作者: admin

  • King gets ovation for speech hailing importance of UK and US partnership

    King gets ovation for speech hailing importance of UK and US partnership

    On a landmark diplomatic visit to Washington D.C., King Charles III delivered a historic address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, where he emphasized the irreplaceable, enduring nature of the partnership between the United Kingdom and the United States — and earned a dozen standing ovations from the assembled crowd of lawmakers and senior political figures. The moment marked the first address to a full Congress by a reigning British monarch in 35 years, coming at a time of growing geopolitical instability and festering diplomatic tensions between the two allies.

    Addressing the packed chamber of the domed Capitol Building, King Charles opened against a backdrop of heightened uncertainty, noting that the world faces new, profound challenges from spreading conflict across Europe and the Middle East. In an era he described as “more volatile, more dangerous” than many have known, he stressed that the UK and U.S. cannot afford to step back from their shared commitments. The royal visit carried high stakes: after months of strained transatlantic relations, the King’s core mission was to rekindle the long-standing alliance rooted in shared defense of democratic values, a bond once taken for granted that now requires intentional renewal.

    In his speech, drafted in close coordination with the UK Foreign Office, King Charles laid out clear cornerstones for the bilateral partnership. He reaffirmed unwavering support for NATO, noting the alliance’s critical role in protecting North American and European nations from shared adversaries, and doubled down on backing for Ukraine and its courageous people resisting invasion. Directly responding to calls from U.S. President Donald Trump for allied nations to increase their own defense investment, the King confirmed the UK has committed to the largest sustained increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War, positioning the country to meet future security threats.

    Beyond security and diplomacy, the address carried strong moral undertones tailored to the current moment. Speaking amid heightened tensions in the Middle East and uncertainty around conflict with Iran, the King drew on his personal Christian faith to call for interfaith respect and global peace. “I am inspired by the profound respect that develops as people of different faiths grow in their understanding of each other,” he said, a remark that earned loud applause. His observation that “words carry weight and meaning” was widely interpreted as a quiet rebuke to the culture of incendiary political rhetoric that has grown in many Western democracies, another line that drew warm applause from the chamber.

    The address also touched on sensitive, contemporary issues that have overshadowed the royal visit. Amid ongoing fallout from the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor scandal and public calls for the King and Queen Camilla to meet with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse, the monarch made a coded, compassionate reference to supporting “victims of some of the ills that so tragically exist in our societies today.” He also addressed the recent attempted assassination of Donald Trump over the weekend in Washington D.C., which triggered a massive escalation of security across the U.S. capital. “Let me say with unshakeable resolve: such acts of violence will never succeed,” he stated, drawing a renewed round of applause.

    In a nod to shared history, King Charles noted that 35 years have passed since his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, addressed a joint session of Congress in 1991 — a far different moment, when the Berlin Wall had just fallen, the Cold War was declared over, and liberal democracy stood at the peak of its global influence. Today, he framed the address as a defense of democratic values that face new threats, pushing back against rising isolationism in Western nations and emphasizing shared commitment to the international rule of law. Drawing a lighthearted joke to ease the formality of the moment, he marked the U.S.’ upcoming 250th anniversary: “That’s 250 years, or as we say in the United Kingdom, just the other day,” a quip that drew hearty laughter from the assembled lawmakers.

    King Charles’ mission came on the heels of months of rocky relations between the UK and the Trump administration, and the royal relied on his personal prestige and shared transatlantic history to rebuild trust. Early signs of progress emerged ahead of the speech, when President Trump struck a notably positive tone in remarks at the White House, celebrating shared UK-U.S. history and reaffirming the value of the bilateral military alliance. That positive momentum carried into the congressional address, where the crowd delivered a standing ovation before the King even spoke, and interrupted his remarks more than a dozen times with thunderous applause. For the UK delegation, including Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, the warm reception signals a potential turning point in transatlantic relations, marking a shift away from the awkward political frictions that have marked recent interactions with the unpredictable U.S. administration. Closing his address, King Charles framed the relationship between the two nations as a “story of reconciliation, renewal and remarkable partnership,” before departing the chamber to sustained cheers and handshakes across the aisle.

  • Five takeaways from the King’s historic address to Congress

    Five takeaways from the King’s historic address to Congress

    King Charles III’s long-awaited state visit to the United States was framed from the outset as a dual-purpose mission: a celebration of both America’s upcoming 250th anniversary and the decades-old “special relationship” that binds Washington and London, and a quiet diplomatic push to repair frayed bilateral relations. The core test of the King’s outreach came on Tuesday afternoon, when he delivered only the second royal address to a joint session of US Congress, the first since Queen Elizabeth II spoke at the Capitol in 1991.

