Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • The Okefenokee is about to be honored, but some locals aren’t celebrating

    The Okefenokee is about to be honored, but some locals aren’t celebrating

    Deep in the pine forests of southern Georgia, the 438,000-acre Okefenokee Swamp stands as one of America’s most ecologically significant wetland landscapes, home to iconic alligators, rare carnivorous plants, and untouched old-growth cypress forests that have remained largely undisturbed for millennia. On Saturday, a United Nations cultural committee convening in Busan, South Korea is set to vote on whether the Okefenokee will earn a spot alongside the Grand Canyon, Everglades, and Yellowstone as the United States’ 27th UNESCO World Heritage Site. But for many rural residents living in the three counties surrounding the swamp, the international honor is anything but welcome—rooted in deep distrust of the United Nations and aligned with the broader “America First” political framework that dominates the region.

    For years, hand-painted lawn signs reading “Keep the U.N. (UNESCO) out of the Okefenokee” have lined rural highways across Ware, Charlton, and Clinch counties, while the slogan adorns t-shirts sold at local farm supply stores and community events. All three counties are heavily rural, majority conservative, and gave former President Donald Trump more than 70% of the vote in the 2024 presidential election. Trump’s “America First” agenda has resonated deeply here, and his July 2025 announcement that the United States would fully withdraw from UNESCO at the end of 2025—citing the body’s misalignment with U.S. foreign policy priorities—has reinforced local skepticism of the global organization.

    Barry Cox, a Ware County commissioner elected in 2024 after four decades running the county’s vehicle maintenance shop, says opposition to the designation is nearly universal among his constituents. “All I heard from the people I represent is that they were scared the UN would come in here, start taking private land, and tell us what we can and can’t do with our property,” Cox explained in an interview with The Current. Cox, who attended an informational meeting on the nomination hosted by an anti-UNESCO group but was unable to attend a pro-designation briefing, says his position reflects the will of the community he serves.

    In June 2025, Cox and the Ware County Commission passed a formal resolution opposing the nomination, pledging the county would not enforce any rules or policies originating from the United Nations or its subsidiary bodies that would violate private property rights protected by the U.S. and Georgia state constitutions. Charlton County passed an identical measure shortly after.

    The campaign against the designation has been led in large part by national conservative groups, most prominently the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that promotes free-market environmental policy and rejects the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. In December 2025, CFACT released a YouTube video titled “Save Okefenokee from UNESCO Control” as part of its “Conservation Country Series,” which frames the World Heritage nomination as an international land grab that threatens U.S. sovereignty.

    CFACT policy analyst Gabriella Hoffman points to the 2024 nonbinding Republican primary party question in Ware County as evidence of broad grassroots opposition. The question, which asked voters whether they supported the UNESCO designation, claimed the UN held an agenda to control local school curricula, land use, infrastructure, and housing, and framed the designation as a violation of U.S. sovereignty. Of the 3,144 voters who cast ballots in the primary, 93% voted against the nomination.

    Charles Bullock, a longtime distinguished professor of public affairs at the University of Georgia, argues the loaded wording of the question all but guaranteed the lopsided result. “Who would vote yes when it’s framed as the UN coming to take over our country?” Bullock noted. “The question was designed to produce that outcome.”

    Charlton County Commissioner Drew Jones, who appears in the CFACT video, acknowledges the designation would not amount to a direct seizure of private land, but argues it still represents an unacceptable overreach of international influence. “I get that it’s not a literal land grab, but people see it as a metaphorical one—they think the UN would gain implicit influence over public and even private lands here, and they shouldn’t have any say at all,” Jones explained. Jones added that the prominent role of U.S. geopolitical rivals like China and Russia within the UN system makes the designation even less palatable for local residents. “I don’t think China or Russia are going to come steal the swamp or anything, but I don’t like the idea of them sitting at a table decades from now judging what’s a threat to this land,” he said. “Any oversight of the Okefenokee should come from Atlanta or Washington, not some international body in New York.”

    For Joe Hopkins, whose family-owned Toledo Manufacturing manages thousands of acres of forest land surrounding the swamp, opposition boils down to protecting long-held private property rights. He points to the 1990s debate over the proposed New World Gold Mine near Yellowstone National Park—itself a UNESCO World Heritage Site—as an example of how the designation can invite unwanted international pressure on local land use decisions. “If you have a development project near a World Heritage Site, you don’t just get opposition from U.S. environmental groups—you get thousands of letters from people and governments all over the world,” Hopkins said. But historical records contradict this framing: the Public Land and Resources Law Review found the mine was ultimately blocked by a federal Clean Water Act lawsuit, not international pressure from UNESCO. While the World Heritage Committee did place Yellowstone on its endangered list in response to the proposal, the ruling carried no legal weight and only heightened public scrutiny, rather than deciding the outcome.

