Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Alleged Trump assassin took selfie moments before attack: prosecutors

    Alleged Trump assassin took selfie moments before attack: prosecutors

    Court documents made public this week have laid bare chilling new details of an alleged assassination plot targeting former U.S. President Donald Trump, revealing that the suspect snapped a selfie in his hotel room just minutes before launching an armed attack at a high-profile Washington media gala. Prosecutors outlined the sequence of events in a federal court filing submitted Wednesday, laying out the premeditated steps 31-year-old Cole Allen, a highly educated California teacher, took in his bid to attack Trump and senior members of his administration.

    According to the filing, Allen’s attempted attack unfolded shortly after 8:30 p.m. this past Saturday. After traveling from California to the nation’s capital via a scenic cross-country train route through Chicago, Allen checked into the Washington Hilton, where the annual media gala was set to take place in the hotel’s basement ballroom. Court records show that before leaving his room, Allen spent his final pre-attack minutes reviewing online updates of Trump’s public schedule, assembling a weapons arsenal that included a pump-action shotgun, a handgun, multiple knives, and ammunition, and posing for a mirror selfie captured on his cellphone. The surviving photograph shows Allen dressed in all black with a red tie, visibly carrying a knife, a shoulder holster for his handgun, and an ammunition bag.

    Before departing his room, Allen had pre-scheduled an email to be sent to his friends and family that contained a manifesto justifying his planned attack, which prosecutors described as an act of “unfathomable malice.” In the message, Allen laid out a ranked target list of Trump administration officials in attendance, prioritizing them from highest to lowest rank, and clarified that he hoped to avoid harming Secret Service agents, other law enforcement officers, or innocent hotel guests. Court documents also show Allen documented his surprise at the hotel’s lax security during his stay, writing on his personal phone that he had walked into the building with multiple weapons without any staff raising a single red flag. During his train journey, he even took time to note his appreciation for the changing American landscape, writing that the woodlands of Pennsylvania looked like “vast fairy lands filled with tiny trickling creeks.”

    Once he reached the hotel entrance near the ballroom, Allen discarded his outer long coat, drew his shotgun, and sprinted through a set of building metal detectors. Prosecutors confirm Allen fired the shotgun toward the stairs leading down to the ballroom, where Trump and other senior officials were already gathered. A responding Secret Service agent returned fire, shooting five times but missing Allen entirely. The suspect fell to the ground during the chaotic aftermath, suffered only a minor knee injury, and was quickly tackled and detained by security personnel. No bystanders or attendees were killed in the incident.

    The new details emerged as part of a prosecution request to a Washington federal court to deny bail for Allen, arguing he should remain in custody ahead of his trial. Prosecutors noted that Allen’s political motivation for the attack would persist as long as he maintains ideological disagreement with the U.S. government, making him a continued danger to the community if released.

    This incident marks the third alleged assassination attempt targeting Trump in less than two years. Following the attempt, the White House has blamed Democratic political leaders and national media outlets for inciting political extremism against the former president. At the same time, the 79-year-old Trump has drawn widespread criticism for breaking decades of Washington political norms with his consistent violent rhetoric directed at political opponents, journalists, foreign leaders, and immigrants.

  • Comey’s seashell post got him indicted. But experts are skeptical the government can win

    Comey’s seashell post got him indicted. But experts are skeptical the government can win

    Political observers experienced a striking sense of déjà vu this week, as the U.S. Department of Justice unveiled a new criminal indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, accusing him of threatening former President and current 2024 candidate Donald Trump in a social media post. The indictment follows a nearly identical procedural arc to a 2025 case against Comey that was ultimately thrown out by a federal judge, and it has already sparked widespread debate over political motivation, free speech protections, and the strength of the government’s legal argument.

    Hours after the indictment was made public, Comey released a pre-recorded video on social media pushing back against the charges. By Wednesday, the former FBI chief appeared in person at a federal courthouse to surrender, marking the second time in less than a year he has faced criminal process from the Trump-aligned Department of Justice.

    The current charges stem from an Instagram post Comey shared last year, which featured a photograph of seashells arranged on a beach to spell out the numbers “86 47”. Prosecutors argue the sequence constitutes a direct threat to Trump: “47” is widely associated with Trump’s expected status as the 47th U.S. President if he wins the 2024 election, while “86” is a slang term originating in the restaurant industry that the DOJ claims carries a meaning of causing harm or removing a person. In the government’s framing, “a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret [the post] as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”

    Comey faces two felony counts: one count of threatening to harm the sitting president, and a second count of digitally transmitting that alleged threat. Comey has long pushed back on the interpretation of his post. Shortly after sharing the original image, he deleted it and posted a follow-up explanation, noting he had encountered the naturally arranged seashells during a beach walk and recognized it as a political message, but had never intended to signal violence. “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down,” he wrote at the time. He has repeated that defense in the wake of this week’s indictment.

