Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Would farmers and fishermen back Brexit today?

    Would farmers and fishermen back Brexit today?

    Ten years have passed since the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, a vote that reshaped the nation’s political and economic trajectory forever. Ahead of that historic ballot, polling data already revealed deep divisions over Brexit among England’s rural and coastal industries: while a thin majority of farmers leaned toward leaving the bloc, the fishing industry was far more unified, with a pre-referendum survey recording that 92% of fishermen planned to back an exit. A decade on, the BBC set out to revisit communities in South East England, asking producers whether, equipped with the hindsight of 10 years of post-Brexit reality, they would cast the same vote today.

    For Simon Maiklem, a Surrey-based beef producer who backed remaining in the EU in 2016, the outcome of Brexit has only confirmed his original opposition. In an interview with the BBC, Maiklem explained that he has yet to see any tangible benefit from the UK’s exit from the bloc, and in many ways, conditions have turned out worse than even remain campaigners predicted. His entire business model was built around exporting high-health, premium pedigree cattle to customers across the European single market – a market that vanished overnight once the UK completed its withdrawal. That valuable export space has now been fully captured by farmers in Southern Ireland, Maiklem noted, who retain full EU membership and face none of the post-Brexit trade frictions that have locked him out of the continent. On top of lost export access, he added, successive changes to government policy have eroded the farm subsidies he once relied on. While he acknowledged that the EU had become bloated with excessive bureaucratic regulation, Maiklem argued that reforming the bloc from within would have been a far better path for British agriculture. Promises of reduced red tape after Brexit, he said, have failed to materialize. Echoing a famous quip from decades ago, he noted: “A very old friend of my father’s said that farmers voting for Brexit was turkeys voting for Christmas. I think he might have been proved right.”

    For fishermen who overwhelmingly backed leave in 2016, the story has been one of unmet promises and lingering frustration. Mark Ball, a Sussex fisherman who supported an exit, said his core motivation for voting leave was ending the unfair one-sided arrangements that defined UK membership of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. “I felt that if we could leave, we could get control back of our waters and hopefully make fishing a bit better,” he explained. At the time, he pushed for a full ban on European fishing vessels operating within 12 miles of the UK coast. A full decade later, however, Ball says nothing has changed. EU vessels still operate as close as six miles to UK shores, while British fishermen now face overwhelming new red tape when exporting their catch to the continent. “It’s so unfair. They’ve got everything they wanted and more on top. And all we’ve got is a load of regulation,” he said. Even so, Ball says he would still vote to leave today, arguing that the failure is not with Brexit itself, but with the flawed withdrawal agreement the UK negotiated with the bloc. He called for the current deal to be scrapped and replaced with a far better arrangement for British fishing, warning that without meaningful change, inshore UK fishing has no long-term future. “I just think they’re bullies,” he said of EU negotiators.

    Jim Partridge, a veteran fish seller with 69 years of industry experience who runs Shoreham-based Monteum Ltd, echoed Ball’s frustration. He also voted leave in 2016, and says he has yet to see any of the promised freedom from EU rules that leave campaigners promised. French vessels are still allowed to operate in the Channel as close as six miles to the Sussex coast, he pointed out, under outdated “historical rights” provisions that UK negotiators failed to renegotiate. UK fishing crews have long demanded a new boundary drawn down the middle of the Channel, a change that would give British fleets full access to valuable local stocks. Instead, Partridge said, French boats are harvesting most of the prime fish off the Sussex coast – including Dover sole, plaice, cod, brill and turbot – leaving almost nothing for local crews. Comparing current fish stock levels to when he started working in the industry at age 8, Partridge said the difference was like “chalk and cheese”, adding that British fishing has suffered continuously since former Prime Minister Ted Heath took the UK into the bloc decades ago. When asked about growing calls for the UK to rejoin the EU, Partridge said there was “no question” he would vote leave again today, and would make the same choice a second time.

    Not all leave-voting farmers have uniformly negative views of the post-Brexit landscape, however. Robert Pascall, a fruit grower based in Kent who backed leave in 2016, acknowledged that from a purely economic perspective, remaining in the EU would likely have been the right choice for his business. He said that national pride was a major factor in his 2016 vote, explaining that at the time of the referendum, he felt the UK was overly dominated by EU institutions. Today, his business no longer qualifies for the same level of subsidies that EU-based fruit producers receive, putting him at a major competitive disadvantage in the European market. Even so, Pascall pointed to some unexpected benefits of Brexit. Tighter post-Brexit plant health checks, introduced to block the spread of harmful pests and diseases into the UK, have made importing stock plants far more difficult. But this trade friction has also pushed his farm to expand its own domestic production of stock plants, ending its historical reliance on imports shipped through the Channel Tunnel.

    In response to questions from the BBC, a spokesperson for the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the government is “determined” to deliver the support that farmers, fishermen and food exporters need to thrive post-Brexit. The government has renewed its Sustainable Farming Incentives scheme, invested roughly £800 million in supporting British farmers and food producers, and allocated an additional £360 million through the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund. The spokesperson added that the government’s reformed Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) scheme will also make trade with the EU – the UK’s largest single export market – cheaper and easier for British producers in the coming years.

  • NATO summit should display unity and pledges to defense, deputy NATO chief tells AP

    NATO summit should display unity and pledges to defense, deputy NATO chief tells AP

    As NATO prepares for its critical July 7-8 summit in Ankara, Turkey, the alliance’s second-highest military leader is framing the gathering as a make-or-break moment to lock in increased defense investment from member states, reaffirm unwavering backing for Ukraine, and demonstrate that the 77-year-old security bloc remains cohesive despite mounting internal and external pressures.

