more than 21,000 rivers spanning every continent from 1985 onward. The data revealed an average 2.1% drop in dissolved oxygen across all studied systems over the 38-year study period. While this decline may seem modest at first glance, researchers warn that it represents a cumulative trend that will escalate if current warming rates continue. By the end of the 21st century, the study projects an additional average 4% oxygen loss globally, with some vulnerable river basins facing drops close to 5% that would trigger severe ecological harm.

    The basic science behind the trend is well-established: warmer water inherently holds less dissolved oxygen than colder water, and rising water temperatures drive more oxygen out of rivers and into the atmosphere. Guan’s study quantified the share of global deoxygenation driven by warming: nearly 63% of the observed oxygen loss can be traced directly to rising water temperatures from anthropogenic climate change. Other contributing factors include nutrient pollution from agricultural fertilizers, urban stormwater runoff, altered flow patterns from dam construction, and changes in surface wind dynamics, but warming remains the single largest driver of the trend.

    If current deoxygenation rates persist, the study warns that heavily impacted regions including the eastern United States, India, the Arctic and most of tropical South America could see a 10% total oxygen loss from 1985 levels by 2100, even under moderate carbon emissions scenarios, not the most severe worst-case climate projections. Already, one of India’s most important and heavily polluted water systems, the Ganges River, is losing oxygen more than 20 times faster than the global average, according to the analysis. Tropical systems such as the Amazon Basin are particularly at risk: previous research found the number of days with dead zone conditions in the Amazon has increased by nearly 16 days per decade since 1980.

    When dissolved oxygen drops low enough, it creates hypoxic (low-oxygen) or anoxic (no-oxygen) dead zones, areas where most aquatic life cannot survive. Fish suffocate, biodiversity collapses, and water quality degrades in these areas, which already threaten major water bodies including the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie. Outside experts not involved in the study echoed Guan’s team’s alarm over the emerging trend.

    Karl Flessa, a geoscientist at the University of Arizona, noted that deoxygenation is an incremental process that builds over time to create irreversible harm. “Deoxygenation is a very slow process. If we have a long period, the negative impact will attack the river ecosystems,” Guan said. “The low level of oxygen can cause a series of ecological crises such as biodiversity decline, water quality degradation and maybe some fish will die.” Flessa added that many already stressed rivers are just a small temperature increase away from tipping into dangerous hypoxic conditions, which would eliminate sport and commercial fish populations in popular fishing areas.

    Emily Bernhardt, an ecologist and biogeochemist at Duke University, explained that rising river temperatures amplify the harm caused by existing water pollution. “As rivers warm it becomes easier and easier for the same pollution problems as before to cause more severe, more long lasting or more widespread hypoxia and anoxia,” she said. That means cutting water pollution has become an even more critical priority as the climate warms, she added. Marc Bierkens, a hydrology professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands who also was not part of the new study, has observed similar trends in his own independent research: he found global river oxygen stress has increased by 13 days per decade, and dead zone occurrences by nearly 3 days per decade, since 1980, trends that will accelerate with continued warming.

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental reporting for this article was supported by funding from private philanthropic foundations, with the AP retaining full editorial control over all content.