    Tensions between the two allies have risen sharply in recent months, rooted in Britain’s hesitation to fully back the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran. Against this backdrop, the King’s trip was widely viewed as a charm offensive designed to dial down friction, rather than resolve deep rifts outright. Analysts have noted that strained relations do not equal a full break in the alliance, a point the King himself emphasized in his closing remarks, where he highlighted that “reconciliation and renewal” have defined centuries of interaction between the two nations.

    The unpredictable temperament of second-term President Donald Trump adds a layer of uncertainty to the outcome: warm ties can turn cold quickly, but former adversaries have also regained his favor just as fast. In brief remarks following a one-on-one meeting at the White House, Trump offered a warm assessment of the monarch, saying, “He’s a fantastic person. They’re incredible people and it’s a real honour.” That early signal offered a glimmer of hope that the King’s outreach had made headway.

    But the speech also carried subtle political undertones that resonated differently across the US political aisle. Opening his remarks, the King did not shy away from the multiple crises facing both nations, acknowledging openly that the world is living through “times of great uncertainty”. He explicitly named ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Europe — points of recent disagreement between the US and UK — and referenced the threat to democracy posed by political violence, a nod to the disruption that interrupted the previous weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
    “With the spirit of 1776 in our minds,” he joked, “we can perhaps agree that we do not always agree” — a lighthearted line that set up his core argument: when the US and UK align their efforts, they can deliver progress that benefits people across the globe.

    One line drew early cheers that started on the Democratic side of the chamber before spreading across the room: the King’s reference to the British legal tradition of checks and balances on executive power, rooted in the Magna Carta. For left-leaning critics of President Trump, who have spent years decrying what they see as his abuse of executive authority, and who led hundreds of thousands in “no kings” rallies across the country over the past year, the line carried obvious implicit weight.

    Another closing line, “America’s words carry weight and meaning, as they have since independence. The actions of this great nation matter even more,” sparked quiet muttering from Democratic lawmakers, many of whom have repeatedly criticized Trump’s rhetorical choices and policy actions. Whether the King intended it or not, many liberal attendees interpreted the remarks as a subtle nod to their concerns, giving them another opening to voice their long-held “no kings” sentiment.

    Beyond diplomatic tensions, the King wove personal context and longstanding policy priorities into his address. A five-year veteran of the Royal Navy, he referenced his military service to highlight the deep security and intelligence cooperation between the two nations, and between the US and European allies. Notably, he echoed a common point among European NATO allies, recalling that the alliance only ever invoked its collective defense clause after the 9/11 terror attacks on the US, a subtle reminder of the bloc’s shared commitment. He also made space to reference his decades-long advocacy on climate change, noting the “disastrously melting ice-caps of the Arctic” as a shared threat requiring collective action. He even lightened the tone with well-received whimsy: opening with the famous (and often misquoted) Oscar Wilde quip that the US and UK share everything except a language, joking that he had not come to launch a “cunning rearguard action” to retake American rule, and quipping about the British parliamentary tradition of holding an MP hostage during the King’s speech at Westminster.

    One highly anticipated topic was entirely absent from the address, however: the Jeffrey Epstein sex offender scandal. Last year, over the Trump administration’s objections, Congress passed a law mandating the release of previously sealed US government files tied to the Epstein investigation. Those releases exposed new details about Epstein’s deep connections to powerful figures on both sides of the Atlantic, including former UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson and King Charles’s younger brother, Prince Andrew. The closest the King came to addressing the issue was an oblique reference to the need to “support victims of some of the ills that, so tragically, exist in both our societies today” — a line widely viewed as insufficient for critics calling for a public acknowledgment. While the scandal has already triggered major political fallout in the UK, it has yet to significantly harm current officeholders in the US, and the issue remains far from fading from public discourse, with more details expected to emerge in coming months.

    For all the underlying tensions and unaddressed controversies, the King’s address appears to have achieved its core immediate goal: breaking the ice between the two allies at a moment of strain. Whether his public remarks and private diplomatic discussions will be enough to solidify and strengthen the bilateral alliance in the long term remains an open question, but the first day of the state visit has already shifted the tone of the relationship.

  • Oil tycoons deny paying bribes to former Nigerian minister

    Oil tycoons deny paying bribes to former Nigerian minister

    A high-profile bribery trial unfolding at London’s Southwark Crown Court has seen core figures, including former Nigerian oil minister Diezani Alison-Madueke, firmly reject all allegations of corruption laid out by prosecutors. The 65-year-old ex-cabinet member faces six total charges: five counts of accepting bribes and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, all of which she has unreservedly denied.