    Legal experts across the ideological spectrum have cast significant doubt on the government’s ability to secure a conviction, echoing the skepticism that greeted the 2025 charges against Comey. To win a guilty verdict, prosecutors must clear multiple high legal bars, starting with proving the post qualifies as a “true threat” — a standard the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as a statement that conveys a serious intent to commit unlawful violence. Prosecutors must also demonstrate Comey acted recklessly, and that he understood his post would be interpreted as a serious threat of harm.

    “It’s a very weak indictment, and it doesn’t seem to me that it’s a chargeable case,” said Evan Gotlob, a former federal prosecutor and current partner at law firm DarrowEverett. “This seems fit to get dismissed at some point.”

    Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan who now teaches law at the University of Michigan, noted that the multiple common definitions of “86” and Comey’s explicit denial of violent intent make an unanimous guilty verdict from a jury extremely unlikely. “I can’t imagine that 12 jurors will be able to find Comey guilty unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt,” McQuade told the BBC.

    Even conservative legal scholars who have previously aligned with Trump and criticized Comey have questioned the indictment. Jonathan Turley, a prominent conservative commentator who has repeatedly backed Trump in legal disputes, wrote in a Fox News column that despite his longstanding criticism of Comey, he believes the current indictment is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free speech protections, unless the government holds undisclosed damaging evidence that has not yet been made public. “I would prefer to crawl into one of Comey’s seashells than write a column supporting him,” Turley wrote. “However, here we are. The fact is that I believe that this indictment is facially unconstitutional, absent some unknown new facts.”

    Comey’s legal team has already signaled they will likely move to dismiss the charges on the grounds of vindictive prosecution, the same argument they successfully used to challenge the 2025 indictment.

    Department of Justice and FBI leaders have strongly pushed back against claims of political motivation, noting the investigation stretched on for roughly 10 months before a grand jury voted to approve the indictment. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the charges in an interview with CBS News, noting the indictment was unveiled just days after an armed attacker targeted Trump and other senior administration officials at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner – the third documented assassination attempt against Trump in two years, following a 2024 rally shooting where Trump was grazed by a bullet and a separate incident where an armed man was found staking out Trump’s Florida golf course.

    “Of course, it’s serious when you threaten the president of the United States,” Blanche said. “Anybody that tries to put forward some narrative that this is just about seashells, or something to the contrary is missing the point. You cannot threaten the president of the United States.” Blanche emphasized the charges were “absolutely, positively not” driven by political considerations.

    FBI Director Kash Patel echoed that defense at a press briefing, stressing that the lengthy investigation and grand jury approval process demonstrate the case was not rushed or politically motivated. Not all Republican lawmakers have backed the prosecution, however: while some, like Pennsylvania GOP Representative Dan Mauser, called Comey’s post “concerning” and agreed it could be interpreted as a violent threat, other GOP members have declined to publicly endorse the indictment, mirroring the skepticism seen among some conservative legal circles.

  • Four key takeaways from Jerome Powell’s last rate decision as Fed chair

    Four key takeaways from Jerome Powell’s last rate decision as Fed chair

    In a widely anticipated final policy meeting as Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell has announced the central bank will keep benchmark U.S. interest rates unchanged within a target range of 3.5% to 3.75%. The announcement comes just hours after his expected successor, Kevin Warsh, secured approval from the Senate Banking Committee, clearing a critical legislative hurdle ahead of his expected confirmation next month.

    This decision to hold rates steady comes amid sustained public and political pressure from former President (current President-elect, depending on context) Donald Trump, who has repeatedly pushed the Fed to slash borrowing costs throughout his tenure in office, and openly criticized Powell’s leadership for years. While Warsh is expected to face identical pressure once he assumes the top role, the nominee has publicly committed to protecting the long-held independence of the U.S. central bank from political interference.

    Four major key takeaways emerged from Wednesday’s landmark policy session, a turning point for the future of U.S. monetary policy. First, the Fed has maintained its cautious “wait-and-see” stance amid mounting economic uncertainty triggered by the ongoing Middle East conflict between the U.S. and Iran linked to the Israel war. The conflict has already driven global energy prices sharply higher, passing higher costs onto consumers at gasoline pumps and grocery store checkout lines. Against this volatile backdrop, Fed policymakers concluded holding rates steady was the optimal move until clearer details emerge on how long the conflict will persist and the full scope of its economic fallout.

    Hopes for an imminent interest rate cut were also dampened by newly released inflation data: March’s annual inflation rose unexpectedly to 3.3%, the highest reading recorded since May 2024. Despite the upside surprise, the Fed’s post-meeting statement signaled a rate cut remains on the table for the next policy session. That timeline could shift, however, according to Samuel Tombs, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. Tombs noted that Wednesday’s fresh jump in oil prices, driven by expectations that the U.S. will maintain its long-term blockade of Iranian ports, could push any rate cut back into 2026.

    For context, central banks typically adjust interest rates to balance inflation and growth: higher rates curb consumer spending to cool rising prices, while lower rates stimulate spending and investment to support job creation and economic expansion during slowdowns.