    Air Chief Marshal Sir John Stringer, NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, shared his assessment in an exclusive interview with the Associated Press in London, just 10 days ahead of the summit that will put alliance unity to the test. The gathering comes at a period of unprecedented uncertainty for the transatlantic alliance, driven by conflicting signals from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has alternately threatened to withdraw from NATO, unnerved European leaders with proposals to annex Greenland, and extended public praise to Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO’s primary strategic adversary.

    Recent tensions have deepened after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last month criticized NATO allies for refusing access to their military bases to conduct strikes against Iran, while announcing a surprise six-month review of all American force deployments across Europe. Internal friction has also emerged within key NATO member the United Kingdom, where two senior government ministers — including former Defense Secretary John Healey — resigned in protest over what they call inadequate military spending plans that leave the nation vulnerable to rising global threats.

    Stringer, a senior British Royal Air Force officer, framed current turbulence as an inevitable part of the alliance’s decades-long expansion. “Summits are inherently highly political events, and they serve as a public demonstration of any organization’s unity,” Stringer explained during the London military conference, where AP spoke with multiple senior European military leaders about both their hopes and anxieties heading into the Ankara gathering. “Over seven decades of growth and expansion, it would be odd if we never faced periods of uncertainty. Are we in one of those moments right now? The answer is yes.”

    Trump has for years pressured European NATO members to take greater responsibility for their own collective defense, and with few exceptions including Spain, allies have responded with an unprecedented push to ramp up military spending amid growing Russian aggression along the alliance’s eastern flank.

    Maj. Gen. Indrek Sirel, a senior commander with the Estonian Armed Forces, argued that allies must both strengthen their own domestic military capabilities and continue providing support to Ukraine to degrade Russia’s ability to project offensive power. “Europe as a whole still has significant work to do to build a credible deterrent against Russian aggression,” added Brig. Gen. Jyri Raitasalo of Finland, the NATO member that shares the alliance’s longest continuous border with Russia.

    Stringer highlighted that European nations are already ramping up defense investment to build what he called a “truly credible deterrent force,” pointing to the quadrupling of 155mm artillery shell production across multiple countries as a key example. He confirmed that the summit will include discussions about expanding defense industrial production at a scale NATO has not required in decades.

    A core point of uncertainty hanging over the summit is the outcome of Hegseth’s six-month force posture review, which will shape how quickly European allies must fill potential capability gaps left by shifting U.S. deployments. Earlier this year, U.S. European Command announced that Washington would withdraw some military capabilities from the continent and expect allies to cover the resulting gaps. While the Trump administration maintains that any planned troop reductions have been coordinated with allies in advance, Sirel noted that details of U.S. force positioning in the Baltic states — a core part of NATO’s eastern flank deterrence against Russia — remain unclear. He said he remains confident in continued U.S. security guarantees, but Estonia is already preparing contingency plans to adapt to sudden changes in alliance posture.

    Stringer acknowledged that U.S. long-range strike and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities would be difficult to replace, but he expressed confidence that European allies can close any emerging gaps through a mixed “cocktail of capabilities” rather than replicating exact U.S. systems. For example, while only the U.S. operates B-1 and B-52 long-range bombers, any loss of that capability could be offset by missile deployments from ground, sea, and smaller aircraft platforms, he explained.

    Allies have already expressed frustration with frequent, sudden shifts in U.S. force policy. In May, Trump confused NATO partners when he announced plans to deploy 5,000 additional U.S. troops to Poland, just weeks after ordering the withdrawal of the same number of troops from Europe. Raitasalo, who serves as Finland’s military logistics chief, noted that effective military planning depends on long-term, consistent strategy. “If you change your mind or your plans every week, every month, or even every year, you will not deliver strong, reliable results,” he said, adding that allies need firm capability pledges rather than vague spending promises.

    Maj. Gen. Jonny Lindfors, Sweden’s army chief, said a successful summit outcome would produce a shared, aligned vision for adjusting NATO’s deterrence and defense postures. He called for at least an outline — if not a fully detailed strategy — for shifting defense burden sharing across the alliance to lay the groundwork for what he called “NATO 3.0.”

    The United Kingdom, a longstanding leader within NATO, is already facing pressure to honor its defense spending commitments. Last year’s NATO summit saw all 32 member states agree to work toward a target of spending 3.5% of gross domestic product on core defense, with the U.K. committing to hit that marker by 2035. But Healey and another minister resigned earlier this month, arguing that the government’s proposed plan would only reach 2.68% of GDP by 2030, falling far short of what is needed to keep Britain safe amid rising threats. New British Defense Secretary Dan Jarvis has since said the nation will uphold its existing commitments, and the government has pledged to publish its full spending plan publicly.

    Stringer confirmed that by the start of the Ankara summit, NATO expects all member states to outline a “credible path” to reach the 3.5% GDP target, and the U.K. is bound by that requirement just like every other ally. “The U.K. cannot assume that its historical thought leadership within NATO is enough,” Stringer said. “It has to match that leadership with matching forces and resources.”