    Prosecutors claim that a network of oil industry insiders bankrolled Alison-Madueke’s extravagant lifestyle, footing the bill for luxury shopping sprees, high-end private property stays, private jet travel, and chauffeured vehicles during her tenure in office from 2010 to 2015. None of the unindicted industry figures at the center of the prosecution’s allegations have appeared in court during the proceedings, but their pre-trial statements to UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) were formally read into the court record this week.

    Ghanaian oil executive Kevin Okyere, CEO of multiple energy firms, told NCA investigators in a 2016 statement that the only payment he ever made on Alison-Madueke’s behalf was a £3,900 shopping bill at London’s Peter Jones department store, a spontaneous gesture when the pair ran into each other at checkout and she found herself short of funds. Okyere confirmed that the full amount was later repaid to him in cash at his Abuja office, and called the bribery claim against him “completely untrue”.

    Nigerian oil tycoon Igho Sanomi echoed these denials in a 2017 statement to the NCA. He explained that he occasionally purchased goods for Alison-Madueke in London because accessing foreign currency for large purchases was notoriously difficult in Nigeria at the time, and every single transaction was fully reimbursed. Sanomi added that his companies always won government oil contracts through fair, competitive bidding, and that neither Alison-Madueke nor any other official ever improperly influenced contract allocations to his businesses.

    A statement from former Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan, who appointed Alison-Madueke to the cabinet in 2010, was also presented to the court on Tuesday. Jonathan noted that it was common practice for third parties to cover temporary expenses for cabinet ministers during official overseas trips, and that all legitimate incidental support was properly documented and reimbursed where required. He also confirmed that he had personally approved Alison-Madueke’s use of private jets for some international travel, countering prosecution claims that these flights were unauthorised bribes.

    Alison-Madueke wrapped up nearly 11 days of testimony earlier this week, pushing back aggressively against prosecution claims that she failed to produce proof of reimbursements for thousands of pounds in luxury shopping at Harrods and other high-end London retailers. She told the court that following her 2015 arrest, she has been barred from returning to Nigeria by UK authorities for a decade, and all her financial and personal documents were seized by Nigerian government officials. She accused the current Nigerian administration, which is politically opposed to the government she served under, of deliberately refusing to cooperate with her defense.

    The former minister forcefully rejected claims she lied about receiving improper benefits from oil executives. “At no time did I do anything to influence or show favour to anyone,” she told the court. During six days of cross-examination by lead prosecutor Alexandra Healy KC, Healy walked Alison-Madueke through a long list of luxury goods, including designer Gucci handbags and high-end home furniture, that prosecutors allege were gifted to her as bribes. In one 2013 incident, prosecutors claim £170,000 worth of antiques and decorative items including Venetian lamps and vases were purchased for Alison-Madueke at a London dealer to furnish a private home she was building in Nigeria. Alison-Madueke countered that most of the items were not for her personal use, and argued that it was absurd to suggest she would risk her decades-long political career for luxury accessories and home decor. “I don’t think anyone would risk their career for furniture and handbags,” she said.

    Three other co-defendants are standing trial alongside Alison-Madueke. Her 69-year-old brother Doye Agama, a former archbishop, is charged with conspiracy to commit bribery, which he denies, and the court confirmed he will not be giving evidence during the trial. 54-year-old oil executive Olatimbo Ayinde also denies one count of bribery linked to Alison-Madueke and a separate count of bribing a foreign public official. None of the co-defendants have entered guilty pleas. The trial is ongoing at Southwark Crown Court, with further proceedings expected in the coming weeks.

  • PSG edge Bayern in nine-goal Champions League semi-final epic

    PSG edge Bayern in nine-goal Champions League semi-final epic

    Paris Saint-Germain and Bayern Munich delivered one of the most dramatic matches in UEFA Champions League history on Tuesday, producing a nine-goal epic in the first leg of their 2025 semi-final encounter that will go down as an instant classic of the competition. The 5-4 victory for PSG at a packed Parc des Princes stands as the highest-scoring semi-final match in the history of the tournament, with two of European football’s current heavyweights showcasing relentless attacking quality from the first whistle to the last.

    The first half alone delivered enough drama to fill an entire fixture, with Bayern Munich drawing first blood in the 17th minute. After PSG defender Willian Pacho brought down Bayern winger Luis Diaz inside the box, England captain Harry Kane stepped up to convert the penalty, notching his 54th goal of an already historic individual season. The German champions, who had beaten PSG 2-1 in the Champions League league phase back in November via a Diaz brace, looked the more dangerous side in the opening exchanges, but their aggressive, front-footed attacking approach left gaps at the back that PSG were quick to exploit on the counter.