    Third, while this was Powell’s final policy meeting as chair, his tenure as a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors does not expire until 2028. Powell confirmed Wednesday he will remain on the central bank’s board until the Trump administration’s investigation into him and the Fed is “well and truly over.” Though U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro has stated the probe will be closed, Powell noted he expects Pirro “would not hesitate to restart the investigation” if circumstances allow. “I’ve said that I will not leave the board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality, and I stand by that,” Powell added.

    The decision to stay on is almost certain to disappointing the sitting president, who has clashed repeatedly with Powell throughout his term. Powell’s continued presence on the board could lead to heightened scrutiny of future decisions and public comments from Warsh, but Powell has pledged to maintain a low profile and ruled out any attempt to act as a de facto “shadow chair.” “That is something I would never do,” he emphasized.

    Powell also issued a stark warning that the Trump administration’s “legal assaults” on the central bank go far beyond verbal criticism, and pose a serious threat to the institution’s core function. The outgoing chair argued that the administration’s legal actions against him are “battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public: the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors.” He added that the legal attacks are “unprecedented in our 113-year history, and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions.”

    The final development centers on Warsh’s confirmation path. After the Department of Justice announced it would drop the probe into Powell, top Republican Senator Thom Tillis lifted his hold on Warsh’s appointment, which he had threatened to stall for weeks. On Wednesday, Tillis joined other Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee to advance Warsh’s nomination to a full Senate vote.

    With Republicans holding a majority in the full Senate, final confirmation is widely viewed as a procedural formality. The only open question is whether the vote will be held in time for Warsh to take office by the end of Powell’s official term as chair on May 15. If confirmed as expected, Warsh will lead his first policy meeting as Fed chair in June.

    Carl Tobias, a chair at the University of Richmond School of Law, told the BBC that both Tillis and Powell deserve credit for defending the central bank’s independence against political pressure from the White House. For his part, Powell offered a warm congratulations to his expected successor Wednesday, wishing Warsh well through the final stage of the confirmation process.

  • King and Queen lay flowers at 9/11 Memorial in New York

    King and Queen lay flowers at 9/11 Memorial in New York

    On the third day of their four-day official state visit to the United States, Britain’s King Charles III and Queen Camilla participated in a solemn, highly secured commemoration at New York City’s 9/11 Memorial, marking the royal couple’s first visit to the site that honors the nearly 3,000 lives lost in the 2001 terrorist attacks.

    Against a backdrop of bright New York sunlight, with the memorial’s iconic reflecting pools framed by Manhattan’s towering skyscrapers, the pair laid a bouquet of white roses alongside a handwritten note signed by both royals. The message paid lasting tribute to those killed in the atrocity, reading: “We honour the memory for those who so tragically lost their lives on 11th September 2001. We stand in enduring solidarity with the American people and in the face of their profound loss.”

    The commemorative event unfolded under extraordinary security measures. A large contingent of local law enforcement deployed across the area, implementing road closures, manned checkpoints, and maintaining constant air coverage with circling helicopters to secure the visit.

    Following the floral tribute, King Charles and Queen Camilla held private meetings with family members of 9/11 victims, and spoke with first responders who led rescue efforts at the World Trade Center site in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Dignitaries including current New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and former mayor Michael Bloomberg joined the royals for the occasion, alongside representatives from victim support charities and educational organizations tasked with preserving the memory of the 2001 attacks for future generations.

    The tribute to 9/11 victims built on remarks King Charles delivered days earlier during a historic address to the U.S. Congress. In that speech, the monarch framed the 2001 attacks as a defining global tragedy, noting that “This atrocity was a defining moment for America and your pain and shock were felt around the whole world.” He highlighted the collective NATO response that saw allied nations rally to support the U.S. in the wake of the attacks, drawing a parallel to the unified resolve NATO must maintain today to defend Ukraine against invasion.

    Beyond the solemn commemorative activities, the state visit’s New York leg included more lighthearted, culturally focused engagements. Long an advocate for global literacy and reading access through her Queen’s Reading Room initiative, Queen Camilla brought a special gift for the New York Public Library: a handcrafted replacement for Roo, the long-lost Winnie the Pooh character that was part of the original set of 1920s stuffed toys that inspired A.A. Milne’s beloved children’s stories. The original set has been on display at the library since 1987, but Roo went missing in the 1930s; the new replica was produced by the same British firm that crafted the original toys.

    Vicki Perrin, CEO of the Queen’s Reading Room charity, joined the royal delegation in New York and used the visit to draw attention to what the organization calls a growing global “reading crisis.” Perrin emphasized that expanding literacy access delivers transformative, far-reaching benefits: “improving rates of literacy and reading has transformative benefits on mental health, brain health and social health.”

    Later the same day, King Charles traveled to Harlem to tour a community initiative focused on expanding access to education and healthy food for local residents. To cap off the day’s events, the royal couple attended a reception celebrating the U.K. and U.S. creative industries, which was set to draw dozens of high-profile figures from film, music, art, and design.