    Alliance credibility is on the line in Ankara, leaders say. Last year, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte retained U.S. commitment to the bloc by convincing Trump that allies would deliver “BIG” progress on increasing defense spending. Stringer said this year’s summit must not only display cohesion across all 32 members, but also deliver honest conversations and concrete, credible defense plans. Raitasalo added that the meeting cannot stop at traditional communiques, roadmaps, and action plans — it must demonstrate deterrence through tangible action. If member states fail to turn promises into actual increased investment and capability, he said, NATO’s global credibility will be put at serious risk.

  • Majority of US voters think Iran war ‘not worth it’, new poll finds

    Majority of US voters think Iran war ‘not worth it’, new poll finds

    Two major new public opinion polls from the United States and Israel have revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the outcome of the 2025 US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, just months after the signing of a 60-day cessation of hostilities agreement between Washington and Tehran. The findings paint a stark picture of shifting geopolitical attitudes among voters in both countries, underscoring deep divisions along partisan lines in the US and broad consensus against the war in Israel.

    The conflict began on February 28, when former US President Donald Trump launched joint military operations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, framed as a mission to eliminate what the leaders called an imminent threat from the Iranian regime. Stated core objectives included the total destruction of Iran’s nuclear program and key military infrastructure, with Trump also positioning the campaign as a path to regime change, telling the Iranian people they would have a generational opportunity to take control of their government. Despite the assassination of long-time Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other top Iranian officials, the regime change effort collapsed: Khamenei was succeeded by his son Mojtaba, who reportedly survived the strike that killed his father despite severe injury. In the end, the US publicly conceded it had failed to eliminate Iran’s ballistic missile program — another core war aim — and even formally acknowledged Iran’s right to maintain the program.

    The resulting Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which paused active hostilities for 60 days to allow negotiations on a permanent end to the war, has triggered a sharp reversal in US public opinion toward the conflict, according to a new national survey from Quinnipiac University. Overall, 60 percent of registered American voters say the US military campaign against Iran was “not worth it”, with dramatic partisan splits shaping the results: 93 percent of Democratic voters and 66 percent of independent voters view the war as unjustified, while 75 percent of Republican voters still say the conflict was worth waging. Scepticism extends to the diplomatic truce itself: 59 percent of all US voters report they are either “not so confident” or “not confident at all” that the MoU will lead to a lasting peaceful resolution. Once again, partisan views diverge sharply, with 76 percent of Republicans saying they hold at least some confidence in the deal’s success.

    Across key security outcomes, even partisan gaps shrink: 61 percent of all US voters believe Iran remains likely to develop nuclear weapons, a view held by a majority of voters in both major US political parties. The war has also shifted public views of US global standing, with 45 percent of voters concluding the conflict has left the United States weaker on the world stage.

    Public anger has been fueled by tangible economic harm resulting from the war: after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz at the outbreak of hostilities, the three-month campaign cost the US an estimated $60 billion in direct military spending, according to reporting from Middle East Eye, and pushed average US household fuel costs up by more than $447 annually. The poll also captured a steady shift in US public attitudes toward Israel, America’s key partner in the conflict: 48 percent of US voters now say the US is too supportive of Israel, the highest share recorded since Quinnipiac began tracking the question in 2017. That view is held by just 20 percent of Republicans, compared to 66 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents.

    The Quinnipiac poll surveyed 1,165 registered US voters between June 18 and 22, carrying a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

    In Israel itself, public sentiment toward the war outcome is even more overwhelmingly negative, according to a joint survey conducted by the Agam Institute and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Fully 92 percent of Israeli respondents believe Iran emerged as the winner of the conflict, and 86 percent hold a negative view of the final truce agreement. Eighty-three percent say the campaign has weakened Israel’s long-term national security, a view echoed by many current and former Israeli political and military leaders who warn the outcome represents a pivotal blow to Israel’s regional influence.

    Seventy-two and a half percent of Israelis reject Netanyahu’s public claims that the war delivered significant gains and eliminated an existential threat to the country, a sentiment that has fueled growing uncertainty over the Prime Minister’s political future. Only 12 percent of respondents say Israel achieved all of its stated war objectives: 56 percent rate Netanyahu’s management of the campaign as poor or an outright failure.

    Notably, broad discontent with the war outcome has not translated to support for withdrawing Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, a key sticking point in ongoing US-Iran negotiations. Tehran has insisted the ceasefire cannot become permanent until Israel ends airstrikes in Lebanon and withdraws all troops from positions inside southern Lebanese territory, where Israel says its campaign targets Iran-aligned militant group Hezbollah. Even so, 48 percent of Israeli respondents support continuing the military campaign in Lebanon, with most of that group saying they back the operation even if it sparks a confrontation with the Trump White House.

    The Israeli poll surveyed 3,644 Israelis aged 17 and older between June 17 and 20, with a weighted sample designed to reflect the full Israeli population and a maximum sampling error of 2.2 percent at a 99 percent confidence level.

  • Row over alleged theft of donations from India’s landmark Ram temple

    Row over alleged theft of donations from India’s landmark Ram temple

    Two and a half years after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the sprawling Ram Temple in Ayodhya, one of Hinduism’s most sacred sites, the shrine has become the center of a bitter public controversy over claims that tens of millions of rupees in devotee donations have been misappropriated.