    Just after the 30-minute mark, Georgian winger Khvicha Kvaratskhelia – widely regarded as the standout player of this season’s Champions League – broke the deadlock for the hosts. He outpaced Josip Stanisic down the left flank, cut inside the recovering defender, and fired a precision shot into the far corner to level the score at 1-1. Three minutes later, Joao Neves nodded home a well-placed Ousmane Dembele corner to put PSG 2-1 ahead, sending the packed home crowd into a frenzy.

    The end-to-end action showed no signs of slowing, however. Bayern’s Michael Olise drove into the PSG penalty area and smashed a powerful effort past the goalkeeper to restore parity at 2-2, marking his 20th goal of the 2024-2025 campaign. In first-half stoppage time, PSG were awarded a penalty after a cross from Dembele struck the arm of Alphonso Davies, who was making his first Champions League start of the season following a long-term injury layoff. After a lengthy VAR check, Swiss referee confirmed the decision, and Dembele converted to put PSG 3-2 up going into the halftime break.

    Two minutes into the second half, PSG extended their lead further. Achraf Hakimi delivered a pinpoint low cross into the path of Kvaratskhelia, who slotted home his second of the night to make it 4-2 – his seventh goal in seven knockout stage games this campaign, further cementing his reputation as PSG’s biggest match-winner this season. Before Bayern could reorganize, Dembele caught Manuel Neuer off guard with a low shot that bounced into the net off the near post, putting the French champions 5-2 up and seemingly out of reach with just over half an hour remaining.

    Yet Vincent Kompany’s Bayern side refused to fold, even with their manager watching from the stands due to a suspension. The German champions pulled one back through Dayot Upamecano, who headed home a Joshua Kimmich free kick to cut the deficit to 5-3, taking Bayern’s total goal tally for the season to 170. Minutes later, Diaz latched onto a long through ball, dribbled past PSG captain Marquinhos, and slotted the ball past the goalkeeper to make the score 5-4, setting up a nervy final 15 minutes for the hosts. PSG came close to extending their lead late on when Senny Mayulu’s strike hit the crossbar with Neuer beaten, leaving the final scoreline locked at 5-4.

    The result leaves Luis Enrique’s PSG holding a narrow one-goal advantage heading into the return leg next Wednesday at Bayern’s Allianz Arena, with a place in the May 30 Champions League final in Budapest up for grabs. PSG are chasing history as they aim to become only the second club in the modern Champions League era to retain the trophy, having lifted the title in 2024 with a 5-0 win over Inter Munich in Munich’s final venue. For Bayern, who lifted their sixth Champions League trophy in 2020 with a final win over PSG, the club is aiming to reach its first final since that 2020 triumph, and will be confident of turning around the deficit in front of their home fans. Widely praised as already surpassing last season’s iconic semi-final between Inter Milan and Barcelona, the nine-goal thriller has left the tie perfectly poised for another dramatic encounter in Munich next week.

  • More than fashion: A pin worn by Venezuela’s Rodríguez on state visits riles Guyana

    More than fashion: A pin worn by Venezuela’s Rodríguez on state visits riles Guyana