  • Hungary’s next PM says frozen EU funds will be paid out soon

    Hungary’s next PM says frozen EU funds will be paid out soon

    Weeks after ending 16 years of nationalist rule under Viktor Orbán in a landslide election victory, Hungary’s incoming Prime Minister Péter Magyar has already begun urgent high-stakes diplomacy in Brussels to unlock billions of euros in frozen European Union funds, even before his formal swearing-in next month.

    Magyar, whose newly formed Tisza party secured a two-thirds parliamentary supermajority in the April 12 election, held his first in-person talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during his debut visit to the EU capital. He described the negotiations as “extremely constructive and successful,” leaving confident that long-blocked EU resources will flow to Hungary in the near term.

    For years, more than €32.8 billion in combined EU recovery, cohesion, and defense funding has been frozen over the Orbán government’s documented democratic backsliding, systemic corruption, and repeated clashes with EU rule of law standards. On top of the frozen allocations, Hungary has been forced to pay €1 million in daily fines for violating EU migration policies, a penalty Magyar has vowed to end.

    The most pressing deadline facing the incoming government is the expiration of the €10.4 billion EU Covid-19 recovery fund at the end of August. If Budapest fails to meet a pre-set series of anti-corruption and judicial reform milestones by that date, Hungary will lose access to the allocation permanently. Beyond the recovery funds, an additional €6.3 billion in cohesion funds remains blocked over rule-of-law concerns, while another €16.1 billion in low-interest EU defense loans is available once reforms are implemented.

    Magyar moved quickly to reassure both Brussels and Hungarian voters that unlocking the funds will not require concessions harmful to national interests. He emphasized that the unblocked billions will provide a much-needed boost to Hungary’s stagnant economy, which has recorded near-flat growth for three consecutive years. Márton Hajdu, a senior Tisza party official, outlined the straightforward conditions Brussels has required: independent judiciary free from government interference and robust measures to eliminate public sector corruption. While Magyar is pushing for a rapid agreement scheduled to be signed during his return to Brussels on May 25, analysts note the incoming government faces a steep challenge to deliver on the required reforms in such a compressed timeline.

    Von der Leyen struck a collaborative tone after the meeting, saying the European Commission stood ready to support Magyar’s government as it works to realign Hungarian policy with shared European values. Magyar also held talks with European Council President António Costa, and reaffirmed Hungary’s unwavering place in the European Union in a post-meeting social media statement.

    Not yet sworn in until May 9, Magyar has already moved at a breakneck pace to reset Hungary’s relationship with the EU: just two days after his election win, he placed a personal call to von der Leyen to press for progress on fund release. Beyond economic and EU policy, the new government is also moving to repair strained ties with Ukraine. Orbán’s long-held veto on a €90 billion EU loan package for Ukraine was lifted last week at an informal summit the outgoing prime minister declined to attend, and Magyar has extended an offer to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in early June in the Hungarian-majority Ukrainian town of Berehove.

    Political analysts note Magyar enters his term with rare advantages for advancing his reform agenda: his party’s parliamentary supermajority gives Tisza the power to amend the Hungarian constitution unilaterally, and the EU has already signaled significant goodwill toward the new government after years of friction with Orbán’s administration. What remains to be seen is whether Magyar can meet Brussels’ tight reform requirements to unlock the vital funds before the critical August deadline.

  • Israeli officers say Lebanon mission focused on ‘systematic destruction’ of buildings

    Israeli officers say Lebanon mission focused on ‘systematic destruction’ of buildings

    Deep divisions have emerged within Israeli military ranks over the nature of ongoing operations in southern Lebanon, with senior officers confirming that the force’s core mission has shifted from active combat to the systematic leveling of civilian infrastructure and residential communities, a new investigation by Israeli newspaper Haaretz has revealed.

    The Wednesday report outlines a coordinated, top-down plan to destroy predominantly Shia villages across the border region, a strategy explicitly designed to block displaced local residents from returning to their homes once operations conclude. Under the current operational framework, infantry units are assigned specific geographic zones to clear for demolition, with commanding officers mandated to submit daily tallies of the number of structures destroyed to senior leadership.

    “The only mission is to continue the destruction,” one unnamed Israeli commander told Haaretz. “There are no other tasks.” A second senior officer pushed back against official Israeli military narratives that frame the campaign as targeting solely “terrorist infrastructure,” saying: “These are not terrorist infrastructures – everything is being destroyed.”

    Not all Israeli personnel have echoed the description of a blanket demolition order. One separate officer maintained that operations are targeted exclusively at Hezbollah’s underground militant networks, weapons caches, and surveillance and communications systems, arguing that “We are operating pragmatically, according to operational need.”