    CFACT’s video also misleadingly cites two academic sources to bolster its opposition. Hoffman cites a study focused on World Heritage Sites where local communities reside within the site’s boundaries to claim the designation infringes on local human rights—but the entire Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is already federally managed, and no residential communities exist within its proposed World Heritage boundaries. She also references a 2018 Stanford University article quoting anthropologist Lynn Meskell arguing the UNESCO World Heritage program had “lost its way” as countries prioritized branding benefits over conservation. What the video omits is Meskell’s explicit rejection of the claim that UNESCO controls U.S. World Heritage Sites: “One problem is that there is widespread ignorance when it comes to UNESCO,” Meskell stated in the article. “Some people think that a UNESCO inscribed site is not U.S. sovereign territory and that the United Nations somehow controls those sites. That is incorrect.”

    Official clarifications from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which owns and manages the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, echo that point. In a 2024 public explainer, the agency emphasized that the World Heritage designation “does not confer any ownership or management authority to the United Nations. UNESCO only monitors the current conditions and potential threats to the designated properties. The Refuge would continue to be wholly owned and managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.”

    Still, that clarification has done little to ease local concerns. Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University, notes that the opposition is rooted in longstanding ideological commitments, not just misinformation. Political scientists like Bullock trace the sentiment to deep-rooted American localism, a tradition of resistance to outside influence that has shaped U.S. political debates for more than a century. “Folks here don’t want anybody telling them what to do with their property—whether that’s the federal government or an international body,” Bullock explained. “This is the same tradition that led to fears of Catholic influence in U.S. politics in the 1960s, and to resistance to federal civil rights policy for generations. It’s a long-running strain of American thought.”

    The UNESCO World Heritage Committee is scheduled to hold its final vote on the Okefenokee nomination at 3 p.m. local time Saturday in Busan, with the proceedings available via public livestream. Attempts by The Current to reach leaders of the two main anti-UNESCO groups active in southern Georgia have so far been unsuccessful: Americans for the Okefenokee declined an interview via Facebook Messenger, while the Georgia Republican Assembly did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

  • Man fatally wounded in knife attack in German bank

    Man fatally wounded in knife attack in German bank

    A fatal knife attack at a regional bank in the southeastern German city of Regensburg has left one person dead, and prompted a multi-hour standoff that ended with the arrest of a 20-year-old German national suspect on Wednesday. The violent incident unfolded shortly before 3 p.m. local time (1 p.m. GMT), triggering an immediate large-scale emergency response that deployed heavily armed special police task forces to the scene. Initial reports raised urgent fears that the attacker was holding hostages inside the bank, forcing authorities to lock down the western district of the city and leave local residents in a state of prolonged anxiety. Over the course of more than three hours, tactical police negotiated and secured the building, eventually extracting two unharmed civilians from the site before taking the suspect into custody at approximately 6 p.m. local time. The victim, who was found with critical stab wounds, could not receive emergency medical care until the area was secured by law enforcement, and was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at a local hospital. Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann confirmed that the killing was a “brutal unprovoked attack,” leaving authorities still working to unpack a clear motive for the violence. Regensburg Mayor Thomas Burger released a statement acknowledging that many local residents endured “hours of great uncertainty” during the standoff, adding that the entire community was deeply shaken by the senseless act of violence. German law enforcement officials confirmed on Wednesday evening that they are currently operating under the working theory that the suspect acted alone, with no indications of broader connections to extremist groups or organized criminal networks. The incident is currently being investigated as both a homicide and an attempted robbery, and the suspect is scheduled to appear before a judge for a preliminary hearing on Friday. No further details about the identity of either the suspect or the victim have been released to the public as of Thursday morning, as investigators continue to process evidence collected from the bank crime scene.

  • Ford to partner with Chinese automaker Geely in Spain in new joint venture

    Ford to partner with Chinese automaker Geely in Spain in new joint venture

    On Thursday, two major global automotive players — U.S.-based legacy manufacturer Ford and China’s leading new energy vehicle maker Geely Auto — unveiled a landmark joint venture plan to produce low- and zero-emission vehicles at Ford’s existing manufacturing facility in Valencia, Spain. The partnership marks a strategic pivot for both companies, as Ford races to regain its fading foothold in the competitive European auto market and Geely expands its regional production footprint to bypass trade barriers amid a global electric vehicle transition.