    GEORGETOWN, Guyana – A long-simmering centuries-old territorial dispute between Caribbean neighbor Guyana and Venezuela has reignited into a new diplomatic clash, after Guyana’s president issued a formal complaint to regional leaders over a provocative symbolic gesture by Venezuela’s acting president. The controversy centers on a lapel pin worn by Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s interim head of state, during her recent official visits to Caribbean nations: the pin is shaped explicitly to match the borders of Guyana’s resource-rich Essequibo region, a territory that makes up two-thirds of Guyana’s total land area and has been claimed by Venezuela for more than a century. The gesture comes amid already heightened tensions following the U.S. capture of former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in a surprise overnight raid on his Caracas residence in early January, after which Rodríguez stepped into the acting presidency. In the weeks since that political shift, the pin has become an increasingly common public symbol among senior Venezuelan government figures, ruling party lawmakers, state media anchors and other ruling bloc representatives. Guyana President Irfaan Ali delivered his formal complaint in an official note addressed to Terrance Drew, Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis and current chairman of the Caribbean Community (Caricom), the regional trade and coordination bloc that hosts Rodríguez’s recent travels. Ali confirmed that Rodríguez wore the disputed pin during her official stop in Barbados on Monday, marking the second confirmed instance of her displaying the symbol on an overseas trip – the first came during an official visit to Grenada earlier in April, on her first international tour since assuming the acting presidency. In the note, Ali emphasized that the pin serves as an open, public assertion of Venezuela’s invalid territorial claim to sovereign Guyanese land. Beyond the symbolic provocation, Ali outlined a key concern: that when Rodríguez wears the pin during official visits hosted by other Caribbean nations, the gesture could be misread by third parties as quiet acceptance or even endorsement of Venezuela’s claim by the host government. Ali stressed that Caricom has long stood on clear principles in backing Guyana’s sovereignty over the Essequibo region, and that this commitment needs to be reflected not just in official statements, but also in how member states conduct official diplomatic engagements with Venezuelan representatives. The roots of the dispute stretch back to an 1899 international boundary commission, which set the current border between the two territories when Guyana was still a British colony. Venezuela has long argued that the commission’s ruling was obtained through improper means and stripped the country of the Essequibo territory. The competing claims are currently being adjudicated at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based in The Hague, Netherlands. Ali reminded Caricom member states that the bloc has previously issued unequivocal public support for Guyana’s sovereign claim to the region at major summit meetings. He pushed for clear action, arguing that Venezuelan representatives should not be permitted to display territorial claim symbols such as the Essequibo-shaped pin or altered maps that include the region as Venezuelan territory, as such gestures threaten to undermine the ongoing legal process at the ICJ. Ali has previously publicly pushed back against other Venezuelan moves to assert the claim, including the inclusion of Essequibo on official Venezuelan government maps, which he has called a calculated, intentional provocation that Guyana rejects entirely. Tensions have escalated dramatically in recent years as major offshore oil reserves were discovered in the Essequibo region, which is licensed for exploration and production by Guyana to international energy firms including U.S. operators. On multiple occasions, Venezuela has deployed military gunboats to the offshore oil blocks, issuing demands that all production activity cease – demands that operating rigs have declined to obey to date. As of Tuesday, no response to Guyana’s complaint had been issued by Venezuelan government officials, who could not be immediately reached for comment by reporters.

  • United Arab Emirates says it is leaving Opec and Opec+

    United Arab Emirates says it is leaving Opec and Opec+

    In a seismic shift that reshapes the landscape of global energy geopolitics, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has formally confirmed its complete withdrawal from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the broader OPEC+ coalition of oil-producing nations. The country’s Ministry of Energy framed the decision as the outcome of a full, strategic review of its national production framework, in a public statement released to global markets.

    The statement acknowledged that short-term market instability, driven by ongoing supply disruptions across the Arabian Gulf and the critical Strait of Hormuz, has already upended global energy supply dynamics. Even so, it noted that long-term structural projections point to consistent, sustained growth in global energy demand through the medium and longer terms, a core consideration that guided the policy shift.

    Emphasizing the legacy of its decades-long participation in the cartel, the ministry noted that the UAE’s membership dates back to 1967, when the Emirate of Abu Dhabi first joined the organization. Following the formal unification of the United Arab Emirates as a sovereign state in 1971, the country retained its OPEC membership, and over the decades, it has positioned itself as an active stakeholder working to stabilize global oil markets and foster productive dialogue between major producing nations across the world.

    The announcement comes against a backdrop of escalating regional crisis triggered by the ongoing US-Israeli military campaign against Iran that began in late February. The conflict has inflicted widespread economic and security damage across multiple Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, with the UAE bearing a disproportionate share of the impact. As the Gulf nation with the closest formal and economic ties to Israel, the UAE has become a primary target for retaliatory Iranian strikes, which have consisted of thousands of ballistic missiles and drone attacks. These assaults have severely damaged Dubai’s reputation as a safe luxury tourism destination, while also cutting the country’s oil export volumes to a fraction of their pre-conflict levels.

    Within the Gulf bloc, the UAE has emerged as one of the most hawkish voices on the conflict, rejecting calls from some neighboring states for diplomatic de-escalation with Iran and openly calling for the US-led military campaign to continue. Regional analysts widely attribute this hardline stance to two core factors: the UAE’s overwhelming dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of global oil supplies transit daily for export, and the deep reluctance among the country’s ruling elite to allow Iran to consolidate its position as the dominant regional power in the Gulf.

    Tensions between the UAE and its fellow GCC members boiled over earlier this week, when senior UAE officials publicly criticized the bloc’s collective response to the Iran conflict. Speaking at a Dubai policy conference, UAE presidential advisor Anwar Gargash slammed the six-member GCC, half of whose members also hold OPEC membership, for failing to mount a unified, forceful response after Iran launched retaliatory attacks against GCC states.

    “The GCC’s stance was the weakest in its history, when you consider the scale of the attack and the threat it posed to every single member of the bloc,” Gargash told attendees. He added that while he had anticipated a muted, weak response from the 22-member Arab League, the Cairo-based pan-Arab organization, he never expected the same level of inaction from the Gulf Cooperation Council. “I don’t expect it from the GCC, and I am surprised by it,” he said.