    The temple’s location carries decades of charged religious and political history. The new structure, built across 2.7 acres in the flashpoint northern Uttar Pradesh city, replaced the 16th-century Babri Masjid mosque, which was torn down by Hindu nationalist mobs in 1992. That demolition triggered countrywide religious riots that left nearly 2,000 people dead. Following a years-long legal battle, India’s Supreme Court granted the disputed site to Hindu petitioners in 2019, clearing the way for construction of the Ram temple. Since its formal opening in January 2024, the three-story temple complex — which includes six smaller shrines — has cemented its place as one of India’s most visited pilgrimage destinations, drawing an estimated 50 million annual visitors, with between 70,000 and 80,000 devotees arriving on ordinary weekdays, and crowds swelling to three times that size on weekends and major religious festivals.

    The current controversy stems from claims of mishandling of cash, jewelry, gold, and silver that devotees leave as offerings in roughly 35 donation boxes scattered across the temple grounds. Managed by the independent Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the temple reported an annual income of 3.27 billion rupees (approximately $35 million) for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, making it one of India’s highest-earning religious sites. The first allegations of misconduct came from Mahipal Singh, a former supervisor of the trust’s accounting team who has emerged as the whistleblower in the case. Singh has publicly stated he was removed from his position after raising internal concerns about the handling of cash offerings and precious gifts. When contacted by BBC Hindi, Singh declined to comment further, citing death threats and overwhelming pressure, saying, “I have received death threats. I am under immense pressure and stress. I am not in a position to say anything. Whatever I have said in public so far, please accept it as my word.” A former local legislator has gone on to claim more than 70 million rupees (around $740,000) in donations have gone missing.

    Trust officials have forcefully denied all allegations of wrongdoing. In a public video statement posted to Facebook, the trust’s general secretary Champat Rai explained that all donation counting processes, conducted in a dedicated counting room with participation from trust trustees, workers, and assigned employees from the State Bank of India, are subject to regular internal audits. “This work continues for several days. This is what is happening nowadays. No-one has noticed any discrepancy yet,” Rai said.

    The long-running religious dispute over the Ayodhya site has fundamentally shaped modern Indian politics. The campaign to reclaim the land for a Ram temple was a central rallying cry for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that fueled the party’s rise to national power in the 1990s, and construction of the temple was a core election promise that helped Modi secure a third term in 2024 general elections. That political history has turned the embezzlement claims into a major national political issue. Opposition parties have openly called on Modi and the BJP, which holds power both nationally and in Uttar Pradesh, to answer for the allegations. Samajwadi Party leader and former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav first brought the claims to widespread public attention on June 7, demanding transparency and a formal investigation. His party’s Ayodhya Member of Parliament Awadhesh Prasad has gone further, calling for trust members to be suspended during any investigation and for an inquiry overseen by the courts. Even some local BJP leaders have joined calls for a full probe into donation management practices.

    Longtime Ayodhya residents have expressed widespread shock and disappointment over the claims. Vijay Lakshmi, a local resident, told BBC Hindi: “The offerings are meant for the temple’s upkeep and for the welfare of pilgrims. It’s not meant for people to take home.” Another local, Santosh Puri, called the allegations “a fatal blow to our religion.” While some locals said they found it hard to believe long-time trust associates would engage in misconduct, many described the claims as a stain on the temple and the government, demanding urgent action to prevent future abuses.

    In response to growing public and political pressure, the Uttar Pradesh state government formed a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations. The SIT submitted an interim report to the government this week and requested additional time to complete its full inquiry, with no official findings released to the public to date. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has called on anyone with evidence to share it with investigators, saying the inquiry will uncover the full facts and urging devotees to avoid pre-judging the outcome. “People who had waited centuries for the construction of the Ram temple can wait a few more days for the SIT to complete its work,” Adityanath said.

    Despite the state-led investigation, there is growing public and legal pressure to transfer the probe to India’s federal Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under court supervision. Multiple petitions have already been filed in the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court of India requesting a formal criminal complaint and judicial oversight of the investigation. A prominent senior Indian Supreme Court lawyer has even written directly to the prime minister, chief minister, and chief justice of India urging a CBI probe to restore public faith. “These were not ordinary commercial receipts, but sacred offerings,” the lawyer wrote. “Any diversion or embezzlement of funds constitutes a profound betrayal of the faith reposed by millions of devotees in one of the most sacred institutions of Hindu faith.” As the inquiry proceeds, the controversy continues to test public trust in one of India’s most politically and religiously significant institutions.

  • North Korea’s Kim watches weapons tests and calls for ‘deadly and destructive’ military posture

    North Korea’s Kim watches weapons tests and calls for ‘deadly and destructive’ military posture

    Less than a week after inaugurating its most advanced naval warship to date, North Korea has carried out a series of high-stakes weapons tests that have underscored leader Kim Jong Un’s accelerating push to expand both nuclear and conventional military capabilities, according to state-run media reports from Pyongyang.

    State media KCNA confirmed Friday that Kim personally observed four separate weapons trials held Thursday, which were designed to validate key technical upgrades for multiple frontline weapons systems targeting potential enemy positions along the inter-Korean border. The tests included a new “special mission” warhead for tactical ballistic missiles, an updated multiple rocket launcher system, and extended-range artillery rounds for self-propelled howitzers.

    Kim stated that the successful trials confirm significant technological advances that will allow North Korea to revise its combat fire posture along the southern border, a statement widely interpreted as confirmation that all tested systems are engineered to strike critical targets in South Korea, including major U.S. military installations located across the country. The special-purpose tactical warhead, KCNA added, is explicitly designed to inflict catastrophic damage on high-priority enemy targets including military airfields, commercial ports, and key national power infrastructure.