    Pending final regulatory approval, the new joint venture will be 66.7% owned by Ford, with Geely holding the remaining 33.3% stake. This is not the first collaboration between the two firms: Ford sold its Volvo Cars brand to Geely back in 2010, a transaction that laid early groundwork for today’s deeper cooperation. Geely, which already owns a portfolio of global auto brands including Volvo, Polestar, and Lynk & Co, will bring its expertise in cost-efficient new energy vehicle manufacturing to the partnership.

    Five distinct vehicle models are scheduled to roll off the Valencia plant’s assembly lines starting in 2028. Ford will continue production of its popular Kuga plug-in hybrid at the facility, and add a new Bronco SUV to the production lineup. Geely will manufacture two all-electric SUV models at the site, while the two companies will jointly develop a new multi-energy crossover vehicle that accommodates both hybrid and fully electric powertrains. All five new model lines are scheduled to launch production by 2028.

    For Ford, the partnership comes at a make-or-break moment for its European operations. A decade ago, Ford sold more than 1 million vehicles annually across Europe; by last year, that number had dropped below 500,000. The Valencia plant, which boasts a total annual production capacity of 500,000 vehicles, only produced fewer than 100,000 units in 2025, leaving massive underutilized capacity. The joint venture will allow Ford to split development and production costs with Geely, bringing the plant’s operations closer to industry cost benchmarks while retaining existing manufacturing jobs at the site.

    The collaboration also reflects the shifting dynamics of the global auto industry, driven by rising Chinese new energy vehicle dominance and growing geopolitical friction around EV trade. U.S. tariff policy has effectively blocked Chinese auto manufacturers from full access to the American domestic market, even as Chinese EV makers gain market share across other global regions, from Southeast Asia to Latin America and Europe. Geely’s local production in Spain allows the company to avoid European Union tariffs on imported vehicles, giving it a stronger competitive position in the region.

    In a joint statement, the two companies noted the joint venture was structured to address the core new realities of the European market: cutthroat global competition, persistent upward cost pressure, and increasingly strict emissions regulations. The venture resets the Valencia facility to operate at the emerging cost benchmark for the global auto industry, the statement added.

    The partnership aligns with Ford’s broader global strategy, even as the company’s leadership has echoed concerns about Chinese EV competition in the U.S. market. During Ford’s first-quarter 2025 earnings call in April, CEO Jim Farley explained the company’s nuanced approach to global partnerships. “We leverage global partnerships and even IP sharing, including with Chinese companies, to grow our business around the world,” Farley said. “Ford continues to be a global company. We want to have the rights to win around the globe, and we need IP and partnerships outside the U.S. to do that. When it comes to the U.S. industry itself, we are extremely protective, as we should be.”

    Chinese automakers have rapidly gained global market share in recent years, building high-quality, technologically advanced hybrid and pure electric vehicles at far lower price points than many legacy Western manufacturers, a boost partially supported by decades of targeted government subsidies. While slowing domestic demand in China, driven by reduced consumer purchase incentives and cutthroat domestic competition, has pushed Chinese firms to accelerate global expansion, geopolitical and market shifts have also opened new doors. Ongoing conflict in the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted global crude oil and natural gas supplies, spurring greater consumer demand for affordable electric vehicles worldwide, a trend that has benefited Chinese EV makers.

    Industry analysts broadly frame the Ford-Geely partnership as a blueprint for the future of the global auto transition. “This deal offers a road map for how traditional automakers can survive and thrive in Europe,” said Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at automotive research firm Edmunds. “Ford gets the scale and cost efficiencies it needs for its Valencia plant, while Geely gets a direct shortcut around EU tariffs. More broadly, it underscores a major industry shift we’re likely to continue seeing: automakers can no longer go it alone and must collaborate with rivals — Chinese or otherwise — to survive the capital-intensive transition to electrification.”

    The deal also comes amid a deeply uncertain policy environment for EV adoption in the U.S. Over the past several years, the current U.S. administration has rolled back many of the clean vehicle policies put in place by the previous administration, weakening corporate average fuel economy rules and tailpipe emissions standards, eliminating the previous target of 50% electric new vehicle sales by 2030, and allowing federal tax credits for new and used EV purchases to expire. This policy uncertainty has led many U.S. automakers to view the European EV market as a more stable growth opportunity, even as it requires new cooperative models to remain competitive.