  • Judge declares mistrial in Weinstein case as jury fails to reach verdict

    Judge declares mistrial in Weinstein case as jury fails to reach verdict

    A federal judge in New York has declared a mistrial in the latest sexual assault trial of disgraced former Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein, after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the charges brought by accuser Jessica Mann. This outcome marks the third time proceedings against Weinstein over Mann’s allegations have collapsed, leaving the case unresolved. Now 74, Weinstein has already been convicted in two other separate sexual assault cases, meaning he will remain in custody regardless of this trial’s conclusion. The disgraced studio executive, whose decades-long pattern of alleged abuse sparked the global reckoning of the MeToo movement, is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence stemming from a 2022 California conviction for raping a European actress more than a decade ago. He is also appealing that conviction, alongside a June 2024 New York conviction for sexual assault against former film producer Miriam Haley. The first guilty verdict against Weinstein for Mann’s allegations, returned in 2020, was later thrown out over improper witness handling. A 2025 retrial ended in a mistrial after a bitter conflict among jury members, making this week’s outcome the second consecutive mistrial in the case. During the latest proceedings, Mann, now 40, recounted her first encounter with Weinstein at a 2013 industry party, when she was a 27-year-old aspiring actress and he was one of the most influential powerbrokers in Hollywood. She told the jury that Weinstein positioned himself as a potential mentor, showering her with flattering compliments — even saying she was prettier than A-list star Natalie Portman — and investing in her career by buying her acting textbooks. To the young, emerging actress, this attention initially felt like a once-in-a-lifetime miracle, she said. Mann’s testimony was deeply emotional, with frequent pauses as her voice cracked under the weight of recounting the alleged assault. Her account largely aligned with the testimony she gave in the two previous trials. In a post-declaration statement, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg acknowledged the disappointment of the mistrial outcome, while reaffirming respect for the jury system. “While we are disappointed that the proceedings ended with a mistrial, we deeply respect the jury system and sincerely thank all of the jurors for their time and dedication,” Bragg said. “For nearly a decade, Jessica Mann has fought for justice.” The 2017 exposure of dozens of sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein, published in groundbreaking investigations by *The New York Times* and *The New Yorker*, ignited a watershed global movement centered on holding powerful perpetrators of sexual harassment and assault accountable. More than 80 women came forward with accusations against Weinstein, and the reporting triggered the MeToo movement that has reshaped workplaces and cultural attitudes around the world.

  • Judge declares another mistrial in Harvey Weinstein New York rape charge

    Judge declares another mistrial in Harvey Weinstein New York rape charge

    A New York judge has formally announced a mistrial in the high-profile sexual assault case against disgraced former Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein, after the jury confirmed it could not reach a unanimous verdict following three days of deliberations. The outcome marks the third time a New York jury has considered the rape allegation against the 74-year-old, who remains incarcerated on separate sexual violence convictions in California. The 2024 mistrial caps off a month-long trial centered on claims from aspiring actress Jessica Mann, who alleged that Weinstein raped her in a Manhattan hotel room more than 15 years ago. The case has a long and tangled procedural history: Weinstein was first convicted of the charge in 2020, but that verdict was thrown out by an appeals court in 2024 over unfair trial procedural errors. A 2024 retrial ended with another deadlocked jury, leading to this third proceeding. The core accusation from Mann, who testified during the trial, is that she entered a coercive relationship with Weinstein, who exploited his industry power to pressure her, and that he forced her into non-consensual sex during a 2013 encounter. Weinstein’s defense team has consistently maintained that all sexual interactions between the two were consensual. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg released a public statement following the ruling, noting that prosecutors are currently evaluating whether to pursue a fourth trial in the case. “While we are disappointed that the proceedings ended with a mistrial, we deeply respect the jury system and sincerely thank all of the jurors for their time and dedication,” Bragg said. He went on to thank Mann for stepping forward with her allegation, adding that the prosecution team will consult with Mann before deciding their next move, while also accounting for Weinstein’s upcoming sentencing in an unrelated New York sexual assault case. “As always, we will continue to prosecute crimes of sexual violence – no matter who the defendant is – in a survivor-centered manner that uplifts their voices in the pursuit of justice,” Bragg added. In response, Weinstein’s legal team framed the mistrial as evidence of deep-seated cultural bias against their client that makes a fair trial impossible. “The outcome shows how deeply public perception and prejudice surrounding Harvey Weinstein have become embedded in society,” the team’s statement read. “For some people, regardless of the evidence presented, saying ‘not guilty’ has become emotionally or socially impossible.” The defense called on the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to abandon further prosecutions of the case and redirect its limited resources to pressing public safety issues that impact everyday New Yorkers. The deadlock was delivered to Justice Curtis Farber in a written note from the majority-male jury on Friday morning, which stated jurors had concluded they could not reach the required unanimous decision. Farber initially ordered jurors to return for additional deliberations, but ultimately ruled the jury was hopelessly deadlocked and had no path to a verdict. “I see no reason to go any further,” Farber said before thanking jurors and dismissing them from the case. The 2020 appeal that overturned Weinstein’s original conviction found that the trial judge had improperly allowed testimony from other women who made uncharged sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein, violating his right to a fair trial. Following the overturned conviction, prosecutors obtained a new indictment against Weinstein focused on two accusers from the original trial: Mann and former television production assistant Miriam Haley. This most recent trial centered solely on Mann’s rape allegation. More than 100 women have come forward with public allegations of sexual misconduct, assault, and rape against Weinstein since the first accusations became public in 2017. Weinstein has repeatedly and consistently denied all allegations of non-consensual sexual activity. Even with the hung jury in this case, Weinstein remains in custody following a 2022 conviction in a separate California sexual assault case, a conviction that carries a 16-year prison sentence and makes it likely he will spend the remainder of his life behind bars. The allegations against Weinstein, and the collective decision of his accusers to speak out, are widely credited with sparking the global #MeToo movement, which has worked to hold powerful men across industries accountable for sexual harassment and abuse. Before the scandal broke, Weinstein was one of the most influential figures in Hollywood, co-founding the iconic production studio Miramax alongside his brother Bob. The studio produced dozens of award-winning and culturally influential films, including Pulp Fiction and Shakespeare in Love, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Weinstein has also faced a wave of civil litigation over the allegations. A 2020 class-action lawsuit brought by a group of his accusers resulted in a $19 million settlement for the claimants. In recent years, Weinstein has also battled serious health issues, including a 2024 diagnosis of bone marrow cancer.