    When pressed by Reuters reporters on whether the UAE had consulted with Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s de facto leader and the UAE’s closest regional neighbor, ahead of announcing its withdrawal, UAE Energy Minister confirmed that the country did not hold direct consultations with any other government or OPEC member ahead of the decision. As global energy markets and regional powers digest the unexpected policy shift, further updates on the implications for oil prices and regional alliances are expected in the coming days.

  • King Charles backs AUKUS defence pact in address to US Congress

    King Charles backs AUKUS defence pact in address to US Congress

    In a landmark address to the United States Congress — the first by a British monarch in more than 30 years — King Charles III has publicly thrown his support behind the trilateral AUKUS security partnership, framing the ambitious $368 billion submarine initiative as a cornerstone of collective long-term security for the three allied nations.

    The rare joint address to American lawmakers saw the monarch highlight deep existing defense cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States, noting that thousands of service members and their families from each country are stationed across the other’s territory. Beyond the joint production of F-35 fighter jets, King Charles centered his remarks on AUKUS, the security pact between the UK, US and Australia that he called “the most ambitious submarine program in history.”

    As the reigning sovereign of Australia, the King emphasized personal pride in the partnership, stressing that the collaboration is not rooted in mere sentiment. “We do not embark on these remarkable endeavours together out of sentiment,” he told the assembled legislators. “We do so because they build greater shared resilience for the future, so making our citizens safer for generations to come.”

    King Charles’ endorsement of the pact comes just one day after a British parliamentary inquiry released a critical assessment warning that the ambitious $368 billion program faces significant risk due to a lack of consistent, high-profile political leadership. The inquiry’s report called on new UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to step into a more public, active role in advancing the initiative, warning that ongoing political drift could ultimately derail the project.

    But top Australian officials have moved quickly to push back on these concerns, reaffirming that AUKUS remains on track and enjoys unified support across all three partner nations. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters in Canberra this week that overwhelming backing for the pact exists from Starmer’s British government and UK defense leadership alike. Echoing a phrase used by former US President Donald Trump, Albanese declared: “AUKUS is … full steam ahead. And I’m very confident that it will be so.”

    Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles echoed this confidence, noting that recurring bipartisan and cross-national scrutiny of the initiative is a healthy, normal part of the process. Marles pointed out that the UK parliamentary review was ultimately broadly supportive of AUKUS, and emphasized that strong support for the program holds across all three member states. “That the program is put under constant scrutiny again in all three countries is an important thing to happen as well, and this is a part of that,” Marles told Sky News. He added that Australian officials are fully comfortable with the program’s current trajectory, and expect the UK government will act on the inquiry’s recommendations to keep the initiative moving forward.

    Under the terms of the AUKUS agreement, Australia will acquire three nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines from the United States, with an option to acquire two additional modified boats if needed, as part of a broader plan to build up Western Indo-Pacific defense capabilities.

  • Germany holds breath as stranded whale ‘Timmy’ sets off in barge

    Germany holds breath as stranded whale ‘Timmy’ sets off in barge

    For weeks, a lost humpback whale’s fight for survival has held the entire nation of Germany in suspense. On Tuesday evening, that saga took a pivotal turn: the 20-ton marine mammal, dubbed Timmy by local media, was successfully guided into a converted cargo barge fitted with a water-filled hold, and the vessel departed for the North Sea to carry out what many call a last-ditch effort to return the animal to its natural habitat.

    Timmy’s ordeal began in late March, when the young humpback – which normally makes its home in the cold, nutrient-rich waters of the Atlantic Ocean – strayed hundreds of kilometers off course and became stuck on a sandbank off the Baltic coast near the northern German city of Luebeck. After the whale freed itself only to become re-trapped multiple times, rescue teams attempted a series of interventions, from digging artificial escape channels to using inflatable flotation devices, but every attempt ended in failure. By early April, state officials formally abandoned rescue efforts, concluding that Timmy could not be saved.

    That decision sparked immediate public outcry, pushing authorities to reverse course and approve a new privately funded rescue plan put forward by two German entrepreneurs. The proposal, which involves transporting Timmy via barge to the North Sea for release if the animal remains strong enough, was dismissed by many marine experts as a long shot, with critics arguing that the stress of capture and transport would only worsen the whale’s condition and reduce any chance of survival.

    Despite the skepticism, rescuers pulled off a breakthrough earlier on Tuesday. Teams fitted stabilizing straps around the 13-meter whale, then guided it down a specially dug sand channel toward the waiting barge. With rescue divers swimming alongside, Timmy picked up speed and voluntarily swam into the water-filled hold, drawing cheers from on-site teams and spectators watching live streams and shore-side broadcasts.