    Sam Fiorani, vice president at AutoForecast Solutions, noted that Ford had already been steadily reducing its exposure to the European market for years, much like its domestic rival General Motors. “Now, with the help of Geely, Ford can have new products designed for the European market without bearing the full development costs of a new platform,” Fiorani explained. “While Chinese automakers like Geely continue their growth around the world, Ford should take this opportunity to learn how to cut costs and develop lower-priced vehicles. If Ford cannot compete on price in Europe, the automaker may need to look at selling plants outright rather than sharing them. Losing Europe could hurt Ford’s standing as a global automaker, but continuing to have the region drain its finances could be more devastating.”

  • Albania police teargas protesters against Trump-linked resort

    Albania police teargas protesters against Trump-linked resort

    On a tense Thursday in Albania’s capital Tirana, security forces deployed tear gas and water cannons to disperse hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the country’s parliament building, capping more than a month of sustained public anger over a luxury coastal tourism development linked to the Trump family. What began as a targeted environmental campaign against construction in a protected coastal wildlife reserve has grown into a broader protest over government transparency, public corruption, and misallocated public funds, uniting environmental activists, opposition politicians, and ordinary citizens against the ruling administration.

    The wave of daily demonstrations first launched in late May, sparked by plans to build a sprawling luxury resort complex connected to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the daughter and son-in-law of former U.S. President Donald Trump. The proposed development is located on a protected, unspoiled stretch of Albania’s Adriatic coast, in a protected nature reserve that hosts endangered loggerhead turtle nesting grounds and stable flamingo colonies on an adjacent uninhabited island. Scientists and local environmental activists say preliminary site work has already caused irreversible ecological harm, destroying critical habitats already at risk.

    Marine biologist Olsi Nika, who leads the prominent Albanian environmental NGO EcoAlbania, described the damage from early construction activities as “an absolute biodiversity massacre.” The site’s once-pristine coastal ecosystems, scientists confirm, have been permanently altered, eliminating nesting areas for loggerhead turtles, a species classified as threatened with extinction globally. The project’s location inside a protected natural and cultural heritage zone has amplified public outrage, with critics arguing the government bypassed environmental regulations and public oversight to advance a deal that benefits connected interests.

    Thursday’s clashes broke out as protesters attempted to push through heavy police security cordons to reach the parliament entrance. By the end of the day, Albania’s health ministry confirmed six police officers and 11 demonstrators suffered minor injuries and were treated at local Tirana hospitals. The demonstration was timed to coincide with a parliamentary vote on a 4 million euro ($4.6 million) public subsidy for a Kanye West concert held in Tirana earlier in July, a decision that further enraged a public already frustrated by the government’s handling of the resort project.

    In the chaotic parliamentary session, the subsidy was ultimately approved by 80 votes, all from the ruling Socialist Party, which holds a majority in the 140-seat unicameral legislature. Prime Minister Edi Rama had previously committed to the public funding, arguing it was required to prevent the high-profile concert from being canceled. For protesters, the approval of large public spending for a celebrity concert while pushing forward an environmentally destructive private resort project underscored what they call the government’s lopsided, non-transparent priorities.

    The project has become a major flashpoint for discontent in Albania, drawing thousands of nightly protesters through at least mid-July, according to on-the-ground reporting from Agence France-Presse. Clashes between demonstrators and police have occurred repeatedly in recent weeks outside parliament, with protesters previously throwing eggs at lawmakers as they entered the building. The development’s ties to the Trump family have also drawn international attention to the conflict, turning a local environmental dispute into a globally watched case of conservation versus high-profile development.

    No official crowd counts have been released by the Albanian government, but AFP journalists on site estimate thousands of people have joined the sustained daily protests through more than a month of action. Critics say the project highlights broader concerns about corruption and lack of accountability in Albania’s government, with environmental harm serving as the most visible trigger for widespread public anger that continues to roil the country’s political landscape.

  • US panel says to loosen restrictions on popular peptide despite safety concerns

    US panel says to loosen restrictions on popular peptide despite safety concerns

    A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has sparked intense controversy after voting Thursday to recommend rolling back restrictions on the buzzy wellness industry peptide BPC-157, a decision that splits public health experts and opens new debate over untested compounded drugs. The recommendation came during a two-day gathering where the committee is evaluating whether seven understudied peptides should be added to the FDA’s approved bulk compounding list, a designation that lets specialized compounding pharmacies produce custom peptide formulations for wider public access.