  • Pentagon halts deployments to Poland and Germany to cut troop numbers in Europe, AP sources say

    Pentagon halts deployments to Poland and Germany to cut troop numbers in Europe, AP sources say

    Widespread confusion and bipartisan backlash have followed the Pentagon’s unexpected order to cancel thousands of scheduled U.S. troop deployments to Europe, a move that has amplified long-simmering tensions between the Trump administration and key NATO allies amid disputes over U.S. strategy in the Iran war. Multiple senior U.S. defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military planning, have confirmed details of the drawdown, which aligns with President Donald Trump’s early May executive order to cut roughly 5,000 active-duty troops from the U.S. European theater.

    The core of the order signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to reposition a full brigade combat team out of Europe. That directive ultimately led to the cancellation of the planned deployment of 4,000 soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based out of Fort Hood, Texas. The unit had been scheduled to depart for Poland this week, but the deployment was scrapped at the last minute. Alongside the Poland cancellation, the order also halted an upcoming rotational deployment of a long-range rocket and missile battalion to Germany.

    The Trump administration had initially framed the European troop reduction as a cut limited exclusively to U.S. forces stationed in Germany, a positioning that followed public criticism of U.S. policy from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Merz had previously stated that the U.S. had been “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and condemned the administration’s lack of a clear strategy for the ongoing Iran war. The sudden inclusion of Poland in the cuts caught both European allies and many U.S. military personnel on the continent off guard: multiple U.S. officials based in Europe confirmed they had no advance warning the Poland deployment would be halted, with one senior officer describing an emergency briefing called with just 20 minutes’ notice on Monday to outline the change. Some troops had already arrived in Poland when the order came down, while others still stateside were told to stand down only hours before they were scheduled to depart for the airport. Most of the unit’s heavy equipment had already been shipped to European ports and remains in transit limbo, officials added.