    Under Kim’s current national defense doctrine, Pyongyang’s self-defense strategy now centers on building a “deadly and destructive offensive posture” that will deter potential adversaries from choosing military confrontation. “To make the enemies feel constant uneasiness and fear is just an important aspect of the exercise of war deterrent,” Kim told military observers at the test site, per KCNA.

    The latest round of tests aligns with a years-long shift in Pyongyang’s security and diplomatic posture that began after high-profile denuclearization talks between Kim and former U.S. President Donald Trump collapsed in 2019. Since that breakdown, Kim has prioritized rapid expansion of the country’s nuclear and missile arsenals, while also ramping up investment in modernized conventional weapons capabilities. While Kim has left the door open to a resumption of diplomatic talks with Washington, he has made clear that negotiations will only move forward if the U.S. abandons its longstanding demand that North Korea commit to denuclearization as a precondition for any diplomatic progress.

    Relations with South Korea have deteriorated even more sharply in recent years: Kim has officially labeled Seoul Pyongyang’s “principal enemy” and has overseen the construction of additional military fortifications along the heavily militarized inter-Korean border. The weapons tests come just three days after Kim presided over the commissioning of the Choe Hyon, a new 5,000-ton guided-missile destroyer that Pyongyang frames as a tangible symbol of its growing naval and nuclear-powered strike capacity. The Choe Hyon is the most advanced warship ever deployed by the North Korean Navy.

    In recent years, Kim has also worked to expand North Korea’s diplomatic and military ties abroad, most notably building a much closer partnership with Moscow that has included open support for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Just two weeks before the latest weapons tests, Chinese President Xi Jinping made his first visit to North Korea in seven years for a high-profile summit with Kim, a meeting that highlighted growing alignment between the two neighboring authoritarian states amid rising regional tensions with the U.S. and its allies.

  • A battle of narratives emerges as Mamdani-backed candidates sweep NYC primaries

    A battle of narratives emerges as Mamdani-backed candidates sweep NYC primaries

    In a shocking political upset that has sent shockwaves through the U.S. Democratic Party, candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani claimed major primary election wins across New York City this week, unseating three incumbent congressional Democrats and flipping five local legislative seats. The surprising results have ignited a fierce national debate over shifting party priorities, the growing influence of pro-Palestine sentiment among Democratic voters, and the future of the party’s long-standing alignment with pro-Israel interest groups.

    Among the most high-profile upsets, former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, running with Mamdani’s support, defeated two-term incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman in Brooklyn’s 10th congressional district. In another major shakeup, first-time candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier ousted long-serving veteran Congressman Adriano Espaillat, while Claire Valdez secured victory in an open congressional primary. Five additional Mamdani-backed candidates, including Palestinian-American activist Aber Kawas, won their New York State Senate primaries. If Kawas holds her seat in the November general election, she will make history as the first Palestinian-American member of the New York State Senate.

    Competing narratives have quickly emerged to interpret the results. Factions of the Republican Party, alongside moderate establishment Democrats, have sounded the alarm over what they frame as a socialist takeover of the nation’s largest city and a growing anti-Jewish mobilization within New York’s political landscape. On the other side of the debate, pro-Palestine advocates and left-wing activists frame the primary sweep as clear evidence that rank-and-file Democratic voters are hungry for candidates willing to break from the party establishment’s unwavering pro-Israel stance.

    Beth Miller, political director of JVP Action, the advocacy and electoral arm of Jewish Voice for Peace, called the results a clear warning to the Democratic Party establishment. She argued that the wave of wins was built on massive grassroots organizing, and hailed what she described as a pro-Palestine sweep across New York City, noting that voters are demanding candidates that back bold progressive priorities: taxing the wealthy, abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and advocating for Palestinian freedom. Miller also emphasized that the results exposed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a toxic brand within the Democratic Party, adding that voters have grown weary of lawmakers who defend what pro-Palestine activists characterize as Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.

    Mainstream media outlets have echoed this framing: The New York Times framed the results as proof of a measurable leftward shift within the Democratic Party on Israel policy, while The Times of Israel argued that the primary sweep has cemented anti-Zionist politics as a permanent force in New York, home to the world’s largest Jewish diaspora community. Even some establishment figures have reacted sharply: U.S. Senator John Fetterman, a centrist Democrat, dismissed the winning candidates as part of what he called the “dirtbag left.”

    Yet many political observers and even some pro-Palestine activists warn that framing the results as an outright, decisive victory for the Palestinian liberation movement overstates their significance. While three incumbents backed by AIPAC fell to candidates critical of Israel’s war in Gaza, and several pro-Palestine democratic socialists won local seats focused on bread-and-butter issues like rent stabilization, healthcare access, and eviction protections, analysts argue the results reflect a broader coalition of discontent rather than a single-issue mandate.

    Critics of the dominant progressive narrative note that voter frustration with the Democratic establishment runs far beyond the Israel-Palestine issue. A 2025 Data for Progress poll confirms that New York City voters rank domestic economic concerns — particularly affordable housing and the rising cost of living — as the top issues shaping their votes, with just 27% of voters identifying U.S. foreign policy and relations with Israel as a key motivating factor for their choice. Mamdani, who rose to office on a platform of working-class economic transformation, has emphasized this coalition building, reiterating in a recent MSNBC interview that the only viable majority in American politics is a cross-ideological coalition of working-class voters united around economic justice.