    Peptides, short amino acid chains that form the building blocks of proteins, occur naturally in the human body. But synthetic versions like BPC-157 have exploded in popularity in mainstream wellness circles, promoted by social media influencers and A-list celebrities as a miracle solution for everything from injury recovery to overall bodily optimization, despite a near-total lack of rigorous human clinical trial data to back up those claims.

    Critics have already raised alarms over the composition of the advisory panel, noting that current U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—himself a public proponent of peptide use who says he has taken peptides to treat personal injuries—stacked the committee with appointees holding deep financial and professional ties to the growing peptide industry. The peptides now under review, which also include TB-500 and Semax, were previously restricted from compounding by the administration of former president Joe Biden, largely due to the absence of proven safety and effectiveness data from formal human trials.

    Even before the panel’s vote, unregulated access to these peptides remained widespread. Consumers can already purchase the substances online from chemical suppliers marketed as “for lab use only,” and the products are regularly promoted across social media platforms among wellness trend followers, biohackers, and high-profile public figures including Kennedy.

    The final vote on BPC-157 ended 8-6 in favor of adding the peptide to the approved compounding list, with one panel member abstaining. The outcome directly contradicts the formal warnings issued by FDA career scientists, who have repeatedly emphasized that BPC-157 lacks sufficient data to confirm it is safe or effective for human use.

    Panel members who opposed the recommendation stood by their objections during the open meeting. Elizabeth Rebello, a practicing pharmacist and anesthesiologist, told the committee she voted against the move “because of the lack of efficacy data” and ongoing “safety concerns.” Fellow no-voter Brian Lee added: “I think this endorsement can be potentially harmful, and I cannot in good conscience vote yes.”

    The majority of voting panelists justified their support for loosening restrictions by citing arguments of “medical freedom” and the “greater good” of expanding patient access to experimental treatments.

    The vote followed hours of testimony from stakeholders on both sides of the debate, including stark warnings from FDA career scientists against expanding access to untested BPC-157. Peter Lurie, president of the nonpartisan Center for Science in the Public Interest and a former FDA official, urged the panel to maintain existing restrictions, arguing that the recommendation “is inconsistent with the FDA’s own standards for pharmacy compounding, poses dangers to consumers, and removes incentives for developing new pharmaceutical products through the standard drug approval process.” Lurie went on to frame the unregulated peptide industry as a landscape rife with “pseudoscience and grift.”

    On the opposing side, telehealth firms including Hims & Hers argued in favor of easing restrictions, warning that keeping tight limits on compounded peptides will only push consumers to purchase unregulated products from unvetted gray market sellers, increasing rather than reducing safety risks.

    It is important to note that not all synthetic peptides carry the same level of risk: common treatments such as insulin and GLP-1 are well-studied, with well-documented risk and benefit profiles that have been confirmed through years of clinical research. By contrast, the injectable synthetic peptides promoted by wellness influencers and biohackers have never completed the large-scale, controlled clinical trials the FDA requires to formally confirm safety and effectiveness for consumer use.

    The advisory panel will continue its review of the six remaining peptides over the second day of the scheduled meeting. While the committee’s final recommendations are not legally binding for the FDA, the agency has a long-standing history of giving substantial deference to advisory panel guidance when setting regulatory policy.

  • Laura Loomer meets with Zelenskyy in Ukraine after major reversal on the war

    Laura Loomer meets with Zelenskyy in Ukraine after major reversal on the war

    In a surprising turn that carries notable political implications for U.S. political discourse, controversial pro-Donald Trump commentator Laura Loomer has held a face-to-face meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, just days after she publicly reversed her long-stated position that downplayed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

  • Saudis must recognise Israel for nuclear deal, says Trump

    Saudis must recognise Israel for nuclear deal, says Trump

    A new twist has emerged in the long-awaited US-Saudi civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, with President Donald Trump publicly confirming that the entire deal hinges on Riyadh formally joining the Abraham Accords, the 2020-brokered deal that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump clarified key terms of the framework, emphasizing that the agreement, which is strictly limited to non-military nuclear development, will not allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium on its own territory – a point that addresses widespread concerns about potential nuclear proliferation in the volatile Middle East.