    Polish authorities have moved quickly to downplay the impact of the cancellation, framing the move as a logistical adjustment rather than a targeted snub. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday that he had received formal assurances from the Trump administration that the decision would not erode Poland’s national security or NATO deterrence capabilities on the alliance’s eastern flank. The move also contradicts public assurances Trump gave as recently as September, when Polish President Karol Nawrocki visited the White House. At that meeting, Trump explicitly stated he had no plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Poland, even offering to increase the U.S. presence if Warsaw requested it. Poland has long positioned itself as a leading U.S. ally within NATO, and currently meets the alliance’s 2% of GDP defense spending target, hitting a planned 4.7% of GDP in 2025 – the highest share among all NATO members. Defense Secretary Hegseth has previously referenced Poland as a “model ally” for its defense spending commitments. Currently, roughly 10,000 U.S. troops are present in Poland, the vast majority on rotational deployments, with only around 300 permanently stationed in the country, per data from the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

    Pentagon spokesman Joel Valdez defended the drawdown in a public statement, arguing that the decision followed a “comprehensive, multilayered process” and was not an impulsive last-minute adjustment. But senior Army leaders acknowledged to Congress on Friday that formal discussions on halting the Poland deployment only began two weeks ago, with the final decision coming just days before the unit was scheduled to depart. The chaotic rollout has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers across the U.S. political spectrum, with both Democrats and Republicans arguing the move sends a dangerous message to U.S. allies and emboldens Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces launched one of the deadliest strikes on Kyiv this week in the four-year-old full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

    Nebraska Republican Rep. Don Bacon, who said he spoke to Polish officials Thursday, told reporters that Warsaw had been completely “blindsided” by the cancellation, calling the decision “reprehensible” and “an embarrassment to our country.” House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers, an Alabama Republican, added that the administration failed to fulfill its requirement to consult with Congress ahead of the drawdown, leaving lawmakers in the dark about the full scope of the changes. “So we don’t know what’s going on here,” Rogers said. “But I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about.”

    U.S. officials have sought to soften concerns about a full U.S. withdrawal from the continent. Speaking at a security conference in Tallinn, Estonia, on Friday, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas G. DiNanno said the drawdown plans were public and transparent, noting that “the U.S. isn’t going anywhere.” “We’ll continue to work with the Pentagon and work with our partners to make sure we get the right fit and right mix of what’s happening here on the ground,” DiNanno said.

    A NATO spokesperson also sought to downplay security risks, saying the canceled deployment would not disrupt the alliance’s existing deterrence and defense plans on the eastern flank, pointing to increased force contributions from Canada and Germany that offset the change. But retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, warned the uncoordinated drawdown causes long-term damage to alliance cohesion. “This move reinforces the perception that the United States just does things without consultation with allies,” Hodges said, adding that eroding partner trust will ultimately harm U.S. defense industry interests in the region long-term.

    One senior U.S. official confirmed that after the drawdown is complete, the overall U.S. military presence in Europe will return to pre-2022 levels, before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The drawdown comes as the Trump administration has repeatedly pressed European allies to take greater responsibility for their own security, including support for Ukraine, a shift that has deepened rifts between Washington and longstanding transatlantic partners amid ongoing disputes over the Iran war.

  • US charges Iraqi national accused of plotting at least 18 terror attacks in Europe

    US charges Iraqi national accused of plotting at least 18 terror attacks in Europe

    MANHATTAN, N.Y. — Federal law enforcement authorities have secured terrorism-related charges against an Iraqi man accused of orchestrating a sprawling, Iran-linked plot to carry out violent attacks targeting Jewish communities and Western interests across three continents, court documents unsealed Friday confirm.

    Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood Al-Saadi, the 48-year-old suspect, stands accused of planning no fewer than 18 separate terrorist attacks across Europe, all framed as retaliation for U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. The alleged plots included plans to firebomb a major bank in Amsterdam and carry out stabbings targeting Jewish civilians in London, according to the unsealed complaint filed in Manhattan federal court.