    Despite this official framing, on-the-ground data and visual evidence confirm the scale of devastation being inflicted on civilian communities. Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research estimates that approximately 40,000 housing units have been partially or completely destroyed since operations began in early March. On peak days of activity, more than 1,000 residential structures are damaged or leveled, with entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble. Drone footage circulated publicly in recent weeks shows entire southern Lebanese villages wired for controlled demolition before being completely destroyed by Israeli explosive teams.

    The investigation also uncovered that the majority of demolition work is being carried out by private contractors, whose compensation is tied directly to the volume of destruction they complete. “The companies profit based on the number of houses [destroyed],” one serving Israeli soldier told Haaretz. “And we’re there to provide security, at risk to our lives.”

    Multiple frontline soldiers have criticized the demolition mission as strategically senseless, noting that the task of guarding contractors while they destroy civilian structures leaves troops exposed to regular Hezbollah drone strikes. “We stand exposed, guarding demolitions while drones are in the air,” one soldier said.

    Official casualty figures from Lebanon’s Ministry of Health underscore the devastating human toll of the two-month campaign. Since Israeli ground operations launched on March 2, at least 2,290 people have been killed across Lebanon, including 100 rescue workers and healthcare personnel, and more than 7,500 others have been wounded. The violence has displaced roughly 1.2 million people nationwide, nearly a quarter of Lebanon’s total population.

    Though a US-brokered truce was announced in mid-April, Israeli airstrikes and ground operations have continued uninterrupted in southern Lebanon, triggering renewed exchanges of fire with Hezbollah militants. Israeli forces maintain a permanent presence roughly 10 kilometers inside sovereign Lebanese territory, with consistent reports of targeted strikes on civilian areas and ongoing demolition of residential structures.

  • Kuwait revokes journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin’s citizenship

    Kuwait revokes journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin’s citizenship

    A high-profile, award-winning Kuwaiti-American journalist who spent nearly two months in Kuwaiti custody for sharing public materials related to the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran has been formally stripped of his Kuwaiti nationality, marking the latest step in a sweeping regional crackdown on dissenting speech that has accelerated sharply since the outbreak of the conflict.

    Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, 41, a veteran contributor to leading international outlets including *The New York Times*, Al Jazeera English and PBS whose work has earned honors including the British Journalism Award and Amnesty International’s Human Rights Defender Award, released a statement Wednesday through his legal team following the citizenship revocation. “I am free – but many remain behind bars in Kuwait and across the region for speaking the truth,” he said. “Today, my sisters and I have become part of the more than 50,000 Kuwaitis who have had their citizenship revoked.”

    Born in the United States, Shihab-Eldin was arrested on March 2 during a routine family visit to Kuwait. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, his detention followed his online sharing of publicly available footage and imagery tied to the Iran war, including video of a U.S. fighter jet crashing at an American air base located on Kuwaiti territory. His international legal counsel confirmed he was cleared of all criminal charges and released from prison last week, but the unexpected citizenship revocation immediately stripped him of legal status as a national of the country.

    In a joint statement, Shihab-Eldin’s lead lawyers Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC and Kate Gibson condemned the prolonged abuse of his rights. “Ahmed Shihab-Eldin is a superb journalist and storyteller,” they said. “For 52 days, he was wrongly imprisoned and endured repeated, grave violations of his fundamental rights due to his work. For reporting. For expressing opinions. For simply doing his job.”

    The revocation of Shihab-Eldin’s citizenship is not an isolated incident: Kuwait has overseen a mass campaign of citizenship stripping in recent months that rights campaigners warn could eventually impact hundreds of thousands of people, a push that has gained significant momentum since the US-Israeli war on Iran began. In December 2024, Kuwait’s legislature passed a new law that explicitly allows the state to revoke citizenship for a broad set of vaguely defined infractions, including actions deemed “moral turpitude or dishonesty,” threats to state security, or even criticism of the emir or prominent religious figures. Prominent Kuwaiti Islamic scholar Tareq al-Suwaidan was among the high-profile figures stripped of nationality in recent months.

    Multiple motivations have been documented for this mass revocation campaign beyond the crackdown on anti-government dissent. For decades, Kuwait has relied on its oil wealth to fund a generous national welfare system for citizens, supported by a large low-wage migrant labor force. As oil-rich Gulf states move to diversify their economies and restructure public spending, citizenship stripping has emerged as a tool to preserve welfare access for a smaller group of eligible citizens without collapsing public finances. Tiana Danielle Xavier from the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion explained to Middle East Eye in December that the policy is being deployed in part to maintain Kuwait’s existing welfare and public sector arrangements while avoiding economic instability. Xavier also noted that the campaign directly violates established international human rights law, which bans arbitrary deprivation of nationality, prohibits discriminatory treatment, protects individuals from being rendered stateless, and requires all citizenship decisions to follow formal due process.