    The unprecedented condition, first outlined by Trump in private discussions with Saudi leadership, has not yet been confirmed as a formal binding clause in the still-unreleased agreement text, and the Saudi government has not issued an official response to Trump’s public announcement as of press time. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Thursday that Trump has repeatedly raised the requirement with Saudi officials during past negotiations. “He has said if they don’t join the Abraham Accords, the deal is off,” Leavitt stated, adding that diplomatic discussions with Saudi counterparts will continue in the coming weeks.

    Trump’s announcement comes one day after the bilateral agreement was officially unveiled, which has already drawn sharp criticism from nonproliferation experts and some members of Congress from both major political parties. Critics warn that opening the door to Saudi civilian nuclear development could create a pathway for the kingdom to pursue a nuclear weapons program down the line, exacerbating tensions in a region already grappling with long-running nuclear standoffs. While Trump’s Republican Party holds majority control of both the Senate and House of Representatives, meaning deal opponents lack the votes to block congressional approval, the concerns have added new scrutiny to the framework.

    According to a statement from the US Department of Energy, the agreement establishes two core binding documents: a peaceful nuclear cooperation pact and a bilateral safeguards agreement. Together, the department says, these documents lay the legal groundwork for what is expected to become a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar partnership that advances both US economic and strategic priorities, with nonproliferation as a central stated goal. The full agreement will now be sent to Congress for a mandatory review period before it can take effect. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also confirmed Thursday that it is aware of the plan and is preparing to implement verification measures once a formal request is submitted. “We look forward to receiving the request for such verification and to working with the US and KSA in ensuring the implementation of those measures,” an IAEA spokesperson said.

    The Abraham Accords, first negotiated during Trump’s first presidential term in 2020, marked a historic breakthrough in Middle East diplomacy, with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain becoming the first Arab nations to normalize formal relations with Israel in decades. Since the initial agreement was signed, Sudan, Morocco and Kazakhstan have also joined the framework. Saudi Arabia has long held firm that it will not normalize relations with Israel or join the accords until a sovereign Palestinian state is established, though US officials have signaled they are pushing for a breakthrough that would break this decades-long stalemate.

    Israeli officials have broadly welcomed Trump’s announcement, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office noting on social media platform X that Saudi membership in the accords “would be an historic leap forward for peace in the Middle East.” The prime minister’s statement did not address the nuclear deal itself, but Israeli Economy Minister Nir Barkat has previously said the country would accept Saudi civilian nuclear power. Still, some prominent Israeli figures have raised sharp alarms. Former Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman argued that “Every military nuclear program begins with a civilian one,” echoing nonproliferation experts’ concerns. Notably, Israel is widely believed to possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons, though it has maintained a decades-long policy of neither confirming nor denying this status.

    The nuclear file has been the center of a years-long standoff between Western powers and Iran, which has repeatedly denied Western accusations that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons. For its part, Saudi Arabia has walked a careful line on nuclear ambitions: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto ruler, told CBS News in 2018 that Riyadh had no plans to pursue a nuclear bomb, but warned that “without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”

    Prior to Trump’s announcement, US media reports had speculated that the draft agreement could allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium domestically – a capability that can be used to produce fuel for civilian power reactors, but also can be refined to create the core material for nuclear weapons. Trump’s explicit rejection of that possibility has pushed back against those reports, but nonproliferation experts still warn that allowing domestic enrichment would represent a major shift in US policy. Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East programme at US-based think tank Defense Priorities, noted that “The US has never done that before. We have never helped another country enrich on their own soil.” Kelanic added that allowing domestic enrichment creates significant risk, because “if you can produce your own nuclear fuel, you become a much bigger risk” for developing nuclear weapons.

    Beyond strategic nonproliferation goals, the agreement also promises major economic benefits for US firms, with the Department of Energy confirming it will open broad access for American companies to participate in Saudi Arabia’s growing civilian nuclear energy program, as the kingdom seeks to expand its power generation capacity to support its long-term economic diversification plans.

  • Secret Service agent in Vance’s team under investigation over alleged leak

    Secret Service agent in Vance’s team under investigation over alleged leak

    A United States Secret Service agent tasked with protecting Vice President JD Vance has been placed on administrative suspension and is the subject of an active probe following allegations of unauthorized disclosure of classified protective details, the agency confirmed in a public statement Thursday.

    While the exact nature of the leaked information remains undisclosed to the public, the Secret Service confirmed the case has prompted a potential criminal investigation centered on claims that the agent breached operational protocols and compromised sensitive information security frameworks. “Any conduct that potentially threatens the safety of a protectee will not be tolerated,” agency spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi emphasized in the statement.