    Beyond European targets, prosecutors allege Al-Saadi was actively developing plans to strike a synagogue in New York City as recently as last month. He is also accused of sharing visual intelligence — including photographs and detailed location maps — of Jewish community centers in Los Angeles, California, and Scottsdale, Arizona, to an undercover law enforcement agent, marking the sites as planned targets.

    The complaint also ties Al-Saadi to two high-profile violent attacks in Canada earlier this year: a targeted assault on a Canadian synagogue and a March shooting at the U.S. consulate general in Toronto.

    Al-Saadi faces four separate federal charges: conspiracy to provide material support to two U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, Kata’ib Hizballah, an Iraqi Shia militant group backed by Tehran, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran; conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transnationally; providing material support to these terrorist acts; and conspiracy to bomb a facility of public use.

    Court records confirm Al-Saadi was arrested by Turkish law enforcement before being extradited to U.S. custody. He was transferred to a federal detention facility in Brooklyn Thursday evening, and has been held in solitary confinement since his arrival, according to his defense counsel.

    During his initial court appearance this week, Al-Saadi did not make any on-the-record statements. Through his attorney, Andrew Dalack, he has claimed he is being wrongfully detained as a political prisoner and prisoner of war, asserting persecution by U.S. authorities over his past personal ties to Qasem Soleimani, the former top commander of the IRGC Quds Force who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad in January 2020.

    Under standard federal procedures, Al-Saadi was not required to enter a formal plea at his initial hearing. He remains in federal custody as of Friday, though his legal team has signaled he may file a motion for bail at a later date.

  • Salesman Trump leaves China with very little in his bag

    Salesman Trump leaves China with very little in his bag

    For former US President Donald Trump, few experiences rankle more than being overshadowed – especially during a high-stakes appearance on one of the most prominent stages of his second presidential term: Beijing. While Trump’s inner circle has pushed back against the idea, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang did exactly that during Trump’s long-awaited trip this week, a reality that has not gone unnoticed by global financial markets.

    As analysts predicted, the first visit by a sitting US president to Beijing in eight years delivered abundant ceremonial fanfare, but few tangible diplomatic breakthroughs. Chinese President Xi Jinping extended enough concessions to allow Trump to frame the trip as a success back in Washington, including agreements to explore cooperation to ease trade tensions and, critically, pursue an end to the ongoing war in Iran.

    The real center of attention, however, was Trump’s delegation of more than 30 chief executives, whose combined companies hold a total market capitalization of roughly $20 trillion – a sum equivalent to China’s entire annual gross domestic product. This corporate entourage, assembled to push for greater access to the world’s second-largest economy, ultimately drew more global attention and interest than the summit’s headlining political leader, who has long craved the spotlight.

    No corporate leader captured more attention than Huang, a last-minute addition to the delegation who joined the presidential delegation mid-journey, catching up to Air Force One at a refueling stop in Alaska. Huang’s late inclusion has been widely interpreted as a sign that the Trump administration is going to great lengths to accommodate Beijing, as the chip giant seeks regulatory approval to sell its cutting-edge H200 AI chips to Chinese buyers.

    Amanda Hsiao, an analyst at Eurasia Group, notes that Huang’s last-minute participation makes a potential near-term announcement of Chinese approval for a first batch of H200 chip imports far more likely than previously expected – a shift that runs counter to earlier market projections.

    This development carries major implications for the global AI boom that has pushed global stock markets to record all-time highs. For Trump’s Beijing trip, Huang’s progress could end up being the most durable achievement of the entire visit. A breakthrough on AI chip trade would be a landmark win for Nvidia, which is currently approaching an unprecedented $6 trillion market valuation.

    While the summit produced preliminary talks of Boeing aircraft orders, increased Chinese purchases of US soybeans, and a reciprocal visit by Xi to Washington later this year, the most pressing high-stakes issues – including unfettered access to Chinese rare earth minerals, coordinated AI governance standards, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping – were deferred to future negotiations.