    The crackdown extends far beyond Kuwait’s borders. Just days after Bahrain’s King held a meeting with Kuwait’s foreign minister, the Bahraini government revoked the citizenship of 69 people, accusing the group of sympathizing with Iran and aiding foreign entities. The list includes people accused of harming Bahrain’s national interests, as well as their dependent family members. Rights campaigners confirmed to Middle East Eye that most of those targeted belong to the Ajami community, a long-established ethnic group in Gulf states whose ancestry traces back to southern Iran.

    Bahraini-Danish activist Maryam al-Khawaja told Middle East Eye that regional Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) regimes have exploited the outbreak of the Iran war to escalate repression across the board. “Unfortunately, since the beginning of the war on Iran, the GCC regimes have taken this as an opportunity to crack down even harder,” she said.

  • US infant formula supply is ‘safe,’ FDA says after looking for potential contaminants

    US infant formula supply is ‘safe,’ FDA says after looking for potential contaminants

    U.S. federal health officials announced Wednesday that a landmark safety analysis of commercial infant formula sold across the country has found mostly reassuringly low concentrations of heavy metals, pesticides, and other potentially harmful contaminants. The comprehensive testing was carried out as part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Operation Stork Speed, an initiative the agency describes as the most expansive and rigorous assessment of U.S. infant formula safety ever conducted. Both FDA leaders and independent public health experts have concluded that the current domestic infant formula supply remains safe for consumer use.

    “There is no reason for American parents to avoid any available infant formula on the market right now,” stated Dr. Steven Abrams, a pediatrics professor at the University of Texas at Austin who served as an independent reviewer for the FDA’s findings.

    Between 2023 and 2025, FDA scientists collected and tested more than 300 samples of commercially produced infant formula for a full panel of potential contaminants, including four common heavy metals: lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. The testing also extended to pesticide residues, phthalates (industrial chemicals commonly used in plastic packaging and manufacturing), and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the persistent man-made compounds widely nicknamed “forever chemicals” for their ability to remain in the environment and human body for decades.

    Per the FDA’s final report, all tested contaminants registered either undetectable levels or concentrations far lower than established safety thresholds. Any heavy metals that were detected fell well below the strict exposure limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for drinking water. Ninety-nine percent of tested samples showed no trace of pesticide residues at all, and 25 out of the 30 specific PFAS compounds included in the testing panel were not detected in any samples.

    Most independent experts who reviewed the data have backed the FDA’s conclusion that the current supply is safe, noting that trace amounts of some heavy metals can enter the food supply naturally through environmental contamination, rather than as a result of manufacturing flaws. But not all specialists share the full reassuring conclusion: synthetic compounds like phthalates and PFAS do not occur naturally, so even trace detections raise red flags for some clinicians and researchers.

    “These are completely human-made chemicals,” explained Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, a pediatrics professor at UW Medicine and researcher with the Seattle Children’s Research Institute. “The fact that we can detect any of these compounds in infant formula at all is a cause for concern.” Sathyanarayana added that the findings underscore a critical need for expanded ongoing monitoring of contaminants not just in infant formula, but across the entire U.S. food supply.

    Operation Stork Speed was launched by the Trump administration in March 2025, marking the first comprehensive update to U.S. infant formula safety and quality standards in decades. The initiative builds on earlier FDA work that examined heavy metal contamination in a range of infant foods, a public health priority because high early-life exposure to these toxins is linked to long-term impairments in children’s brain development, learning capacity, and behavioral development, Abrams explained.

    Currently, unlike regulatory frameworks in the European Union, Canada, and Australia, the U.S. does not have legally enforceable maximum exposure limits for heavy metals in infant formula. For years, consumer advocacy organizations have pushed the FDA to implement these strict, science-based limits. In 2024, independent consumer organization Consumer Reports published its own analysis of 41 U.S. infant formulas, claiming that many products contained troublingly high levels of heavy metals and other contaminants. However, that study set its own safety threshold for concern far lower than the existing standards used by the European Union, and the high-profile report sparked widespread public anxiety that led many parents to avoid necessary commercial formula use unnecessarily, Abrams noted.

    Abrams himself has called on the FDA to continue regular safety monitoring of infant formula and maintain transparent public reporting of test results. Abbott, one of the largest domestic infant formula manufacturers in the U.S., has also urged the FDA to formalize scientific, enforceable standards for contaminants in the sector.

    “Producing infant formula at scale domestically is a matter of national security for the United States,” Abbott spokesman John Koval said in a prepared email statement. “These latest results confirm that our current domestic supply is safe for American families.”

    This reporting was produced by The Associated Press Health and Science Department, which receives grant support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP maintains full editorial control over all of its independent content.

  • China calls US hypocritical for expressing concern over Panama’s sovereignty

    China calls US hypocritical for expressing concern over Panama’s sovereignty

    PANAMA CITY – A new high-profile diplomatic confrontation between the United States and China has broken out over a port and shipping dispute in Panama, dragging the Central American trade hub into the middle of intensifying great power competition in the Latin American region. The war of words erupted this week after the U.S. State Department joined several smaller regional allies to accuse Beijing of violating Panama’s national sovereignty, a charge China has forcefully rejected as unfounded distortion while turning accusations back on Washington for its own history of interference in the hemisphere.