    “One of those tools is using your political capital to ensure that the people who will fight hardest for that same agenda are going to be there, whether it’s in Albany or whether it’s in DC,” Mamdani told host Chris Hayes, acknowledging that Palestine played a major role in the winning candidates’ support, but tying that support to his broader project of making New York affordable for working people.

    Aber Kawas, the history-making primary winner, framed support for Palestine as a broader marker of a candidate’s willingness to challenge power: “Expressing support for Palestine is a signal that you are willing to speak out and speak truth to power, and I think that’s what people want out of their local politicians. What you are saying is, I’m going to fight for the most marginalised, forgotten communities that so many politicians don’t centre,” she told Middle East Eye earlier this month.

    Still, critics within the pro-Palestine movement push back against framing the primary wins as a major win for Palestinian liberation. They argue that the movement’s focus has been narrowed to simply opposing AIPAC, rather than demanding a full end to U.S. complicity in Israel’s occupation and military campaign, and that many of the winning candidates fall far short of embracing full Palestinian self-determination.

    The most prominent example of this tension is Lander, the winning congressional candidate who defeated Goldman. While Lander has stated he will oppose Israel’s occupation and actions in Gaza, he remains a self-identified Zionist who has previously opposed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, and as city comptroller oversaw an increase in New York City pension fund investments in Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. Niaz Kazi, a professor at Stockton University and observer of U.S. Palestine politics, notes that Lander’s framing as a left-wing hero highlights the danger of diluting the Palestinian struggle into a broader economic critique.

    “There’s something surreal in seeing self-identified Zionist Brad Lander’s face on schnazzy posters rendering him not the lesser evil, but a legitimate hero for the left,” Kazi told Middle East Eye. “At a time when those in the Palestine solidarity movement who disrupted the operations of Elbit Systems face the harshest of state crackdowns, it’s a sucker punch to see elements of the same movement celebrate Lander, given his own involvement with the arms manufacturer Elbit.”

    Kazi added that the results ultimately prove that “Zionism can absolutely flourish without AIPAC,” arguing that the Democratic establishment is adapting to shifting public opinion by allowing a veneer of Palestine solidarity that does little to change on-the-ground policy for Palestinians. Local pro-Palestine group Within our Lifetime echoed this criticism, noting that Lander “proudly defended investing in genocide just last year,” casting doubt on his recent shift in rhetoric.

    For its part, AIPAC pushed back on narratives of defeat, noting Wednesday that 180 of its endorsees across the country won their primaries and will advance to the November general election. The mayor’s office had not responded to requests for comment as of publication. As parties continue to battle over what the New York primary results mean for the future of the Democratic Party, one thing remains clear: the battle for the soul of the Democratic majority is just getting started.

  • Supreme Court’s ruling to end protections for Haitian, Syrian immigrants could have broader impact

    Supreme Court’s ruling to end protections for Haitian, Syrian immigrants could have broader impact

    MIAMI — A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision greenlighting the Donald Trump administration’s plan to revoke temporary legal protection for Haitian and Syrian immigrants is poised to ripple across the entire Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, putting nearly 1.3 million additional immigrants from 17 countries at risk of deportation.

    The ruling directly impacts roughly 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians who have relied on TPS to live and work legally in the United States, many for decades, and most of whom have U.S.-citizen children. Beyond these two groups, the 6-3 decision by the court’s conservative majority sets a sweeping precedent that could clear the way for the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of other TPS holders across the country who currently hold pending asylum claims or other forms of immigration relief. TPS holders now face the immediate threat of detention and forced removal from the country they have called home for years.

    Created by Congress in 1990, the TPS program was designed to block deportations of immigrants whose home countries face ongoing armed conflict, catastrophic natural disasters, or other extreme humanitarian crises that make safe return impossible. The program grants 6- to 18-month renewable protections to eligible immigrants who have continuously resided in the U.S. since their country was designated for TPS status.

    When the Trump administration took office, Venezuelans made up the single largest bloc of TPS beneficiaries, followed by Haitians and Salvadorans. The administration has already ended TPS protections for roughly 1 million immigrants from 13 countries, including approximately 650,000 Venezuelans and 50,000 Hondurans. Critical renewal decisions are now pending for 200,000 Salvadorans and 100,000 Ukrainians whose TPS protections are set to expire in the near term, with smaller groups from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen also facing uncertainty.

    The Trump administration has defended its rollback of the program, arguing that the Biden administration improperly expanded TPS designations without adequate vetting of immigrants, and that conditions in designated countries have improved enough to allow safe return. But immigration advocates and legal representatives reject these claims, saying the administration violated statutory requirements by failing to conduct required interagency consultations and on-the-ground assessments of current country conditions before moving to end protections.

    Dozens of lawsuits have already been filed by TPS holders from across all nationalities challenging the Trump administration’s terminations, and legal experts say lower courts hearing these pending cases will now be bound by the Supreme Court’s new precedent. The high court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security holds sole authority to end TPS protections, a power that the conservative majority agreed courts cannot override.

    Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Miñana Family Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, and one of the lead attorneys representing Syrian TPS holders, called the decision a devastating blow to immigrant communities. “The implication of this is that at least most of the claims that have been litigated to challenge this administration’s sort of illegal war on TPS are now foreclosed,” Arulanantham said.

    Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 following a catastrophic 7.0 magnitude earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people and destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure. Extensions have been granted repeatedly as ongoing gang violence has displaced more than 1 million Haitians in recent years, leaving the country in a state of continuous humanitarian collapse. Syria received its first TPS designation in 2012 amid a decades-long civil war that only concluded with the fall of the national government in late 2024, leaving the country shattered and unsafe for large-scale return.