    As former US Congressman Adam Kinzinger observed on his YouTube channel, Xi received Trump like a polite host entertaining a salesperson, and that particular salesperson appears to be returning to the US with very few concrete deals to show for the trip.

    At this stage, global markets are in a holding pattern. It will be several months before it becomes clear whether the diverse delegation of tech, finance, and defense executives – which also includes Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, and the leaders of Boeing, Citi, and Goldman Sachs – will deliver tangible results from the meetings.

    One major wild card is that Trump enters these negotiations with far less political and economic leverage than he anticipated at the start of 2026. Much of the outcome hinges on whether Trump’s increasingly unpredictable White House avoids disruptive new policies, such as additional sweeping tariffs on Chinese goods, an escalation of the Middle East conflict, or other sudden policy shifts that could roil global markets.

    During his meeting with the US corporate delegation, Xi affirmed that China would continue opening its domestic economy to foreign investment. Trump described his bilateral talks with Xi as “great” and struck a broadly optimistic tone in public remarks, and the warm, welcoming visual of the summit has already provided a modest boost to global investor sentiment.

    Beneath the positive optics, however, significant uncertainty remains. Xi issued a stark warning that mismanagement of the Taiwan question could lead to direct military confrontation, a statement that served as a clear wake-up call for geopolitical risk analysts. The moment also put Trump in an awkward position: standing alongside Xi, he declined to even respond to reporters’ questions about the Taiwan issue.

    Economists are also grappling with the implications of Xi’s reference to the “Thucydides trap,” the theoretical risk that a rising power will inevitably go to war with an established ruling power, framing the dynamic between the world’s two largest economies, which together account for $53 trillion in annual GDP. Even as Xi acknowledged this historic risk, he called for building a “constructive, strategic and stable relationship” between the two global powers.

    To be sure, the simple fact that the leaders of the US and China met face-to-face and held constructive dialogue this week is an unambiguous positive for the global economy. That milestone alone counts as a meaningful economic win after years of escalating tensions.

    Yet what has been lost in much of the post-summit coverage is Trump’s defining policy goal across both of his presidential terms: forcing China into a sweeping “grand bargain” trade deal that would pressure Beijing to make deep structural economic concessions. After days of photo opportunities and diplomatic pleasantries in Beijing, that core goal appears more elusive than ever.

    Carlos Casanova, an economist at Union Bancaire Privee, notes that a major diplomatic breakthrough remains improbable in the medium term. “More plausible are modest gestures, including calibrated moves toward a tariff truce in select categories and assurances on critical-materials access,” he explained.

    As US-China working-level talks resume in the coming weeks, rare earths are a top candidate for a small-scale agreement. Chinese rare earth exports surged 197% year-over-year in April, up from just 3.3% growth in March, a trend that highlights both Washington’s dependence on Chinese supplies and Beijing’s gesture of goodwill ahead of the summit.

    Casanova adds that a “mutual understanding to maintain a stable supply in exchange for restraint on punitive measures would be a logical, market-friendly outcome, especially given vast investments in artificial intelligence that have fueled the stellar performance of equity markets in the United States.”

    Still, just as with unresolved tensions around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, global markets cannot ignore the underlying risks that remain after the 2025 trade escalation. China retains the ability to at any time restrict exports of rare earth minerals, which are critical inputs for electric vehicles, LED displays, lithium-ion batteries, military radar systems, semiconductors, and smartphones.

    Beijing could also choose to deepen its strategic partnership with Iran, including ramping up crude oil purchases from Tehran, providing military equipment assistance, and expanding intelligence sharing. It could also cancel Boeing’s planned 200-plane order, or shift agricultural purchases back to Brazilian soybean suppliers.

    As Trump returns to a White House grappling with internal disarray, his core MAGA base is unlikely to be impressed by the trip’s outcomes. Since taking office for his first term in 2017, Trump has repeatedly promised to force China into a subordinate trade position and demonstrate US dominance. The results so far tell a different story: China’s GDP has grown by $8 trillion since 2017, even amid years of escalating US tariffs and trade restrictions.