    “I can’t even put my happiness into words,” Karin Walter-Mommert, one of the entrepreneurs backing the mission, told German tabloid Bild. “You could see that the whale was fighting, that he wanted to live. Knowing he’s now safely in the barge is simply wonderful – it proves the fight for Timmy was worth every effort.”

    The operation received official approval after government vets confirmed the whale was healthy enough to withstand the journey north to the North Sea, his intended release site. A temporary green net barrier has been fitted across the barge’s entrance to keep Timmy contained during the voyage. Till Backhaus, environment minister for the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania where the stranding occurred, praised the round-the-clock work of rescue teams, saying “In the end, we have saved this animal.”

    Backhaus has defended the controversial mission against criticism from the scientific community. “I’ve always said: those who do nothing make no mistakes,” he told reporters Tuesday. “If the scientists who claimed this was all pointless had seen the young whale just now, how he swam into the barge all on his own, they would understand.” In a written statement responding to critics who accused officials of sidelining scientific input, Backhaus countered that authorities had always based their decisions on available evidence: “No one could tell us with certainty that the whale would die, or when. On the basis of these uncertain conclusions, we decided to allow the rescue attempt to go forward.”

    The weeks-long saga of Timmy the stranded whale has dominated German media, with rolling coverage on national television, constant updates from online news outlets, and widespread discussion across social media platforms. But the high-profile rescue has also sparked fierce public debate, angry exchanges between supporters and critics of the operation, and even the spread of unfounded conspiracy theories about the whale’s stranding and the rescue’s motives. As the barge carrying Timmy makes its way toward the North Sea, the entire country continues to hold its breath, waiting to see if the high-risk effort will end with the young whale swimming free.

  • Musk says basis of charitable giving at stake in OpenAI lawsuit

    Musk says basis of charitable giving at stake in OpenAI lawsuit

    A landmark legal showdown between two of Silicon Valley’s most influential tech leaders has begun in a California courtroom, bringing long-simmering tensions over the founding and direction of artificial intelligence powerhouse OpenAI into the public eye. The trial, which pits former OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk against current CEO and fellow co-founder Sam Altman, has seen the two sides present starkly conflicting accounts of the company’s origins and core founding commitments.

    When called to the witness stand, Musk — dressed in a formal dark suit and tie — framed the dispute in clear, uncompromising terms. “It’s actually very simple,” he said. “It’s not okay to steal a charity… If it’s okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving will be destroyed.” Musk, who contributed $38 million to OpenAI during its early years as a non-profit research entity, argues that Altman and co-founder Greg Brockman abandoned the organization’s original charitable mission when they launched a commercial division in 2018, years before ChatGPT ignited the global generative AI boom.

    Musk’s lead attorney Steven Molo emphasized to the nine Oakland-based jurors that their client’s involvement was foundational to OpenAI’s existence, telling the court: “Without Elon Musk, there would be no OpenAI. Pure and simple.” Molo explained that Musk’s longstanding position on AI has always centered on responsible, public-benefit development rather than private profit, a stance that solidified after a 2015 meeting with then-President Barack Obama, where Musk grew increasingly concerned about the lack of government oversight for the rapidly advancing technology. Through the lawsuit, Musk is seeking the return of billions of dollars in what his legal team calls “wrongful gains” to be redirected to OpenAI’s non-profit arm, alongside leadership changes that include removing Altman from his role as CEO. His legal claims center on charges of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment.

    Counsel for OpenAI, however, has painted a far different picture of the dispute, arguing that the entire lawsuit is a cynical attempt by Musk to sabotage a leading business competitor. OpenAI attorney William Savitt told the court: “We’re here because Mr Musk didn’t get his way at OpenAI. Because he’s a competitor, Mr Musk will do anything to attack OpenAI.” Savitt claimed that Musk attempted to pressure other early OpenAI founders into merging the startup with his electric vehicle and tech company Tesla, and left the organization in a huff only when his bid for full control was rejected. “When they refused to turn the keys of artificial intelligence over to one person,” Savitt said, “When they refused to let OpenAI be absorbed, Musk took his marbles and went home. He left it, he thought, for dead.” OpenAI further argues that Musk never actually prioritized the non-profit model and is motivated by jealousy and regret over walking away from the company before its massive commercial success. The company notes that Musk now runs his own AI firm, xAI, which launched its chatbot Grok in 2023 — a full year after ChatGPT’s debut — and has lagged behind OpenAI in the race to develop advanced artificial general intelligence (AGI). OpenAI also claims that Musk was fully aware of and agreed to the 2018 decision to launch a commercial division, and that he only left after failing to secure the CEO position for himself. Altman is expected to take the witness stand later in the proceedings.

    Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is presiding over the case, has already warned both parties against using their massive social media platforms to sway public opinion or influence the jury. On the first day of jury selection, Musk sparked controversy by referring to Altman as “Scam Altman” in a post on X, the social network he owns. While the judge ultimately declined to issue a full gag order that would bar trial participants from commenting on the case outside court, she urged Musk to curb his social media activity. “Try to control your propensity to use social media to make things worse outside this courtroom,” she said, asking both sides to maintain a “clean slate” moving forward. Both Altman and Brockman agreed to adhere to the same standard of conduct.

    Outside the courthouse, circulating photos show punching bags printed with the faces of both Musk and Altman, a striking visual indicator of the high public interest in the clash between two of the tech industry’s biggest names. A verdict in the trial is expected to be delivered in late May, with the outcome set to shape the future direction of one of the world’s most valuable AI companies and set a precedent for disputes over founding commitments in the rapidly growing tech sector.

  • US regulator to review Disney broadcast licenses after Jimmy Kimmel joke about Melania Trump

    US regulator to review Disney broadcast licenses after Jimmy Kimmel joke about Melania Trump

    A major clash over press freedom and political influence has erupted in the United States after the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced an urgent, accelerated review of broadcast licenses for all Disney-owned ABC television stations, just days after former President Donald Trump demanded the network fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a controversial joke. The chain of events stretches back to a poorly received comedy monologue where Kimmel joked that Melania Trump had the “glow of an expectant widow” — comments made just 48 hours before a would-be assassin opened fire at a Washington D.C. gala attended by the Trumps. That joke quickly drew fierce backlash from the former president and his allies, who framed the quip as an implicit incitement to violence. The 31-year-old suspect, Cole Tomas Allen, was tackled by law enforcement before he could reach the ballroom holding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where hundreds of journalists, political figures and public officials had gathered. Allen now faces federal charges for attempted assassination of the former president, and the Trumps escaped the incident unharmed. In the aftermath of the shooting, the Trump administration has doubled down on its demand for Kimmel’s removal. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung went so far as to declare publicly Tuesday that Kimmel should be “shunned for the rest of his life.” Donald Trump himself labeled the joke a “call to violence,” while Melania Trump issued a statement accusing the comedian of exacerbating “the political sickness within America.” Kimmel pushed back against these accusations during the opening monologue of his show Monday night, clarifying that his comment was nothing more than a light-hearted jab at the age gap between the 79-year-old former president and his younger wife. “It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination,” Kimmel said, adding that he has spent years speaking out publicly against gun violence. This is not the first time Kimmel has drawn conservative backlash and been pulled off air: Last September, he was temporarily suspended for a week after suggesting Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement was seeking political gain from the fatal shooting of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. In its official order released Tuesday, the FCC stated that it has opened an investigation into ABC’s owned-and-operated stations over alleged potential rule violations, including claims of unlawful discrimination. The commission has ordered Disney to submit full license renewal applications for all its TV stations within 30 days, a major shift from the original 2028 renewal schedule. As part of the review process, the FCC can require Disney to demonstrate that it meets the agency’s strict public-interest standards to hold a broadcast license. In the most extreme scenario, the review could end with the revocation of ABC’s broadcast licenses — a step the FCC has not taken in more than 40 years, according to reporting from Reuters. Disney has pushed back forcefully against the regulator’s action. A company spokesperson told the BBC that ABC and its local stations have a decades-long track record of operating in full compliance with FCC rules, and deliver vital services including trusted local news, emergency alerts and public interest programming to the communities they serve. “Our focus remains, as always, on serving viewers in the local communities where our stations operate,” the spokesperson added. The move has already sparked sharp criticism from Democratic officials at the FCC. Democratic Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued a public statement on social media platform X labeling the accelerated review a transparent “political stunt.” “This is unprecedented, unlawful, and going nowhere,” Gomez wrote. “Companies should challenge it head-on. The First Amendment is on their side.” The incident marks the latest escalation in a long-running effort by Trump to penalize media outlets that he claims cover him unfairly. Trump has repeatedly suggested in the past that networks that run what he calls “bad publicity” should have their broadcast licenses revoked, a threat that has drawn widespread concerns about attacks on First Amendment press protections. The current tension is not the first regulatory action the FCC has taken against Disney under the Trump administration: Last year, FCC Chair Brendan Carr sent a formal letter to the company notifying it that the commission had opened an investigation into Disney’s diversity and inclusion practices, over claims that the programs violated federal regulation. Founded in 1934, the FCC was originally created to allocate scarce radio and later television broadcast frequencies, and today oversees rules ranging from sponsor disclosure requirements to emergency broadcast protocols and obscenity standards.