    Under standard Supreme Court procedure, the ruling will not go into effect for 32 days after its announcement, and the court has sent the case back to lower courts to implement the judgment. Legal representatives expect the ruling to take full effect no earlier than July 27, meaning Haitian and Syrian TPS holders will retain their work authorization through that window. After that date, Arulanantham confirmed, nearly all Haitian and Syrian TPS holders will lose their permission to work legally in the U.S.

    Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups are now urging affected TPS holders to explore all alternative pathways to legal status, including asylum claims and employment-based visas. But even these options have been restricted by the Trump administration, leaving many immigrants with few viable options. Many will be forced to choose between voluntary departure to unsafe home countries or protracted deportation proceedings that could result in forced separation from their U.S.-born children and the loss of careers and communities they have built over decades.

    Unless TPS holders can secure a new form of legal status, they will revert to the immigration status they held before receiving TPS, which is often expired or invalid. Advocates have now turned to Congress, calling on legislative leaders to pass emergency legislation that would restore TPS protections and provide a path to permanent residency for long-term beneficiaries. “We also call on Congress to immediately restore these vital humanitarian protections that the TPS program represents for the sake of our clients and TPS holders, their families, and all of our communities,” said Melissa Keenan, an attorney representing Syrian TPS holders.

  • Trump wants $87.6 billion to pay for his war in Iran, etc.

    Trump wants $87.6 billion to pay for his war in Iran, etc.

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a Wednesday submission to Capitol Hill, the Trump administration has formally requested $87.6 billion in emergency supplemental funding, with the largest share of the package earmarked for ongoing war-related operations in Iran and a wide array of additional federal priorities spanning agriculture, global health, infrastructure, and national security. The request has immediately run into partisan friction, as leading Democratic lawmakers have signaled strong opposition, arguing the package bundles unrelated pet projects for the Pentagon alongside funding for a conflict they frame as an unwise choice by the White House.

    Under the terms of the proposal, the largest allocation – $67.15 billion – is directed to the Defense Department to cover urgent operational needs tied to the Iran conflict. The remaining $20-plus billion is spread across 11 other federal agencies, covering priorities that range from domestic infrastructure to international public health. White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought outlined the scope of the request in a formal letter to Congress, noting that beyond defense needs, the package includes resources to support the U.S. response to the ongoing Ebola outbreak, financial relief for American agricultural producers, and investments in national nuclear security administered by the Department of Energy. Additional allocations include infrastructure projects in the nation’s capital, a $1 billion contribution to the modernization of New York City’s iconic Penn Station, pension benefit boosts for a group of retired Delphi Corporation workers affected by General Motors’ 2009 bankruptcy, upgrades to the World War II Memorial in Washington D.C., and classified operational funds for federal law enforcement and homeland security agencies.

    The request faces a uncertain path to passage, as it requires Democratic support to clear Congress. Senate Appropriations Committee’s top Democrat, Patty Murray of Washington, issued a sharp rebuke of the proposal in a public statement. Murray argued that the request is not merely a funding measure for the administration’s conflict in Iran – which she labeled a “disastrous war of choice” – but also a maneuver to secure tens of billions of dollars for unrelated Pentagon priorities that should be vetted through the regular annual congressional appropriations process. Murray noted that she would conduct a full review of the request and prioritize support for U.S. military service members, but made clear she would not approve the package without scrutiny. “I will not rubberstamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice,” she wrote.

    Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, took a more measured tone, announcing that she would conduct a thorough review of the proposal and planned to convene a full committee hearing to allow lawmakers to question senior administration officials directly about the funding request.

    The debate over the emergency funding comes on the heels of a recent development on Iran war policy: just ahead of the funding request, two Republican lawmakers flipped their votes to block a resolution that would have reined in the administration’s war powers for the Iran conflict, keeping the administration’s operational authority intact.

  • Two Republicans flip votes, blocking Iran war powers resolution

    Two Republicans flip votes, blocking Iran war powers resolution

    In a dramatic late-night reversal that capped a day of intense White House pressure and partisan friction, two Senate Republicans who had previously backed a measure calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the ongoing conflict in Iran flipped their votes Wednesday, bowing to aggressive public and private berating from former President Donald Trump. Trump had lashed out at GOP lawmakers who supported the earlier resolution, branding them “losers” who were offering what he called “aid and comfort to the enemy.”

    Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was reported to have engaged in a shouting match with Trump over the Iran policy during a closed-door GOP lunch earlier the same day, ultimately joined nearly all other Senate Republicans in opposing the war powers resolution pushed by Democrats. Just one day prior, Cassidy had backed a separate, non-binding symbolic measure that called for the removal of U.S. troops from the Iran conflict. The second Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, also switched his position, moving to vote “present” after direct urging from the president.

    The hastily scheduled late vote was organized explicitly by Senate Republican leaders to placate Trump, who had publicly fumed over the initial symbolic resolution that passed the upper chamber earlier in the week. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, the lead Democratic sponsor of the resolution that Republicans successfully blocked Wednesday, called the entire process nothing more than an effort to appease what he described as Trump’s “temper tantrum.”