    Despite US tariffs reaching as high as 145% on Chinese goods in 2025, China closed the year with a record $1.2 trillion annual trade surplus.

    For Trump, the political calculus is clear: only a high-profile, transformative trade victory over China can justify the last 15 months of tariff volatility, elevated inflation, and economic disruption to his most loyal supporters. The current trip delivered nothing close to that.

    The Iran war that Trump launched alongside Israel in late February further complicated his negotiating position in Beijing. The resulting surge in global oil prices, combined with ongoing inflation from tariffs, has left Trump’s national approval ratings at historic lows.

    Now, he returns to Washington with little more than an agreement to continue talking about a potential framework for a future deal. In the aftermath, the Trump administration is likely to face critical headlines highlighting the gap between Trump’s bold pre-trip rhetoric and the minimal concrete progress achieved in Beijing.

    Additionally, with Republicans facing midterm Congressional elections this November, the party is vulnerable to attacks that it has been too soft on China, given the deference the Trump administration showed to Xi’s inner circle during the summit. Trump also risks being boxed in by the diplomatic agreement he reached with Beijing.

    Bill Bishop, a veteran China analyst who publishes the Sinocism newsletter, points out that Xi’s inner circle “wants a period of strategic detente and this concept could realize that on terms favorable to them for the rest of Trump’s second term.”

    Bishop adds that “any future US moves to address PRC industrial overcapacity, tighten technology controls, etc. could then be cast by Beijing as violations of the new ‘constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability’ to which the two leaders personally agreed.”

    While China faces significant domestic headwinds, including a persistent property sector crisis, Xi has leveraged the Trump era to position China as a more stable global economic partner open for foreign business. It will take time to determine whether this week’s Beijing summit marks another soft power victory for Xi’s economic governance model.

    What is clear is that Xi will need to do more to convince American households, already grappling with persistent inflation, that China has not undercut US economic interests at home.

  • Takeaways from Trump’s trip to China: Taiwan, a new framework for relationship and flattery for Xi

    Takeaways from Trump’s trip to China: Taiwan, a new framework for relationship and flattery for Xi

    After three days of uncharacteristic public restraint during his official visit to China, former U.S. President Donald Trump broke his silence on the most sensitive topic of the trip only after departing Beijing for Washington. What was expected to center heavily on trade and the U.S.-Israel conflict in Iran instead became dominated by urgent discussion of Taiwan, the flashpoint that continues to shape the core of U.S.-China bilateral relations.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping opened the high-stakes summit with a clear, firm warning: any misstep by Washington in its approach to the self-governing island, which Beijing claims as an inalienable part of its territory, could lead to open confrontation between the two global powers. While Trump made no public response to the warning during his time on Chinese soil, he opened up about the conversation to reporters aboard Air Force One once en route home, revealing that Xi’s strong opposition has pushed him to reconsider a previously planned major U.S. arms sale to Taipei.

    ### Taiwan Policy: Strategic Ambiguity Remains, Arms Sale Decision On Hold

    Heading into the trip, Trump had already signaled growing ambivalence toward U.S. support for Taiwan during his second term, sparking widespread speculation that he might scale back long-standing American backing for the island democracy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had publicly reaffirmed that there was no shift in Washington’s approach, but observers warned that Trump, famous for unscripted off-the-cuff remarks, could trigger unintended major consequences with a single comment. In the end, he remained publicly silent on the issue while in Beijing, even after Xi framed it as the most critical issue in bilateral ties.

    The $11 billion weapons package for Taiwan was authorized by Trump’s Republican administration back in December, but it has not yet been implemented. A separate $14 billion arms sale was approved by Congress in January, and it cannot move forward until Trump formally submits it for congressional review. When asked if he would move ahead with the sale, Trump told reporters: “President Xi and I talked a lot about Taiwan. He does not want to see a fight for independence because that would be a very strong confrontation. I heard him out, but I didn’t make a comment.”