    The origins of the current dispute stretch back to earlier this year, when Panamanian authorities took control of two strategically critical ports along the Panama Canal from a subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based logistics firm. In early April, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio claimed that in response to the port seizure, China had engaged in “bullying” behavior by temporarily detaining and delaying dozens of commercial ships flying Panama’s national flag. China has repeatedly denied these allegations from the start.

    Last Tuesday, the State Department released a coordinated joint statement alongside six regional partners – Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago – condemning the alleged ship detentions. The statement labeled the incident a “blatant attempt to politicize maritime trade” and affirmed that the signatories stood in solidarity with Panama. In a separate social media post Tuesday evening, Rubio, who currently serves as U.S. Secretary of State, emphasized that “the sovereignty of our hemisphere is non-negotiable.”

    This latest escalation in U.S.-China tension comes as the Trump administration has adopted a far more aggressive policy approach to Latin America than any U.S. administration in recent decades. The current administration has carried out a high-profile overnight raid that captured Venezuela’s sitting president, pushed sweeping regulatory and political changes in Caracas, imposed a strict oil blockade on Cuba, intervened openly in regional elections, and even threatened direct military action against drug cartels based in Mexico.

    On Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian pushed back firmly against the U.S.-led accusations during a regularly scheduled news conference, calling the joint statement “completely unfounded and distort reality.” Jian went on to question the U.S.’s own credibility on the issue of Panamanian sovereignty, pointing to Washington’s own historical actions in the country.

    “Who occupied the Panama Canal for a long time, invaded Panama with its military, and arbitrarily trampled on its sovereignty and dignity? Who covets the Panama Canal, seeks to turn this international waterway — meant to remain permanently neutral — into its own territory, and disregards the sovereignty of regional countries? The answer is self-evident,” Jian said. He closed by noting that the United States itself is the power that has “politicized and securitized the issue of ports.”

    Shortly after China’s rebuttal, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino released a public statement seeking to defuse the rising tension. Mulino expressed appreciation for the “solidarity of friendly countries” regarding the status of Panamanian-flagged vessels in Chinese ports, but made clear that Panama sought to avoid being pulled into a larger diplomatic conflict. “We do not wish to engage in controversy, as we value respectful relations with all nations,” he said.

    The current dispute is just the latest flashpoint in a long-running push by the United States to counter China’s expanding economic and political influence across Latin America. For Panama, the strategic importance of the Panama Canal to global trade has placed the country directly in the middle of the escalating geopolitical rivalry between the two global superpowers, a standoff that intensified last year after former President Trump openly accused Beijing of seeking to control the critical international waterway.

  • ‘It’s Green all the way, darling’: The coming political earthquake in East London

    ‘It’s Green all the way, darling’: The coming political earthquake in East London

    For nearly 60 years, one political reality has remained unshaken in Newham, east London: since the borough’s founding in 1965, the London Borough of Newham has been continuously governed by the Labour Party, a rock-solid stronghold for the centre-left party in the capital. But as voters head to the polls for local elections on May 7, that long-standing status quo is at greater risk than ever before, as the Green Party surges to challenge Labour’s grip on power across multiple east London boroughs.

    While small independent left-leaning groups such as Redbridge Independents have chipped away at Labour’s support in the region, political analysts and campaigners are increasingly pointing to a growing “Green wave” that could flip multiple councils away from Labour control. Green Party leader Zack Polanski has set ambitious targets for significant gains nationwide, and polling indicates the party is on track to seize outright majorities in two other east London boroughs, Hackney and Lewisham. Newham, however, has flown under the radar of most national political coverage – despite emerging polling that puts the Green Party within striking distance of a historic upset here.

    Recent polling offers competing snapshots of the tight race in Newham: a YouGov survey released last week placed the Greens five percentage points behind Labour, with the local Newham Independents grouping a further four points behind the Greens. But a new study commissioned by the London School of Economics and published this Monday puts Green support at 34%, a single percentage point ahead of Labour.

    Areeq Chowdhury, the 33-year-old Green Party candidate for Newham mayor, who spoke to Middle East Eye during a campaign stop in Plaistow Park on Monday, is clear about his chances: he is confident he can win. For Chowdhury, this election is rooted in widespread voter discontent, both with local Labour governance and the national party under Keir Starmer. “There’s a huge amount of discontent with the Labour Party locally,” he explained. “We’re at the highest level of homelessness. One in 18 people are homeless. We’ve got the title of litter capital of England.”

    Chowdhury is no stranger to the Labour Party: he was a member from his student years, and even won election as a Labour local councillor in 2022. His defection to the Greens in 2023 was driven by two core frustrations: Starmer’s Labour refusal to take a strong stance against the Israeli military campaign in Gaza and call for an immediate ceasefire, and the party’s repeated high-profile U-turns on key progressive campaign pledges, including cuts to welfare benefits for disabled people. “A big part of why I joined Labour was things like human rights and standing up for workers,” he said. “The more I got to know about the Green Party, the more I understood that actually they were focused on the correct issues facing society, around the environment and human rights.” For many Newham voters, he added, Labour’s weak position on Gaza was the “trigger for people to look elsewhere”.