    Kaine argued that after both chambers of Congress, when previously led by Republican majorities, took the historic step of voting to affirm that any expanded war against Iran would be illegal without explicit congressional authorization, Trump traveled to the Capitol to intimidate Republican senators who had upheld their constitutional oaths of office. Kaine emphasized that Wednesday’s flipped votes do not erase Congress’s formal stated position that further military action against Iran cannot proceed without a formal congressional vote of approval.

    Following the successful block of the resolution, Trump celebrated the outcome in a late-night post on his personal social media platform. He thanked top Senate Republican leaders and specifically highlighted the vote reversals by Cassidy and Paul as a key victory. Notably, Cassidy, who lost his re-election bid last month, had publicly stated just hours before the vote that he would not be bullied by the administration. After flipping his position, he said the White House had provided him with a thorough national security briefing on Iran that addressed many of his core concerns. Multiple reports indicate Trump called Cassidy a “lunatic” during their private confrontation at Wednesday’s lunch.

    Wednesday’s vote unfolded against the backdrop of fragile diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, aimed at reaching a peaceful resolution to the conflict that Trump launched in late February. The military campaign has killed thousands of Iranians, disrupted global economic activity, and driven up consumer prices across the United States.

    Earlier on Wednesday, the White House formally submitted a request to Congress for an $87.6 billion emergency supplemental funding package, nearly $70 billion of which would go toward covering operational military costs incurred during the Iran war.

    Democratic lawmakers across the chamber have uniformly rejected the funding request, framing it as a waste of critical taxpayer resources that could be directed toward domestic priorities. Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that the tens of billions in military spending requested by the Trump administration could instead be used to shore up American healthcare, provide food assistance to hungry children, and ease the financial burden working families face covering basic daily needs. Boyle added that Trump is forcing American taxpayers to continue paying for a reckless, unnecessary war that has pushed gas and consumer goods prices sharply higher, put U.S. military personnel in unnecessary danger, and done nothing to improve security in the Middle East.

    Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democratic appropriator in the Senate, said she would refuse to rubber-stamp tens of billions more in funding for what she called a disastrous, unnecessary war of choice. She argued that the president tells the American public there is insufficient funding for core domestic priorities like healthcare, affordable housing, and childcare, while simultaneously claiming there should be unlimited taxpayer money for an unpopular war most Americans do not support.

  • Turkish journalism groups say independent outlets denied accreditation for a NATO summit in Ankara

    Turkish journalism groups say independent outlets denied accreditation for a NATO summit in Ankara

    As Turkey prepares to host a high-stakes NATO summit next week in its capital Ankara, a pair of controversies surrounding press freedom and civil liberties have emerged, drawing sharp criticism from domestic and international watchdog groups ahead of the gathering of 32 alliance leaders. On Thursday, Turkish journalism advocacy organizations confirmed that multiple independent and opposition-aligned Turkish media outlets have been officially denied press accreditation to cover the July 7-8 summit, a move that press freedom groups decry as a direct attack on core journalistic rights. The outlets locked out of the event include some of Turkey’s most prominent independent and critical voices: Halk TV, Sozcu TV, Cumhuriyet newspaper, online news platform T24, and ANKA, one of the country’s oldest independent news agencies. According to the Turkish Journalists’ Association, which released the findings alongside other cross-organization media solidarity collectives, none of the affected outlets or journalists received a formal explanation for the accreditation rejection, nor were they granted any avenue to appeal the decision. “Preventing certain media outlets from covering events of critical public importance undermines fundamental freedoms of information and independent reporting,” the association said in its official statement. The group also called on global bodies to back their stated democratic commitments by addressing the restriction. U.S. President Donald Trump is among the heads of state set to attend the summit, where alliance leaders are scheduled to debate ongoing collective defense spending commitments and work to project a unified front amid ongoing global security challenges. When reached for comment on the accreditation issue, a NATO spokesperson addressed the alliance’s process for host nation summits in a statement posted to the social platform X. Allison Hart, NATO’s spokesperson, noted that for summit gatherings held outside the alliance’s permanent Brussels headquarters, local accreditation decisions fall under the purview of the host country. Still, Hart emphasized the alliance’s priority: “We are in contact with Turkish authorities on accreditation for the NATO Summit in Ankara. It is very important for NATO that media can attend major events in person.” As of Thursday, Turkish government officials have not issued any public response to questions about the accreditation denials. The accreditation controversy comes amid broad security crackdowns in Ankara in the lead-up to the summit, which have also sparked condemnation from rights groups. Earlier this week, Ankara’s chief prosecutor’s office confirmed that Turkish security forces had detained more than 200 people ahead of the gathering, with officials saying the detainees are suspected of having ties to extremist organizations. But opposition parties and independent Turkish media reports have pushed back on that framing, noting that the detained cohort includes a sitting opposition politician, academic, working journalist, prominent LGBTQ+ activist, and multiple human rights lawyers. Opposition and advocacy groups have called for the immediate release of all detainees. Human Rights Watch became the latest major international body to criticize the pre-summit detentions on Thursday, urging NATO to hold host nation Turkey to basic democratic standards for the duration of the summit. “The misuse of terrorism laws to conduct mass arrests and silence people in the run-up to a NATO summit flies in the face of the founding values of the alliance,” said Benjamin Ward, the group’s deputy director for Europe and Central Asia. “The authorities should immediately release those detained, and NATO should insist that peaceful expression and assembly must be permitted around the summit.” In response to the criticism, Turkey’s government Communications Directorate defended the detentions in a Thursday statement, maintaining that all detainees “were assessed to have been involved in activities connected to various terrorist organizations.”