    Trump struggled to recall the name of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te during the press exchange, and emphasized that “The last thing we need right now is a war that’s 9,500 miles away.” When pressed on whether the U.S. would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan, he declined to give a direct answer — a position that aligns with decades of U.S. “strategic ambiguity” policy, which commits Washington to ensuring Taiwan has the means to defend itself but does not explicitly state what military action the U.S. would take if Beijing launches an attack.

    ### Iran Conflict: Beijing Offers Potential Mediation

    The conflict in Iran, initially expected to dominate the summit agenda, was discussed in substantive terms between the two leaders. The war has already driven a sharp spike in global oil prices, and a prolonged conflict threatens to push the global economy into recession. Trump told reporters that Xi agreed a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a dangerous threat to global security, and that both sides agreed the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global oil chokepoint — must be reopened. Trump added that Xi even offered to help broker a diplomatic end to the conflict.

    Chinese officials have not yet confirmed that mediation offer publicly. Beijing’s public stance has been that any resolution must “take into account the concerns of all parties on the Iran nuclear issue.” Trump has argued that China should play a larger role in ending the conflict, given its heavy dependence on energy imports from the Middle East. If Beijing does step up its engagement, it could mark a major breakthrough for U.S. efforts to reach a sustainable resolution to the war.

    ### A New Framework for Bilateral Ties

    Following the summit, Chinese authorities announced that the two leaders had agreed on a new vision for bilateral ties: a “constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability.” According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, this framework will guide relations for the remainder of Trump’s current term, focusing on expanding areas of cooperation, setting boundaries for competition, and managing differences through dialogue.

    Helena Legarda, a China analyst at the Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies, described the framework as an effort “to keep the relationship on an even keel” after years of rising tensions. George Chen, a partner at global consultancy The Asia Group, noted that this framing represents a shift from the previous Democratic administration of Joe Biden, which framed the U.S.-China relationship primarily as one of strategic competition.

    ### Trade Deals: Big Promises, Few Concrete Details

    Trump traveled to Beijing accompanied by a delegation of top U.S. business leaders, including Boeing CEO, Nvidia chief Jensen Huang, and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. The president announced that major new trade agreements had been reached, including a pending deal for China to purchase 200 Boeing aircraft. But he left Beijing without any formal, signed announcement of the deal. Earlier proposals for large Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans and beef also remain pending.

    Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump added that China could eventually purchase up to 750 Boeing aircraft if the initial order proceeds smoothly, with 450 General Electric engines included in any expanded deal. Like all large bilateral accords, the final details will determine the actual impact of any agreements. During Trump’s first term, he oversaw a high-profile signing ceremony in Beijing for nearly $250 billion in deals, but not all of the pledges made at that time were ultimately fulfilled.

    ### Diplomatic Tone: Trump’s Unreciprocated Praise for Xi

    From the start of his visit, Trump offered consistent, effusive praise for Xi Jinping, with no matching level of public flattery in return from the Chinese leader. Trump called Xi a “great leader,” said the two countries would share a “fantastic future together,” and described it as an “honor” to be Xi’s friend, calling the Chinese leader “warm.”

    Xi is not known for public effusiveness, and Trump himself acknowledged in a pre-trip Fox News interview that Xi is “all business.” In his public remarks, Xi called Trump’s visit “landmark” and said it had deepened mutual trust, and offered a more subtle gesture of goodwill: he promised to send rose seeds to the White House, matching the variety grown in the garden of his Beijing residence where the two leaders held talks over tea. Xi noted that hosting Trump at the residence was a gesture to reciprocate the hospitality Trump extended when Xi visited his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida back in 2017.

    Reporting for this article was contributed by Leung in Hong Kong, Mistreanu and Wu in Bangkok, and Superville in Washington.