    The suspension comes at a moment of escalating risk for the agency, whose top leadership has repeatedly sounded alarms over a dramatic, unprecedented surge in recorded threats against individuals under Secret Service protection—including President Donald Trump, the most high-profile protectee of the U.S. government. The White House has declined to offer any on-the-record comment regarding the ongoing investigation, consistent with standard protocol for active law enforcement probes.

    Vice President Vance and his immediate family are mandated to receive 24/7 continuous Secret Service protection as part of standard coverage for the nation’s second-highest executive office. The disclosure of the leak probe came just one day after Secret Service Director Sean Curran delivered a stark warning about the agency’s operating environment, telling reporters that current conditions represent the most dangerous he has encountered during his 24-year career in law enforcement.

    Speaking to media ahead of the rescheduled Friday White House Correspondents’ Dinner, a high-profile annual event attended by dozens of top U.S. officials, Curran described the current national threat level as “off the charts.” “The environment has become very volatile, and that’s just across the board,” Curran said. “The threat picture and environment is as large as I’ve ever seen it.”

    Data from the agency underscores the scale of the surge: since the start of the current calendar year, Secret Service investigators have opened nearly 10,000 separate threat investigations targeting protected officials, a jump that outpaces recent years by a significant margin. Agency officials attribute the sharp increase to a convergence of multiple evolving risk factors, including a surge in hostile rhetoric and threats shared online, the growing threat of lone-wolf actors motivated by ideological extremism, interference efforts from foreign adversaries, and a rising number of threats from individuals experiencing acute mental health crises.

    Notably, the agency also highlighted a major shift in how threats are communicated: online platforms have now fully displaced traditional channels such as handwritten letters as the primary source for reported threats against public officials, creating new challenges for monitoring and mitigation for the Secret Service’s overstretched investigative teams.

  • Kozo Okamoto, Japanese militant who took part in a 1972 Tel Aviv airport attack, dies in Beirut

    Kozo Okamoto, Japanese militant who took part in a 1972 Tel Aviv airport attack, dies in Beirut

    BEIRUT — Kozo Okamoto, the Japanese radical militant who participated in one of the deadliest attacks targeting Israeli civilians more than 50 years ago, has died at the age of 78 in the Lebanese capital Beirut, according to an official announcement from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Palestinian faction that hosted and protected Okamoto for decades. The PFLP, the second-largest faction within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), confirmed that Okamoto passed away on Thursday following a long undisclosed illness.

    After his release from Israeli custody, Okamoto settled permanently in Lebanon, where he lived under the protection of Palestinian leftist groups and made only a handful of public appearances over nearly 40 years. Within PFLP circles, he was known by the alias Ahmad al-Yabani, meaning Ahmad the Japanese. In a formal statement released after his death, the PFLP praised Okamoto’s decades-long commitment to the Palestinian cause, framing his life as one defined by sacrifice for anti-Israel struggle. “His journey was marked by immense sacrifices spanning decades on the battlefields of struggle in support of the Palestinian cause,” the group said, adding that Okamoto “never compromised nor faltered but remained steadfast to his principles.”

    Okamoto’s legacy is inextricably tied to the 1972 attack on Tel Aviv’s former international airport, a coordinated joint operation between the PFLP and the Japanese Red Army (JRA), a violent ultra-leftist guerrilla group founded in 1971. On May 30, 1972, Okamoto and two JRA comrades flew to Tel Aviv from a European departure point, retrieved their luggage packed with hidden rifles and grenades, and opened fire on crowds in the airport terminal. The assault left 26 people dead and dozens more injured. Okamoto’s two collaborators were killed during the response to the attack, while Okamoto was wounded and taken into Israeli custody.

    Convicted of multiple counts of murder and sentenced to life in Israeli prison, Okamoto served only 12 years of his sentence before being released in 1985 during a large-scale prisoner exchange between Israel and Palestinian guerrilla factions. Following his release, he was granted political asylum in Lebanon, where he remained until his death. Over the course of his decades in Lebanon, Tokyo repeatedly demanded that Lebanese authorities extradite Okamoto to Japan to face justice, but Beirut consistently rejected these requests, as Okamoto had become a celebrated figure among many Lebanese and across the Arab world for his alignment with the Palestinian struggle against Israel.