    The Green momentum stretches beyond Newham, across east London’s boroughs. In Waltham Forest, recent YouGov polling puts both Labour and the Greens at 30%, setting up a knife-edge contest for council control. Green candidates on the ground say voters are linking national political failures directly to local quality-of-life issues. Eva Tabassam, 35, a first-time Green candidate for Cann Hall ward who joined the party last summer, says voters consistently raise both international conflicts and local struggles on the campaign trail. “They go hand in hand,” she explained. “We get a mixture of big things, like the illegal war on Iran. We also get told about what’s happened in Palestine and the government’s complicity in that.” Tabassam added that it is often non-Muslim voters who first bring up Gaza, alongside criticism of Starmer’s repeated policy U-turns, the ongoing cost of living crisis, sky-high local rents, and the two-child benefit cap – all issues that directly impact daily life for east London residents.

    Peter Ibrahim Kanyike, 26, the Green candidate for Waltham Forest’s William Morris ward, says his local campaign focuses on bread-and-butter issues: cleaner public streets, improved safer parking for local businesses, and better accessibility for residents. But he echoes the sentiment that national political discontent is driving Green gains. “I think there’s a load of concern with the direction that society is going in and how the current government, Labour specifically, have directed society in that way,” he said. “The Greens want to create a council and a borough that works with our neighbours. That feeds into policy, and I think that’s one of the overarching concerns – society-building, working with each other.”

    On the streets of Newham’s Stratford district, public opinion remains mixed: many voters are still undecided, and some are unaware that an election is just days away. While one voter told MEE she planned to vote for Reform UK over its anti-immigration platform, another middle-aged woman said she was voting Green out of concern for future generations. “My grandchildren are not here yet, and I want them to enjoy the planet,” she said. “It’s green all the way, darling. We need the oxygen. We need the plants, which are part of our biodiversity for the planet.” For long-time Labour voters, the shift is already palpable within families: an elderly Moroccan long-time Labour voter told MEE his daughters are pushing him to switch to the Greens over the party’s position on Gaza, and he is still considering changing his vote on election day.

    The Green’s gains, particularly around their stance on Gaza, have drawn criticism from right-wing party Reform UK, whose leader Nigel Farage has accused the Greens of engaging in “sectarian politics” over the issue. Chowdhury calls the accusation “completely racist”, noting that the Greens are a broad coalition of progressive voices that welcomes diverse communities. “The Green Party is at the same time an Islamist party and a super LGBT party? Right. The reality is that we’re a coalition of progressive voices [that] wants to build a better society. So we have a lot of diversity in our party, and we have a lot of Muslims joining the party. We do have a lot of LGBT people join the party, people from every different community.” Chowdhury added that he has faced constant racist abuse during the campaign, including repeated calls for his deportation.

    Tabassum pushes back against the common misconception that Muslim voters and climate action are disconnected issues. “There seems to be this weird perception that these two things are so artificially distinct,” she said. “As Muslims ourselves, we’ve always been taught to protect the world and nature and environment and living things around us. So I don’t know why there seems to be this artificial separation of the two.” Kanyike added that the Green’s welcome for Muslim voters is not sectarianism, but a commitment to inclusion: “I think critics are just afraid because Muslims are finding a party that actually wants to support them. We actually focus on unity rather than division. Just because we’re welcoming different groups doesn’t mean that we’re being sectarian. Our focus is to be open for all groups.”

    Labour still retains solid support in the region. Phil, a Labour voter shopping at Westfield Stratford, told MEE he remains resolute in his support for the party, calling it the only “sensible” option in UK politics. “They’re less extreme, they look after the individual people,” he said. “And yes they’ve made mistakes in the past two years but I still think they’re the people for me.” He dismissed the Greens as well-meaning but unfit to govern, and called Reform UK “a complete load of loonies. It’s sensational stuff, and it’s actually nasty and evil in many ways.”

    Green Party officials frame the 2024 local elections as a turning point for the party. Faaiz Hasan, the Green Party’s national elections coordinator, said the vote “comes at a critical time” for UK politics. “This is the moment that we can actually start putting forward an alternative vision for the country that is not based on blaming migrants, is not based on blaming people of colour or others, but identifies that the real issue is not race, it’s class, and the concentration of wealth and power in a very tiny group of people,” he said.

    Nationally, polling suggests the Greens could win control of nine councils across the UK, including the east London seats of Lewisham and Hackney. Even if the party falls short of capturing an outright majority in Newham, political observers broadly agree that these elections will cement the Green Party’s status as a major national political force, with a permanent foothold in local government across the country. For Labour, which has dominated east London politics for generations, the Green surge is already a major cause for concern.