    Okamoto’s life in Lebanon was not without legal incident. In 1997, Lebanese security forces arrested Okamoto and four other Japanese citizens who had been living illegally in the country, sheltered by Palestinian and leftist Lebanese groups during the chaos of the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War. After a high-profile trial, the four other Japanese detainees were transferred to Japanese authorities in 2000, while Okamoto became the first person ever to receive formal political asylum status from the Lebanese government. During his 1997 trial, Okamoto famously testified that he identified as “an Arab resistance fighter.”

    The most high-profile public appearance Okamoto made during his time in Lebanon came in May 2022, when he attended a commemoration event at a Beirut cemetery — the resting place of many prominent Palestinian militants — to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1972 airport attack.

    Beyond the 1972 airport attack, the JRA claimed responsibility for multiple high-profile terrorist attacks across the globe during the 1970s, including the 1975 seizure of the U.S. Consulate in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The PFLP, for its part, is a radical Palestinian faction that first gained global notoriety for the 1970 simultaneous hijacking of four Western civilian airliners, and later for the 1976 hijacking of an Air France flight traveling from Tel Aviv to Paris that was diverted to Entebbe, Uganda. Today, PFLP leader Ahmed Saadat remains one of the most prominent Palestinian figures held in Israeli custody; he was imprisoned for his alleged role in organizing the 2001 assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi, an ultranationalist politician who openly advocated for the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Israeli-controlled territory.

  • Ukraine’s ousted defence minister insists on being reinstated

    Ukraine’s ousted defence minister insists on being reinstated

    A high-stakes power struggle between Ukraine’s recently removed defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov and President Volodymyr Zelensky has yet to be resolved, days after Fedorov’s dismissal sparked widespread public unrest across the country. Fedorov, a 35-year-old reformer widely credited for overhauling Ukraine’s military capabilities amid the ongoing war with Russia, has rejected a proposed alternative cabinet position from Zelensky, and is demanding his former post as defense minister be restored.

    In an official statement released to journalists this week, Fedorov confirmed he turned down Zelensky’s offer of deputy prime minister for military innovation. The ousted minister argued that only three state positions directly shape the trajectory of Ukraine’s war effort: the presidency, the defense minister role, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. No other post, he insisted, would give him the authority needed to continue advancing the strategic plan his team developed to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

    Fedorov was appointed defense minister in January 2025, and quickly emerged as a popular figure for his data-driven military reforms, anti-corruption initiatives, and the widely successful Army of Drones program that has transformed Ukraine’s strike capabilities against Russian targets. In his statement, he outlined that his six-month tenure has already shifted battlefield momentum in Ukraine’s favor, opening a rare window of opportunity to force Russia into negotiated peace through military strength. “I have never sought any personal post or status,” Fedorov emphasized. “I only want the opportunity to really influence the outcome and bring Ukraine’s victory closer.”

    Zelensky’s decision to remove Fedorov from his post last week triggered mass street demonstrations across Ukraine. Public pressure later forced Zelensky to dismiss commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, a 60-year-old veteran officer who had publicly clashed with Fedorov over the need for radical military reform. Syrskyi, who led the successful 2022 defense of Kyiv during the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, had grown increasingly unpopular among many Ukrainians who viewed his Soviet-era command style as incompatible with modern, innovation-driven warfare. He was replaced by the younger, highly regarded Mykhailo Drapatyi.

    However, protesters have rejected this step as insufficient, vowing to continue demonstrating until Fedorov is reinstated. While the public broadly welcomed Syrskyi’s removal, widespread frustration remains over Zelensky’s original decision to oust the popular defense minister. Fedorov has already been replaced in the role by Yevhenii Khmara, a former senior official with Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU).

    It remains unclear whether the standoff can still be resolved through negotiation. Presidential adviser Dmytro Lytvyn confirmed that discussions between Fedorov and Zelensky’s team are still ongoing, noting that “it would be inappropriate to disclose details at this stage.”

    Political observers note that the current impasse highlights growing divisions within Ukraine’s wartime leadership over military strategy and reform. While Fedorov and his supporters credit his reforms for Ukraine’s recent battlefield gains, some analysts push back, noting that current advances like deep drone strikes into Russia were rooted in planning developed more than a year ago during Syrskyi’s tenure. Even so, polling and public protests make clear that Fedorov retains broad popular support, with many Ukrainians viewing him as indispensable to the country’s war effort. The unresolved battle of wills between Zelensky and Fedorov leaves a major leadership gap at a critical moment when Ukraine is capitalizing on newfound battlefield momentum, creating uncertainty for the country’s wartime leadership.